Class Warfare
JVP phallus in front of Odel’s
In the Pentagon’s New Map, the author defines the main conflict of this age as being connectivity versus disconnectedness. Countries that connect to global communications, economic and cultural networks tend to have better lives and those that do not connect spiral into ignorance and poverty. The Esquire article is worth reading. What general miscreants like Bin Laden and Kim Il Jong preach is not so much religion or idealogy as withdrawal from general humanity. In Sri Lanka we have the same insecure drive towards disconnectedness espoused by the LTTE, JVP, JHU and body politic in general. Most obviously, it takes the form of a systematic and self-destructive attack on the Westernized elements of the country.
This SLFP government – while completely naffing the common living and military dying situation – has tossed out symbolic cake for the corrupt (not all) monks and politicos to eat. Specifically, this means beating up on the social life of the English speaking elite in Colombo while ignoring whether this actually benefits the country. I read the papers intermittently, so this are only the wtf tidbits I’ve managed to catch.
Banning CBNSat: CBNSat is a satellite TV service watched by a lot of people. Basically for no goddam reason and without due process the government shut off service entirely, right before the World Cup. Rumor is that the President’s relation wanted to get into the satellite business, but I dunno. The first reason given was that CBNSat didn’t have a license, but then no other Satellite TV companies have licenses either, I don’t think the relevant licensing scheme even exists. Regardless, shutting down service is a cruel and unusual way to deal with that issue and World Cup is an odd time to do it. Now the Government has given another reason, that CBNSat shows Fashion TV and the bandwidth could be used for LTTE transmission. The first is plain censorship and the latter pure speculation, and a shut-down is still an innappropriate and malicious way to deal with the issue. The shifting rationale hints that this isn’t policy as much as a vindictive attack. Satellite TV is a conduit into the greater world and the government is asserting control over it. But onto a subpoint,
Fashion TV: is basically 24-hours of half naked women interspersed with the incoherent mumblings of Italian designers. Sometimes the women are literally half naked, I’ve seen a few nipples. I don’t watch it cause I feel guilty, but it’s often on at clubs and it’s certainly popular enough. Anyways, the government is now using this as a rationale to cut off satellite TV to thousands of people despite no legal backing. It’s like you mention nudity and suddenly rule of law becomes irrelevant.
International Programming: The goverment now taxes the hell out of any imported programming and international advertising (LBO.lk The point is to encourage purchase of local programming, but I don’t get what the shit the government has to do with what deciding what people should watch. The government already spends our tax rupees on State Television where they can be as ‘Sri Lankan’ as they want. Private media should be just that, private and able to respond to the demands of the Sri Lankan market which just may want to watch Friends. It’s simple meddling, and it lowers quality and revenue for everyone. Not to mention cutting Sri Lanka off even more from the rest of the world.
Press Censorship: The government has decided to reinstate the Press Council to ‘evaluate’ what is printed in the country. With the corrupt and arbitary decisions of the Mahinda government in Satellite TV I doubt that the Press Council’s contributions are going to be very enlightened.
Advertising: The government has banned advertising of alcohol and, weirdly enough, powdered milk (also, LBO). The former is stupid as it cuts down everyone’s revenue (state and media) without addressing the real problem of illicit kasippu drinkers (who outnumber liquor drinkers 20 to 1). The latter just makes no fk sense. The reason given is to promote sales of fresh milk, but what the shit. I don’t have a cow in the backyard, and what’s wrong with rural people being able to mix some milk for their tea without going to the store every time. Again, disconnecting Sri Lanka from the rest of the world, this time via milk of all things.
Alcohol: For one thing, bars now pay to serve alcohol after 11. Again, this is punitive. It gives no thought to the public coffers which are losing money to decreased alcohol sales. Alcohol is also taxed more. Plus, hotels could not serve alcohol for all of the Buddhist holiday Vesak (a new development I think). All these regulations ignore the fact that the vast majority of Sri Lankans drink illicit moonshine outside of traditional bars and clubs. This kasippu is unregulated, untaxed and rampant (for better or worse), yet the government can look moral by punishing the drinking style of 5% of the population. Incidentally, the worldly 5%.
Casinos: I once went to Bally’s hoping for exotic luxury behind the ‘Foriegners Only’ sign, but it’s really a bunch of East Asian women gambling their husband’s money away. It’s also insanely well lit. Despite this steady income and the fact that Sri Lankans can’t even go there to get corrupted, the 2006 Budget has casinos being phased out in 3 years. Foriegners come. They give you money. They leave. Must be banned.
The list goes on. I try not to read the papers cause I’m scared my head will explode, but every now and then something is so stupid that everyone talks about it. Lately those moments are like every week. All of these actions are illogical in an economic and moral sense because they a) lose tax revenue for the goverment and b) affect such a small population that they don’t really address national problems. Their logic lies, I think, in the broad xenophobic movement to disconnect from the rest of the world. Not out of pride, out of insecurity and cowardice. These policies ranging from alcohol to TV are simply punitive measures against anything Western. They can say it is for ‘Sri Lanka’, but the Sri Lanka I know isn’t so weak that it needs the goverment to tell it what to watch and how to drink its milk. It’s extremely cynical to think that Sri Lankan culture can’t hold its own in the midst of globalization. A truly confident culture can connect without the rest of world without losing itself. Furthermore, seeing as we’re fighting a fucking war, I don’t get why the government spends all this time regulating milk powder and boobies. Tell you what, you keep our military commanders alive and I’ll buy a cow and make it wear a nightgown. Deal?
None of that makes any sense, especially the powdered milk part, why can’t somebody drink powdered milk if they want to? Living in the US, I take all these things for granted, I feel bad for you guys. I like the last part about the cow wearing a nightgown, too funny!
Have you read the Lexus and the Olive Tree? I just read the chapter in it about the backlash against globalisation and how this backlash manifests itself. Lot of its very related to what you posted about, also why parties like the VHP, etc came up. I guess politicos in SL are afraid of globalisation because then they can’t keep the poor poor and manipulate them, best way to do that, demonize the middle class.
I fucking hate it when people try and stop me drinking, and these govt measures as u said ignore the HUGE problem of kassipu. In most village areas even a bottle of arrack is a big amount and kassipu is the order of the day. Also if the bar laws are to prevent alcoholism fat lot of good that will do, the alcoholics mostly stay at home and drink anyways.
it is not all political manipulation or opportunism. there is a strong cultural bias( in both sinhalese Buddhist and tamil hindu cultures) in sri lanka against individualism of any kind. and an absurdly unquestioning respect for authority. that coupled with economic,social, and political insecurity, common in a society in transition ( as in other countries) makes for an anti globalisation political base.
fortunately governments’ actual ability to impose its will to satisfy that base is very limited and is mainly symbolic (and directed as you say against so called elite in colombo, who are marginal anyway, so there is not much effect from such activity ).
there is always a way out for anyone willing to try government’s resolve. and there are always enough sri lankans willing to try, that is also part of the culture esp. with certain sections of society. that is why economy at least continue to grow at a very healthy pace in spite of every thing and is strongly( and increasingly) linked to the global economy. if we are going to have a recession here as in 2001, it will be bc global economy is in recession not bc we have a war or bc we have a stupid government.
it would be better if we have a government that is honest and up front about what it can actually do, but it is always forced to symbolically pander to above base even while it does the opposite in all policy that really affect the country. so we have huge subsidy promises that never materialize etc. much easier to deliver on fashion tv ban.
anyway to anyone who is willing to think outside the box and work hard opportunity is endless. too bad that most ppl do not realize this.
Aye, good post, Indi.
I am going to side with sittingnut here. I do believe this whole anti-globalization movement stems from our inability to accept individualism. I am not saying that globalization will solve the world’s problems – like capitalism, its older brother, it is too Darwanian in its application.
Also with regard to some of the points that you brought up, Indi:
1. Banning CBNSat – Politics and nothing else. I have a friend who works there and he said that there was a long running feud between some government official and the directors of CBNsat. It got so bad that the government official in question, I know not who, ran to uncle Mahinda. Also Rupavahini had a hand to play as well apparently. They wanted the majority of Sri Lankan viewers watching the matches on their channel. More viewers>more advertisers>higher advertising rates>bigger bank accounts..
2. Press Censorship – All the more reason why my primary sources of information, with regard to Sri Lanka, are blogs. Simply put, I don’t trust any mainstream news source anymore.
3. Advertising – Yes, now we can be entralled by those glorius cement ads.
4. Alcahol – Heh…no point talking really. It has become the proverbial dead corpse. To continue to beat on it is useless.
5. Casinos – Couldn’t have put it better. “Foriegners come. They give you money. They leave. Must be banned.”
okay this is so true, i was waiting for anyone to say anything about this.
i live abroad and so i read daily news everyday. it makes me want to shoot people. what the FUCK are they thinking!?!?!??!?!?!
firstly, all my friends have come to sri lanka in the last two years (before Mahinda) and they have loved how easy going it is. now, i see that “easy-going” nature of sri lanka disappear. banning this stuff won’t do any good, tourists come because alcohol is available, there are clusbs, etc. MORONIC idiots up there in the government.
im too pissed off to string sentences together. but i know what you mean. its stupid stupid stupid.
please, if any member of GOSL reads this, spend some money on something that is USEFUL not fucking useless. of course, that would mean you would have to (god forbid) read a website that is a) in english b) registered in canada!!!
fun-sucking assholes.
Why is it so wrong to ban alcohol and gambling? Personally, I’d like to live in a society where people don’t drink and don’t gamble. I’d also like to see less smoking, drugs, and prostitution in the society that I and my family choose to live in.
Denouncing these laws simply because they reduces tourism is not a viable excuse. We are not peasants, to sell out to the lowest common denominator. If tourists want to go elsewhere to do decadent things, I say let them go. Yes, we’ll lose tourists, but we’ll still have our dignity. Your argument implies that we should develop a world-renowned sex industry simply because it will draw more tourists to our country.
The public doesn’t always necessarily know what is best for them. There are social downsides to alcohol and gambling (and drugs, prostitution and smoking). The cost of healthcare is one. If drugs were legal, our hospitals would be full of junkies needing rehab for which the taxpayer would have to pay for. Alcohol kills many people (either directly or by shortening their lifespan).
It all boils down to a broader question. Should people have the right to choose to smoke/drink/take drugs? Does that freedom benefit society as a whole?
Yes, it is an erosion of public freedom, but if we look at the bigger picture it is not in the public interest to have absolute freedom. At some point the Government must decide what freedoms should be curbed in order to serve a greater good.
Banning stuff doesn’t make it go away, it just drives it underground. Banning alcohol or gambling entirely would mean a boom in kasippu and underworld activity, and the consequent corruption of the police. Fighting alcoholism and social ills is actually a much more complex problem than a simple ‘ban’ and it is better done in the light of law than outside.
Saying it’s a complex problem still doesn’t answer K’s question of why it is wrong to ban such things. Way to dodge the point, Indi. If you take gambling, there is a connection with increases in crime (studies in Atlantic City in 1989, sample measurement from 1977 to 1986, Montana 1984 to 1994 are examples, google them if you want).
For reductio ad absurdum, if murder is done for complex reasons, should it be made legal? The alternative is that it is just driven underground and there is a boom in underworld contract killings, right? Hint: it’s called the underworld because it is “the part of society that is engaged in and organized for the purpose of crime and vice“.
The only reason alcohol should not be banned is because we don’t have the power to enforce such a ban in the first place. The Americans tried in the 1920s. It didn’t work for them. Of course, the government will take any amount of tax money to fill up the coffers, so they won’t ban it at all unless there is serious pressure from religious groups.
By the way, how many murders have the police been solving in Colombo recently?
Quite frankly this class warfare is well deserved. What have the English-speaking middle classes done for the poor in Sri Lanka over the last 5o years? Stood by and watched the country fall into ruin, and watched the poor get poorer.
It’s not the government who have subjugated the poor and kept them there. It’s the English-speaking pukka sahibs, the so-called educated classes.
They say they want prosperity for all, but secretly they are scared, scared of what will happen if the poor rise up and have the same status as them. Because then their fancy English education will not be worth diddly-squat, and they will have to fight hard to earn a measly five thousand rupees a month to support themselves and their families. The thought of it is far too much to bear. So they talk about the pipe dream of equality, with passion and eloquence, but deep down they know they cannot allow it to happen.
They prop up a political party that looks after only their interests, at the expense of the poor. The party is run by an incompetent oaf who now remains silent while the innocent minorities who voted for him are murdered in cold blood, driven from their homes, suspected of being terrorist sympathisers and generally treated as second-class citizens. That his party is not power is a good thing, given his current paltry display of passion for the country.
You shouldn’t be surprised that the poor and those that represent them are now turning on the wealthy elite who have had so much more than them for so long. It was only a matter of time before they got fed up of it. More policies similar to this will be seen during Mahinda’s term, of that we can be sure.
I for one welcome the removal of Western influences. It has divided our country into two very distinct societies. Those that speak English, whose clothes, education and mindset is completely Westernised; and those that do not speak English, who are (in all honesty) the true Sri Lankan people.
These two societies co-exist, but life is very different for people who are in the latter class. Everything they face in life is infinitely harder than it is for the English-speaking crowd. To drive a nice car, to own a big house, to go to a private hospitalm, to send their children to a private school, these are dreams for these people. Dreams they have virtually no hope of achieving.
Your sanctimonious ramblings ring hollow, as they are simply comments, and nothing more. People like you have the power in the palms of their hands, the power to make a difference. Yet you piss your life away by getting drunk every weekend and blogging about it. You think these blog posts are witty and exciting, but I (and I think many of your readers) find it incredibly distasteful and insensitive. To have is one thing. To boast about and laud it over everyone else is plain evil.
Your blog used to be a lot more interesting when you were a fresh-faced expat, newly arrived in Sri Lanka. Your social observations and commentary were profound and thought-provoking, and what’s more, you had tact. I can’t pinpoint when that went out of the window. I admit, it was funny at first, reading about your drunken misadventures, but now it’s the same old thing every week or so, and I think you should change the record.
You have become one of the gang, the Colombo social elite, who burn money in the face of poverty, and justify your right to have fun because it is the only thing you have left to do with yourself, or so you think.
You tell us what is wrong, you tell us how things should be, you tell us you have the answers. You have the brains and the wherewithal to make a change. But yet you insist on being a spectator, a commentator, who watches as the country deteriorates and passes judgement on those who are responsible, without seeing the irony that you are also at the very least partially responsible too.
Sadly, many people just like you have gone before, and will go hence. Your legacy will be that of most English-educated Sri Lankans – you could have made a difference, but you didn’t.
You will be forgotten, for you never actually did anything other than talked.
I hope you change tack and start doing something with yourself. Something effective. Something tangible. Something that really will change the history of our screwed-up little island in the sea. Because this blog won’t.
A lot of people seem to think that we have enough pie and just need to slice it thinner. That means you can take away from the rich and give to the poor. But it doesn’t work like that. We need to make the whole pie bigger.
The solution isn’t to divide Sri Lanka into Sinhala and Tamil, rich and poor. We are a diverse and flowing island and that goes against our history. Everybody has a right to call themselves Sri Lankan, regardless of their income, race or language. And, god forbid, I’m also allowed to go out on the weekend and put the money I earn back into the economy.
As for talking, I’ve said before that speech and writing are important for their own sake. Words make up our laws and parliament and very life and I think they are very important. Just the fact that you’ve been reading me for so long is evidence in itself. Talking is enough. I don’t feel the need to move bricks around or kill anyone to feel like I’m doing ‘something’. Words are vitally important, as intangible as they are.
One thing Indi missed was the unholy mess around the reversion to Indian Standard Time. It was done supposedly for the sake of the children stumbling to school in the dark; then school starting times were changed negating that whole story. Then they found that they had to burn more diesel for peaktime electricity. Solution: charge TV stations 1 million rupees if they are on after 1000 PM. We goofed, so go to sleep early.
Well that seems to have gone underground for now; but you never know when it will bubble up.
Contrary to blowhard Sinick I think Indi is doing a great service. The worst crimes in times such as this are silence and amnesia.
We need people to connect the dots; to show what patterns are emerging. Memories are so short in this country that few people make the connection between the time change that happened in April and the school and office time changes that happened in May or June.
Blogs can do this; hopefully MSM will pick up.
So Mr Sinick will you please indulge us by telling us Something you have done that is effective. Something tangible. Something that really will change the history of our screwed-up little island in the sea.
Talking is good when it leads to change. You seem to be under the somewhat misguided impression that you are the first person to talk about these issues. People have been talking about these issues for the last two decades, but nothing has come of that talking.
Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela talked about the issues at hand. But their talking actually led to action. If they had been content to talk and leave it at that, their countries would be in a similar state to where we are today.
My point was not to stop talking. It was not to ‘move bricks’ or ‘kill anyone’ either. My point was that people who feel with some conviction and passion that things could be better, should do something about it. Get on the streets, make your voice heard, make a stand for what is right. Start up a social activism movement and harness all this raw potential. Otherwise there’s no point to all this rhetoric. It will come and go in the blinking of a star.
My point was also not that wealth should be redistributed to the poor. I completely agree that we need to make the pie bigger. But the ‘haves’ have a duty to ‘have-nots’ to see that the country is taken in a direction where the pie can be made bigger. I don’t see that happening. The wealthy have little or no interest in raising the standard of living of the poor. Policies that make the poor even poorer are talked about briefly, and then forgotten within a few days. It’s as if nobody cares about anything except themselves. This is both saddening and maddening. Sri Lanka cannot improve with this kind of mentality.
Another problem is that the majority of your readership already knows and agrees with what you write. You’re preaching to the converted. You should be trying to discuss these points of view with those that don’t agree with these viewpoints, either because of ignorance or xenophobia. These people need to be educated, calmly and patiently.
But when a person with a differing viewpoint enters your clique, they are immediately denounced and labelled extremists and racists. They are told to shut up, to get lost, and some even call for them to be banned. That talking is a two-way process seems to have been lost on many of the so-called ‘moderates’.
All I am saying is that people like you show a disturbing amount of potential to make things better. I’m not saying you’re a Gandhi or a Mandela, but you’re a visionary of sorts. At least you used to be, back in the day. Stop all this mindless banter about drunken debauchery and get something moving.
If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything…
Mr. Sinick,
I am sorry if you see this all as bad “Western influence”, but for better or for worse it is all part of globalisation. If we insulate ourselves from this process, we lose. We have to accept it, embrace it, and manage it. We have to use it to our advantage.
Besides, globalisation is not purely Western. The fact that increasing numbers of Europeans are turning to Buddhism, the popularity of Indian food in the UK (Chicken Tikka Masala is the national dish), the success of South Asian literature, the prevalence of Hindi and martial arts movies, and even Wasabi peas for example, are all part of it. Shutting ourselves away from outside influence is a fairly recent and yet still outdated exercise.
We have always embraced good aspects of foreign culture: rice cultivation, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, stone architecture, kokis, shorts, lamprais, soya sauce, tea, coffee, bread, condoms, television, radio, plastic, computers, a globally understood language… why stop it now? Let it takes its natural course. Don’t be afraid. It will be ok. Different. But, ok.
Easy to tell other people what to do (is this a particularly Sri Lankan trait? I’m always being told what my responsibilities to my country are, by people who do nothing but sit on their ass all day).
But what is Mr Sinick doing other than telling other people to do this or that on effete blogs?
Lead by example; always more persuavasive.
Or is that you chose your pen name because all you are capable of doing is this?
Fined Rs 250 for jaywalking!
Well, it turns out that 2 people have been fined Rs 250 for jaywalking in Maharagama. Lankadeepa writes it as if these two are the only people in SL who’ve been jaywalking.
Shame on them! Disgusting!
Don’t they have any respect for the law!
They seem to think that they can just cross the street wherever they want.
I always cross the street at pedestrian crossings. Sri Lankan vehicle drivers are so particular about giving way to pedestrians at pedestrian crossings that I don’t experience any difficulties at all. The moment I stand in front of a “kaha ira”, all the vehicles immediately stop and let me cross the road.
There are some countries where this doesn’t happen. In the UK for example, vehicle drivers are so lawless that they don’t give too hoots about pedestians waiting in front of
the “kaha ira” to cross the road. the UK police doesn’t care and pretends they don’t see such things so when I was living there I had no choice than to cross the street
wherever I could. but here in sri lanka, the police immediately arrest any driver who drives on without allowing people to cross the road at pedestrian crossings.
Because the police is so particular to enforce the law on errant drivers who don’t respect pedestrian crossings, all the vehicle drivers dare not drive past without waiting
till anyone standing at the “kaha ira” crosses the road.
Therefore what these 2 lawless idiots have done in Maharagama is inexcusable!
They should have been fined Rs 250,000 instead!
Good to know that people are being made to follow road rules, I prayed that we in Sri Lanka learn the right way even if it means to be fined in the process, hope this continues and everybody remembers this when they want to get a cross the road or are driving on it.
But also there should be a very hefty fine for vehicles that do not stop at the “kaha Ira” when people are crossing it. Just the fine of Rs 250 or 500/- would not do the job.
My brother-in-law was knocked down while crossing on the “kaha Ira”, the first vehicle had stopped but the second vehicle over took it and knocked him down. Thank GOD he servived with out any major injury.
I hope there would be fines also layed on politicos and their vehicles that drive ALWAYS on the wrong side of the road and at such SPEEDS that it looks like they were trying to break the land speed record.”kaha Ira” !sure they have never seen one.
Mino,
I was hoping everyone would be able to see through my sarcasm.
I think it is rubbish to fine somebody for crossing the road somewhere other than at pedestrian crossings.
Just try doing that at a busy sri lankan road! Nobody stops their damn vehicles to give way to pedestrians and you have to wait till all the vehicles pass by and cross the road when the street is empty! On a busy road that can take a long time! Unless you decide to jump into the pedestrian crossing anyway even though you realise that the oncoming vehicles arn’t slowing down. Then it’s upto the oncoming vehicles to decide whether they’ll run over you or stop and let you pass. As crazy as it sounds I see pedestrians do that every day because otherwise they’ll just have to wait on one side of the road for god knows how long. (The exception to this are pedestrian crossings that a lot of people walk on. It’s easy to cross these because all you have to do it wait till a crowd of people decide to cross the road all at once.)
Since I don’t want to risk my life in that manner, I just cross the road whenever I notice that it is free of traffic instead of walking upto a pedestrian crossing.
Also, I don’t blame the motorists for behavinbg this way either! From their point of view, they’ll justify saying that pedestrians cross the road everywhere and anywhere so why should they stop at pedestrian crossings!
This madness should be put to an end but it should be done by enforcing road rules consistantly and continously on both pedestrians and motorists.
This being the situation, I think fining these 2 pedestrians who crossed the road somewhere other than the “kaha ira” is a mockery of justice.
If such rules are being enforced, they should begin with a proper publicity campaign and a warning that all road rules will be enforced without exception starting on a given day.(This is necessary because part of the reason pedestrans have learn’t to cross wherever they can is because those whose responsibility it was to enforce road rules neglected to do so for so long and because of that it wasn’t even safe to cross the road on pedestrian crossings.) Then they should fine all pedestrians who cross somewhere other than at pedestrian crossings and all motorists who do not give way to pedestrians at pedestrian crossings. Atleast they should make an effort to fine as many errant pedestrians and as many errant motorists as possible. If they do that they’d be able to fine atleast a couple of hundred per day till people realise that it is not acceptable to flout road rules. When that happens it will actually be possible for pedestrians to cross at the “kaha ira” ! And motorists will also be happier to give way to pedestrians at the kaha Ira because there will not be pedestrians crossing the road all over the place.
My point is, if rules are enforced, they should be enforced consistantly. Otherwise it’s better not to enforce them at all.
In any case, it would have been truly great if those 2 people in Maharagama were dragged into court and fined Rs 250 out of a deep desire to uphold road rules. But as I said, if that were the case a lot more people would have got that treatment and this particular incident would not have been odd enough to find it’s way to the Lankadeepa.
Aththa, please don’t let’s get embroiled in the what have you done then argument. When all is said and done all that achieves is ambiguity with regards to whose cock is bigger. Yours or Sinick’s.
Sinick in defence of Indi, this blog (and some others) at least gives some hope to the like minded that if there is something that can be done there is a forum of people that might band together to do it. If you say it achieves nothing else, that is your opinion. But as Indi says words are important – it’s just that nobody reads.
With your not so carefully veiled reference to those who ‘share opposing viewpoints’ and them being told to go fuck themselves, I think we all agree that Janapathi is a one off. We don’t like him not because he disagrees with us but because he is a cunt. There is a difference. You disagree – and I think you make some very valid points – and nobody has asked you to go fuck yourself, and I will personally flog anyone who does.
Like it or not Sinick flung out a hat, and it fit me, as I believe it fits many others. But Sinick we should able to piss our money away on drunken binges if we want to. The fact that we DON’T want to spend it on something more constructive and altruistic is a common character flaw – not something that can be legislated for.
If we are going back to a police/theocratic/communist state, let’s just call it that without appealing to some abstract sense of morality – which I hasten to admit we have all lost somewhere in this political cockup.
banning things (especially things like alcohol) is wrong because it is futile and redundant. it just gives the government and the system less control over the matter, which is worse than not banning it and having some authority over how its sold etc. just because you ban alcohol and gambling, people aren’t going to stop drinking and gambling. they are just going to be forced to do it illegally, which is both unwise and unsafe. by keeping these things within the legal system the government can regulate its use and make money out of it through taxes.
if prostitution were legal, things would change positively for sex workers. they could have free access to information, and to the protection of their rights as workers and as humans, because then a community could actively and openly campaigning for their safety and well being as well, and you wouldnt have to wait till you’re behind closed doors to discuss. same goes for abortion. hundreds of women die every day because they attend clinics that aren’t equipped with either the technology or the doctors to perform proper and safe abortions. they die trying to get rid of the baby theirselves. they die during the abortion and they die after because of how unhygenically it was performed. if it was legal, the government could try each case themselves and decide under which circumstances they will allow an abortion to be performed, and well trained doctors could perform abortions in the best, healthiest way possible with the blessing of the government.
nothing is black and white anymore. society is too corrupt and too advanced to ban things and expect people to abide by those prohibitions.
electra,
I tend to disagree with you. Sometimes, laws are and must be value oriented, in the sense that they should be prescriptive of a certain moral code, even if current societal practice does not seem to coincide with the given value. The most obvious of these laws are the criminal ones on rape, murder etc. The question of implementation is quite another issue, I don’t think you’d argue for the doing away with of traffic rules just because the majority of people flout them. Sometimes the answer is and should be better and more efficient implementation.
On the restricition on alcohol sales and tobacco consumption, it is necessary that certain value judgements are made in the evaluation of whether or not a certain activity is to be proscribed by law. Then you consider the implementability(?) of the law, and in cases where the law is normatively justifiable and implementable, then you go ahead and legislate. Where there is normative justifiation and no implementability, you have to consider whether the value of the content outweighs the supervening difficulties in implementation, or even whether there is value in having a law purely for the sake of having a law, because it points to some aspirational value that might be difficult to implement.
In my opinion the underlying value of the restrictions on alcohol and tobacco are not strong enough to outweigh the very likely chance of abuse etc. However, this is a moral value judgement of sorts, and I justify my position not because the law is selective in application and will lead to abuse but because the value does not outweigh the danger of abuse. I think its important that society learns to balance normative values and practical considerations.
Coming to my main point, I have a problem with your extension by analogy the alcohol issue to abortion and prostitution. I believe that before arriving at a decision as to whether abortion should be legalized, the value inherent in the prohibition of abortion should be taken into considerationand then set against the cost of abuse. If you believe that abortion is not violative of some fundamental normative value and that alternatively, the right of the pregnant mother over her body is a normative value to be preserved, base your argument on that basis. Not on the only basis that the rule is flouted commonly.
Aadhavan, your first two paragraphs are the lengthy ones, and yet in the final para you claim to come to your main point. I hope this is not the same approach you have been taking in your law exams.
A cost benefit analysis is certainly desirable before the implementation of legislation. But once again don’t pick holes in people’s arguments for the sake of doing so you drunken bastard.
Electra – the abortion issue cannot, and should not be likened to the ban on alcohol.
I should have said “coming to my conclusion” sophist. The lengthy para’s were indispensable to the argument I attempted to weave. It’s not for the sake of argument, I find abortion to be deeply morally repugnant…not so the pleasant activity of having a small tot…
I do often hear the argument that abortion should be justified beacuse it cannot be regulated…somehow the aog in me forces me to believe that laws can and should preach sometimes…even if the heathen don’t listen.
Again, the abortion issue doesn’t belong here. This is a thread about very basic civil liberties, the right to watch TV and have a drink now and then. On this post I’m not arguing for anything more and bringing abortion and etcetera into it just divides the audience to the point of fracture.
Indi, as much as I agree with you in general, on the specific issues aren’t you, like Aadhavan, broadening the issues beyond the actual scope of the real situation and, therefore, a relevant discussion? Are you saying that big government is bad, or that the specific regulations and tax structures they are bringing in are bad?
As far as I am aware, the government is only planning to crack down on alcohol ADVERTISING and drinking AFTER 11pm. They are not banning alcohol outright. Similarly, they aren’t banning TV either.
I can think of a good reason why a milk powder advertising ban will make society better off, althought the government is probably doing it for completely different reasons. Advertising can be informative or persuasive or both. Full Cream Milk Powder (not the value-added variants) is a fairly generic product, that everybody knows the benefit of, and that nearly everybody in Sri Lanka has used at some point, even if they do not use it everyday.
Thus, it can be argued that what advertising does in this market is pure persuation. It distorts consumer preferences away from the real benefit of the product (something that is the same accross all brands) to a perceived benefit of a brand. And this is largely bullshit. True, quality controls etc can vary accross manufacturers, but advertising rarely communicates this fact. Advertising of milk powder relies on building a purely emotional connection between the brand and the consumer. Thus, the highest market share is enjoyed by Anchor which is priced at about a Rs.30 premium above the cheaper brands. Every time a consumer buys a pack of milk powder, he is contributing Rs.30 extra for a perceived value of a brand (Okay I admit, the larger manufacturers probably have more support staff in quality assurance and stuff, but not to justify such a large price gap). If you do the math on that, I think you may find that the cost of this distorted preferences due to advertising is MUCH larger than the Rs.240 million that the industry is going to lose out on.
By the way, the above argument was me playing devil’s advocate to show that the advertising ban on milk powder CAN be looked at another way. I may not be correct, but it is an argument which can be made fairly reasonably. I doubt this side of it has even crossed the government’s mind. They are probably doing it to help the fresh milk industry, which is misplaced thinking.
What next, would it be okay to ban Coke, Pepsi, Fanta advertisements also ?
Also, it is simply not true to suggest that milk powder is merely a commodity. I switched to “Milgro” after watching a commercial in which they advertised how easilly it dissolves into water. (I was very frustrated about how hard it was to dissolve the milk powder I was using before that)
It turned out that “Milgro” was indeed easy to dissolve and I’ve stuck to it ever since.
It honestly doesn’t matter ‘why’, it’s not the governments place to make such nuanced economic judgements. By that logic all advertising should be banned after the brand name is widely known. Government has a few important and limited roles, and deciding who should advertise milk of all things is not one of them.
As to generalization, the Vesak hotel ban, 11 o’clock fines, increased taxes, etc are all part of a systemized crack down on legal alcohol
“By that logic all advertising should be banned after the brand name is widely known.”
Not so. Only in special circumstances.
1. Generic product
2. Purely persuasive advertising.
3. Essential product
Every single country in the world has a ban on infant milk advertising. Milk powder is a substitute for this. As kids grow older they move on to this type of product. The mother’s love for the her child is exploited in most milk powder advertisements. That is why even in the poorest areas in Sri Lanka, the premium brand sells the most. It’s a complete waste when a tea plucker spends their entire daily wage on buying a BRAND of milk powder, thinking she is giving something wonderfully extra to her child, when in fact she is not really. You could say it is misleading.
Some degree of regulation is definitely necessary, as used to be the case in the past, where theree was a special board that overlooked milk powder advertising. The EU has already started cracking down hard on kids advertising. You can’t say regulating advertising is not a role for the government, because wherever scoiety is worse off due to lack of regulation, government should step in. Individuals acting in their own self interest don not always lead to the best outcome. Banning is an extreme form of regulation.
My point is, at least in this case, you have to look at the specifics. The “big government is bad” hat doesn’t necessarily fit in this instance.
Good post. I agree with it.
About the CBN thing, the way I heard it from a fairly reliable source:
Apparently, CBN SAT was, in fact, uploading LTTE transmissions. Government could not take straightforward legal action to stop that activity per se, ‘cos the LTTE in Sri Lanka is not a banned organisation. So they had to find some other way of shutting it down. So, they reinterpreted the licensing laws. There isn’t such a thing as a cable TV license in this country. What CBN and LBN have are telecom gateway licenses or something like that. Comet has a license directly given by CBK apparently, which is somehow different.
The case is being taken up again on the 18th. Chief Justice Sarath Silva is apparently of the opinion that the inconvenience to the public should be stopped ASAP. The Media Minister, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, on the other hand has somewhat different ideas.
I don’t know how true this is. This is what I heard fom a guy who should be in the know.
I agree with Electra.
Actually Abortion, and even banning-homosexuality is relevant (to a degree) to the kind of arguments put forward here. both of these are instances where state authority thwarting personal choice. whether that is justified or not are specific to that particular practice and that might not be relevant to this post.
Electra is spot on when she say that legalization would mean more control. that’s true with alcohol, that’s true with abortion, and that’s even true with drugs.
you cannot expect people to consider the general impact on society each time they fag or booze or piss. who lives like that ? this perhaps to do with like some said the collectivist /socialist/communist/whateverumaycallitist mentality of Sri Lankans. An individual is disregarded into a mere insignificant cell in a great worshiped entity called ‘society’. Society as it is, and as it always will be are just an identifier for a collection of individuals -Nothing more.
failure to understand this are the result of mentalities like ‘What have the English-speaking middle classes done for the poor? ‘
To answer the question though- mostly, fucking nothing. But some do give once in a while. That’s how the world works. Bill gates gives, not b’coz Bush wants him to (he doesn’t) but because he wants to. People always do what they want to do. Any system which does not recognize this fails.
referring to again what snick says :
“They say they want prosperity for all, but secretly they are scared, scared of what will happen if the poor rise up and have the same status as them. Because then their fancy English education will not be worth diddly-squat, and they will have to fight hard to earn a measly five thousand rupees a month to support themselves and their families. The thought of it is far too much to bear. So they talk about the pipe dream of equality, with passion and eloquence, but deep down they know they cannot allow it to happen”
Contrary to what snick says if the poor rise up and have the same status as ‘them’ then that will be beneficial for everyone. But seriously who is doing better if both ‘parties’ are fighting for 5000 bux?. That’s not poor getting richer, that’s richer getting poorer. How does that solve any of the problems? and besides I haven’t heard any of ‘them’ speak about equality.
people also seem fear ‘western’ influence, are you concerned with western influence in particular, or do you refer to it as the global influence in general, for example would you be any happier if ‘they’ spoke Chinese and walk funny in those rap-around dress thingies?
This comment is getting off topic so i’ll stop.
cheers
Deane.
ultimately the question is who should decide how individuals in a society behave.
i believe in the principle that ideally each individual should be free to do as he/she want as long as he/she does not interfere with others’ ability to do as they want.
pragmatically we cannot achieve that in the real world. so while we should aim for that and try to keep restrictions ( laws, bans, regulations, taxes , etc ) to a minimum, we have to decide who will have the power to impose restrictions on ppl’s behavior and how.
since it is unlikely that in most cases all the ppl will agree on a particular restriction. we should have a generally accepted procedure with legitimacy and credibility that will that make ppl obey the restriction even if they disagree.
here imo democratic institutions that are capable of effective implementation are the best solution.
so to judge any restriction (like the ones highlighted in the post),
starting with the assumption that all restrictions on behavior are unnecessary according to above ideal principle,
we have to ask,
is there any pragmatic need for it?
if there is, is it arrived at democratically and thus legitimate?
if so arrived at, is it effectively implementable and thus credible?
whether a certain restriction is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is irrelevant except as part of debate in democratic process.
doing away with the last question bc the restriction is merely aim to be ‘aspirational’ will only contribute to a loss of credibility to other restrictions as well. it may also lead to a loss of institution’s legitimacy.
Deane most of your post is well founded, except for the fact that you agree with Electra. Abortion is illegal. Legalising would mean more control and that’s a moral debate for another topic.
But Alocohol IS legal. And I think that’s what Indi’s point is. How can you crack down so severely on something legal – ESPECIALLY when it is counterproductive and the consequences are completely contrary to the abortion argument. This sort of crackdown will only promote black market alcohol sales, and buggers who now drink arrack, for many reasons, will switch to kasippu. It defies logic – and that calculated stupidity is what Indi was highlighting in the first place.
If CBNSat was uploading LTTE transmissions then they should be beaten with a big stick and arse raped by a horny elephant. The inconvenience to the public IS an issue. LTTE transmission is an issue. But FTV should not be an issue.
Actually some of these decisions probably should be made. But it’s the thought process behind them that boggles the mind.
ravanva says
Some degree of regulation is definitely necessary,…Individuals acting in their own self interest don not always lead to the best outcome. Banning is an extreme form of regulation.
who has the right to decides what is the best outcome when individuals concerned think otherwise?
and if you give that right to a certain institution or procedure and legitimize it , would you accept the decisions of the same even when it decides against you in the future?
if one accept it is ok to ban heroin by government bc its is ‘best’ for the ppl , what right does one have to oppose an alcohol ban , or even a soft drink ban if the decision is arrived at in the same way?
wouldn’t that be hypocritical ?
only valid opposition left would be concerns about effective implementation and anyone making them must be prepared to be a bore armed with statistics, scientific studies and all the rest of it, since details will always be disputed.
one can avoid all that by opposing all bans and restrictions on principle… and look ridiculous .
in other words one has the choice of being ridiculous, boring, or hypocritical, if one want to open ones mouth.
i personally would choose the first, when i can afford it and second when i can’t . third never . but everyone is free.
Who has the right to decide? In a democracy, the people have the right to decide who decides for them. They elect a representative – the government. If there is enough opposition to a ban, it should influence MPs in parliament to speak on behalf of their constituents. At the moment, I have not heard of any such opposition being communicated to MPs. This is theory. If you want to argue about whether democracy is the best option, and whether this electoral system is the best option, that’s an entirely different can of worms and please: let’s save that for another day.
Ideally, the government should consult experts before making a decision to ban something. Primarily the cost / benefit of banning something or any type of regulation for that matter must be assessed by economists who are experts in the field. Their proposals having been received, civil society and other institutions like the judiciary and interest groups, firms, should be consulted. The ban must be publicly proposed with enough time for public debate via the media to take place on the issues.
“If you give that right to a certain institution or procedure and legitimize it , would you accept the decisions of the same even when it decides against you in the future?”
I will accept the final decision. I will attempt to lobby against it first. By the way, most of these restrictions that Indi has talked about, makes me as an individual worse off (except maybe the Casino thing – I’ve only been once).
I don’t see the contradiction, making abortion illegal HAS driven it underground and IS counterproductive. much like you say with alcohol. but you are right, abortion is best discussed somewhere else.
Anyway with regard to alcohol there is no direct prohibition here, just that you might see people having to pay more to get alcohol after 11. They are just making it inconvenient for everyone to live their life the way they want.
I got really pissed off when I saw the Bill being passed in parliament without a single squeak, and being under-21 it essentially made illegal for anyone to sell booze or fags to me, then I calmed down and realized where I was living.
In Sri Lanka (and probably many places) there’s the law, and then there’s what really happens.
I’ve been putting the law into test, and so far no bugger asked for my ID. So no need for Booze-pimps or fake IDs.
Cheers
Deane.
Sittingnut – banning is an extreme form or regulation. But you can’t use that rationale to say that no government is entitled to ban anything…on principle. Yes principles are all well and good, but there has to be some degree of compulsion which is the age old jurisprudential debate which men much more erudite than you and I put together and cubed have not been able to resolve.
A heroin ban and a soft drink ban, according to you, is essentially the same thing. I agree. A ban is a ban, and the reason for the ban is ‘harmfulness’. Who are we to question if someone decides something is harmful? Well, I think harmfulness has fairly objective, and unequivocal criteria. If you want to be pedantic then yes, soft drinks (20 cokes a day as opposed to 20 fags) can kill people too. So if the government decides to ban it what do we do?
The answer is about as clear as mud. But I think the hypothesis is slightly stretching the bounds of reality.
ravana
no personal offense was intended.in my previous comment. sorry if it seemed so.
I will accept the final decision. I will attempt to lobby against it first.
fair enough.
your comment implies that you will accept decisions of a properly functioning ideal democracy. even decisions of an imperfect one like in sri lanka. ( if i went too far about the latter conclusion correct me) .
as long as one stays consistent and accepts decisions of an institution or procedure one has legitimized there is no problem. problem arises when someone who disagrees questions the legitimacy he has previously accepted ( this goes beyond mere lobbying which may be part of the the procedure). there is bit of that in the original post here.
–
sophist:
principles are all well and good, but there has to be some degree of compulsion which is the age old jurisprudential debate which men much more erudite than you and I put together and cubed have not been able to resolve.
quite agree with you. as i said if one stands on principles one looks ridiculous. and i meant it.
Well, I think harmfulness has fairly objective, and unequivocal criteria.
i am not sure about that ( for instance criteria for measuring harmfulness can be changed from physical health, to moral heath, to economic health, to whatever) , but,
If you want to be pedantic then yes, soft drinks (20 cokes a day as opposed to 20 fags) can kill people too.
again you are right, one can dispute the details and be a boring pedant.
So if the government decides to ban it what do we do?
right again. if we allow government the power to decide , opposing it later is hypocritical.
as i said, choice is between ridiculous, boring, or hypocritical if one opens one’s mouth.
Sittingnut – No offence was taken. I tend to get “passionate” about some arguments sometimes. This may have been one of those times. :-)
For ‘passionate’ read ‘loud, wide eyed and pointy fingered’. Heh heh….:)
i have no hope in srilanka… with all whats hapenning. if you look at the CBN sat case… the police shut down the operation on a mere search warrant. the search warrent only permits to searh the premises, and before 6pm. when they shut down operations it was after 9pm. also the police agreed there was nothing illegal that they found on the search.
when the matter was taken to courts by cbn, they came up with the rupavahini license issue. ( rupavahini was on cbn sat network. does this mean they didnt even check on the license before they entered the network? SMART!)
when the judge instructed to get a speedy license to cbn sat, they came up saying a new TRC license needs to be obtained, which was only available from the 21st June 2006 to 21st July 2006. ( How can you have a license which does not exist?)
when cbn sat applied for the license and the judge wanted speedy action, they said cbn sat is a threat to national security! god knows how a bunch of legitimate channels, which are enjoyed and appreciated by the rest of the world can be a threat!) Not to mention fashion tv was considered corruption of culture!!! ( guess internet access to porn sites is not)
at the last hearing, it was proven the LTTE channel could not be viewed on cbn decorder. So they ran out of excuses…Now they want three months to draft new rupavahini licenses inorder to regulate the staellite technology.
Isnt it an obvious drama? injustice to the core?? no one to go to… if the courts cant resolve then who can? is it people want money/bribe to solve even legitimate cases? God only knows…..
but we wish CBN sat all the very best! and assure them we will stand by you no matter what! you gave us great service, and we miss it so much now. hope we get our service back asap!