Plus

Galle Fort - what opportunity?

A reply

By Rajpal Abeynayake

Above is a Point of View which approves the virtual handover of the historic Galle Fort to foreign interests, albeit through the legal means of outright sale. Now, the said article purports to be a Point of View but is in fact a critique of the article which appeared in the Sunday Times PLUS cover of 22 June detailing new circumstances in Galle Fort, due to the recent sale of land to foreigners. Our reader is entitled to his Point of View, but clearly not if it is at the expense of the substance and facts of our article, which he seeks to distort and misrepresent to the reader. Given the critical nature of this Point of View, we publish this riposte which deals here strictly with the inaccuracies and wrong inferences that have been made out from our article.

"Firstly, our nation desperately needs to get out of the poverty trap we are in'' says the writer. As we have stated, there are only just around 300 houses in Galle Fort. Sale of houses in Galle Fort is not an income generating project as the Kandalama Hotel project is, which fact is sated very explicitly in the article.

Its houses will be bought -- and that will basically be the end of that. But we have weighed that against the damage caused to this historic city.

The writer then says: "Harrods, the "historic'' super store in London is now owned by an Egyptian. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The law allows it and foreigners are investing in accordance with the law.''

Ergo, the comparison denotes that the historic Galle Fort, a UNESCO heritage city, is equivalent to Harrods, a large tinsel boutique in London's material megalopolis that sells women's underwear, lipstick, top-hats, tailcoats and bric-a-bracs for the jaded. Obviously, the writer did not consider our factually substantiated considered claim that Galle Fort is a heritage city, one of the very few designated as such, which by no stretch of the imagination whatsoever is comparable to Harrods - - a departmental store. Thus this comparison itself seeks to negate if not frivolously misrepresent the entire substance of our article.

He writes: "There is no logic in the suggestion that the properties left in the ownership of Sri Lankans would be better taken care of.". No such idea was suggested anywhere in our article. On the contrary what our article said explicitly was that the city characteristics, the living breathing nature of Galle Fort as an inhabited city will be lost if Galle Fort is bought by non-resident foreign holiday makers. UNSECO rightly bestows heritage city status only to living inhabited cities (as opposed to holiday resorts.) This very specific and cogent argument is either deliberately ignored by the writer or conveniently forgotten

He writes: "We should be happy that there are big investors who are pouring money into the place which will surely enable the authorities to protect what they deem is historical. Without the money we will not be able to do this'' None of the money goes to any fund that the government can use -- it goes to the individual sellers of property - again, as stated clearly in the article. There is no 'investment'' in Galle Fort, foreigners are buying houses as holiday bungalows for themselves. And, we certainly did not advocate anywhere that foreigners should not be sold land anywhere else in the country. (See also Sunday Times Editorial of 22.6)

He also writes with reference to our article: The writer also expresses the view that with these investments (sic) Galle Fort will be turned into a gay/paedophile centre. The first of course is no offence and is quite a politically incorrect reference. The second is a criminal offence which I'm sure our police force can take care of.

Firstly, out inference was that a creation of a paedophile paradise in a heritage city should be prevented before it happens. The writer ignores this pivotal point in our article. Do we need to invite all the paedophiles in the world into our parlour, especially to a heritage city, and then set our knackered and under-funded police force after them? In the spirit and circumstances in which our article treats the subject, there is nothing politically incorrect also about saying that Galle will be turned into a gay or paedophile city, because our article stated clearly that ''we are not homophobic'' which reference the writer chooses to ignore. Our fear on the contrary was that a heritage city will be turned into a gay city. Galle is known for its historical cultural value as a meeting point for several cultures, and it is not known as a gay paradise to be cited in bi-sexual magazines in Soho. If there is anything politically incorrect in pointing that out - - it is worth the "transgression''. "Political incorrectness'' is an alien concept which originated in the US, which we in our milieu should not be hamstrung by -- particularly when we need to take a courageous stand against various situations that pose a threat to our cultural heritage our system of values etc.

The writer says "Kandalama Hotel was opposed but is now contributing to the economy''. This wholly misrepresents the position that is sought to be presented in our article on Galle Fort. Our article is clear that the sale of Galle Fort is not opposed on environmental grounds as Kandalama was - and that once the houses are all sold, there will be little or no contribution to the local economy.

On the other hand its alienation to foreigners is opposed for the very tangible reason that a non resident community is depriving Galle of its living city statues - and comparing Kandalama to Galle Fort therefore is like comparing chalk with cheese, and is a misrepresentation of the fundamentals that were sought clearly to be conveyed in our article.

The writer says "With the huge amounts in their pockets the sellers of the properties can now transform themselves to entrepreneurs/investors. We are happy for them. This is how individuals and societies must raise themselves.”

As for being happy for those who have got millions selling their houses on the Fort, it must be noted as the writer hasn't, that our article makes pointed reference to those who do not want to sell either their houses or their souls but lament that they will be forced to sell if Galle Fort is converted into a mosque-less, school-less gay and paedophile paradise? Should we be happy for them too?

He says: "There is a lot of literature about the malevolent aspects of foreign capital'' Our article was not a general diatribe against foreign investment, as it is sought by the writer to insidiously portray, but a substantiated case-in-point reference to an obvious situation in which foreign capital should be eschewed in view of the larger social damage that the infusion of such capital (as in the said instance) will cause. India for instance is not allowing the factories around Taj Mahal to continue to pollute the environment and cause irreparable damage to this historic site. The Indians are taking measures with a vengeance irrespective of how many factories with foreign capital need to be dealt with to protect the Taj Mahal. Our article was along those lines and no other.

There will be more enlightened genuine tourists coming into this country bringing their money with them if we preserve (and not sell to the highest bidder) our tourists draws such as heritage cities the way they are meant to be preserved. This idea which is presented in our article and around which our article pivots, had been totally ignored by the writer for reasons best known to him.

The writer says "The article also says that some of the houses in the Fort now have swimming pools and it is suggested that this is somehow harmful to the existence of the historical buildings.''

This again is either a glaring misrepresentation or a careless omission of what was substantially stated in our article. To quote our article : "It is against the law, to construct these pools, but what law does foreigners who bring in money like 2.5 million dollars have to respect''. We have in other words pointed out that there are some (to use the writers words here) ''intelligent laws and by-laws that the authorities have in place for the purpose of preserving the historical nature of the Fort,'' that the writer himself wants, if we are to go by that quote from the fourth paragraph of his article. Elsewhere we say that the Heritage Foundation has itself rejected applications for these pools because they were illegal - i.e: against these (intelligent) laws. How does the writer on the one hand say that intelligent by-laws should be there, and then advocate that when the foreigners flout these laws with the construction of pools, that 'these structures would not pose such a problem''? Obviously he totally ignores his own advice about intelligent laws, and also the gravaman of our article which is that Galle Fort is a very special city, which seeks to preserve a very special heritage, and seeks to do so with laws which are sensitive to these very special circumstances. Galle Fort is NOT Harrods.

The writer's advocacy ignores all these sensitivities that are important in any consideration of the real-estate in Galle Fort, and deliberately or otherwise misses the nuances of the article which sought to portray the tragic destruction of Galle fort due to untrammelled sale of land to foreign buyers.

The writer states, "we are starved of foreign capital. We desperately need European standards in matters of hygiene, garbage disposal, work ethic , corporate governance, honesty in the public sector and almost every aspect of our economic management. Having European investments and residents in our country will surely help us in this aspect.''

While reserving comment on the utterly mercenary nature of the trade-off that is advocated by an imagined benefit from being slavishly wedded to "European standards'', we need to point out that our article explicitly mentioned that what is sought to be established in Galle Fort is a holiday city, a resort, which furthermore encourages exclusivity and not integration - - a local form of apartheid. We have made reference to a nursery school for instance for whites only.

Under these very glaring circumstances, we take strong exception to the fact that the writer, with pointed reference to our article, deliberately seeks to ignore misrepresent or gloss over these facts to come to the conclusion that somehow our article ''falls short'' in taking an 'intelligent and knowledgeable attitude''. Given the above facts, it is abundantly clear that the writer does not really consider our article arriving at such a conclusion -- he merely airs his own prejudices to masquerade as a critique of our article, which we take strong exception to and consider a supercilious attempt to insinuate against our journalistic standards and credibility.


Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster Editorial