Congratulations to Mrs. Manel Abhayaratna and her group for their excellent presentation of "Mary & Human Liberation - THE OTHER SIDE", and may God bless them for the trouble taken to clearly present the truth. For nearly three years Fr. Balasuriya tried to fool us. But ultimately, the reality prevailed.
Fr. Balasooriya on the TNL programme "Frontline" on 29/1/97 very cleverly avoided any reference to the glaring errors which our Bishops so rightly pointed out and which are clearly explained in Mrs. Abhayaratna's book. Instead, he tried to appease the Buddhists by repeatedly referring to the tactics adopted by the Portuguese in Sri Lanka 500 years ago.
What is the relevance between the tactics of the Portuguese and the questioning of Christian beliefs such as the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Redemption accomplished by Christ, the Divine intervention in the conception and birth of Jesus, etc.
Fr. Balasuriya is thrilled with the number of letters he has got from people who call themselves theologians, but is unaware of the bitter feelings of the thousands of Sri Lankan Cahtholics who are dismayed over his attempts to belittle the role of our beloved redeemer Jesus and His Mother Mary.
It is sad to note that some of the OMI priests in Sri Lanka are defending their colleague who had the audacity to question beliefs which are very sacred and dear not only to Catholics but also to all Christians, instead of explaining to him why his views are wrong.
As reported in the 'Cahtholic Messenger' of 19/1/97, the Superior General of the OMI congregation Revd. Fr. Marcelo Zago writing to his priests in Sri Lanka had said: "On a number of occasions I have clearly advised our confrere as to the correct path to be followed, but he has chosen to remain firm in his convictions and to follow the advice of others".
But the good news is that both Fr. Balasuriya and his defenders are now seen in their cassocks with a big cross instead of the dress which they used to wear! Whom are they trying to fool?
Though Fr. Balasuriya claims to be a Catolic theologian, I wonder whether he really is? If he is a Catholic theologian he could not have made so may the ological errors in his book. The ability to write and argue does not make one a Theologian. As the Superior General of the OMI, Fr. Marcello Zago states, "above all we must renew our Catholic Faith which is more important than our own ideas".
May the Holy Spirit guide Fr. Balasuriya and his loyalists. May Mary, the Immaculately Conceived Mother of Jesus and all of us, the patroness of the OMIs, lead them to discover the truth even at this belated stage and come back to the fold like the 'prodigal son' mentioned in the Gospel.
It is nice to believe that we are socialised to know that certain behaviours are private. We do know what is socially acceptable behaviour and what is not. Right? Wrong! It seems that social learning is not a truly developmental approach after all!
Let me elaborate my point a little. In around the second year of life, we are trained to withhold or expel fecal material at will and children endure the demands of toilet training. For the first time, the child is taught to inhibit the urge to urinate and expel other fecal matter until he/she has reached the designated locale, i.e., the toilet.
So, how does one explain the highly prevalent phenomenon of urination in undesignated places such as public drains, roads and on to walls (no, no, I am not referring to our four legged friends!!) by our very own human male species? Perhaps class and largely gender aspects are salient.
The reasons may be many-fold:
- the male concept of 'private' behaviour and 'toilet' is highly distorted,
- lack of toilet facilities for males in their places of abode,
- forgetfulness to perform this basic regulatory function (for whatever reason),
- confused childhood experiences and social Unlearning of the fact that public society is not a public toilet.
Another 'practical' reason may be lack of public toilets, but then why don't females also resort to this behaviour? Especially since the female anatomy is also equipped to perform the same function standing or sitting down.
A medical doctor confirmed that it is biologically more difficult for a woman to control the urge to urinate than it is to a man. Besides, what would the outcome be if a female was spotted urinating in public? Who would be the first to condemn such 'vulgarity?' Then why the double standards?
We have lived and continue to live in a male-dominated society where the male ideology is still highly authoritative. Although changes have been felt, sexism and male bias have not changed significantly. Men will continue to perpetrate violence, harassment and other vices, and get away with it. The question is, are we going to remain passive over male-dominated cultural norms?
I wonder what views the man who was 'caught in the act' this morning would like to express? On the other hand, I wonder not because we have heard various versions of male excuses over and over again.
Dear Mudaliyar,
What inspired us to write this letter to you is the views you have expressed on the L.L.B issue in The Sunday Times of February 9.
We would like to state that you have not properly studied the issue which has been still left unsolved.
As we know well the nobility of the profession has to be preserved by every member of the Bar. We the students of the law faculty do hereby swear that we too undertake to protect the tenets and precepts underlined in the profession.
At the very outset we must enlighten the fact that we are not demanding the professional qualifications only for L.L.B. degree.
At present according to the rules of the Council of Legal Education, a law graduate has to sit for the final examination at law college to get himself professionally qualified.
According to the law syllabus drawn up by Council of Legal Education a law graduate has to sit for the final examination at law college in nine subjects. Within the framework of the same syllabus we have to sit again for five subjects which we have successfully completed at law faculty.
In every recognized education system, as you are well aware of, there is an accepted rule, called "Non-Repetitional Rule" i.e. that the same subject should not be repeated.
In your letter published on 9th Feb. you have stated that "law graduates claim that it is not a big deal in passing the law college exam but it is a waste of time sitting for such a silly exam."
My dear Mudaliyar, the silly part of the law college exam is that the part which we have to repeat and not the other practical subjects like civil procedure, conveyancing, accounts and ethics.
You also have stated that we claim importance in spending time doing things like pasting posters and agitating for demands rather than spending time sitting for law college exam. Yes, we do accept your statement with regard to the repetition of sitting the exam in subjects we have already completed.
As you know well better than us if there is something we have gained as sons and daughters of this country, it is by means of agitating not by kind requests. We hope at the same time you must keep this in your mind that we agitate only for reasonable and deserving things.
The law faculty of Colombo University is the only one institution which is opened to sons and daughters of poor laymen to enter and learn law through free education.
We would like to place before you and the general public our reasonable demands:
* The students who are presently in the second, third and final year of law faculty should be exempted from those five (5) subjects which they have to repeat at law college final exam.
* The same students should be given hostel facilities, mahapola scholarships and bursaries which were given to them when they were undergraduates, within the period they have to be at law college.
* The practical subjects present only at law college should be introduced to law faculty. This can be easily done because, the syllabus at law faculty is being changed from this year.
The most important claim is that we are ready to undergo the six month apprentice period under a senior lawyer. There is no tussle over that.
Our Association was saddened to read the article titled "Yes Sir, SLAS and the Black Sheep" in The Sunday Times of January 26, purported to be from the "Irrigation Department Engineers Union". We cannot, however, permit these slanders and lies to go unanswered.
It is not known why the writers had to dig into the colonial period. During that period, it was not merely the CCS and DROs who "faithfully served the colonial masters". So did the Engineers, Doctors and every single person in "Ceylon" as they were all colonial subjects. We do not believe that there was a secret group of patriotic engineers working against the British!!
The reference to SLAS men being "favoured children" and "physically close" to Ministers is farcical. In this country, every official has ample opportunity to communicate with his Minister in office, or in the field. The writers should not insult Ministers by presuming that they are gullible enough to swallow any yarn by the SLAS man in the adjoining room. Politicians are too shrewd for that.
As regards the allegation of "widening the gap", the real fact is that Administrators never stood in their way as far as the engineers' professional role is concerned. If in the opinion of the Engineers Union the Government feels that "the professionals are an impediment to government policy", it is baseless to cast aspersions at SLAS. We categorically deny such allegation. We only feel that such feeling on the part of the Government, if any, may have resulted from the realisation of the quality of their performance particularly in managerial roles.
It has to be stressed that SLAS is a cadre of professional Managers. We reject the assumption, that only engineers and doctors are "professionals". They have acquired expertise in certain specific fields. This is not challenged. The trouble begins when they presume their narrow experitse is extended to the field of "management". The best illustration is the tragic farce of the "Territorial Civil Engineering Organisation" which was concocted by Engineers and perpetrated by politicians to whom these "professionals" were "physically close". The monstrosity castrated the carefully built up engineering skills and set back the country's infrastructural development, for many decades. One does not have to rub salt in professional wounds by referring to the Kotmale Tunnel and Samanalawewa damage - inflicted by these self-same professionals.
We do not see how the SLAS comes into the scene of privatisation as villians while the professionals are heroes. Both groups are necessary to aid the government in power - not to become "yes men" but to give unbiased, objective advice. The decision to go ahead will always be political. Once it is taken, all government officials - administrators and professionals - will have to implement as best as they could.
The problem with "professionals" seems to be that they have taken upon themselves supra-political power to sabotage policies of the government. One has only to look at the immense damage done to the country by the recent strikes of electrical engineers and doctors. They have taken upon themselves to enthrone their narrow trade union interests above those of sanctioned national policy. In this context, it is but natural that any government will prefer to rely on a cadre of objective professional managers and administrators - who will rise above narrow issues of salaries, increments and attendance registers.
Return to the Letters to the Editor contents page
Write a letter to the editor : editor@suntimes.is.lk