The Way I See It

Is actually very simple.

Inconsistency, demonstrated by governments, the UN or pretty much anyone, is bad. It muddies the waters and confuses things. Consistent behaviour is much easier for anyone to understand.

Anything that demonstrates intolerance for the abuse of people's human rights is good.

That's it.

London, Chavs, Riots And Looting.

It seemed to start on Saturday night. You're probably fully versed on events but, just in case you're not, here's roughly what happened.

A man, Mark Duggan, was shot and killed by armed Police on Thursday. In itself it wasn't even that big a story and I suspect most people here weren't even aware of it until things kicked off later. There's an inquiry going on about the shooting. The Police, at the time, seemed to say that there was an exchange of gunfire, something that now appears to be incorrect, as reports claim that only two shots were fired, both by Police, and killing Mr Duggan.

It took place in Tottenham, an inner city area of tension at the best of times, and on Saturday night, a peaceful protest there about the killing turned violent and got out of hand.

I was at dinner with Academic Bro, Academic SIL and C and we laughed when we received a phone call from our mother, to warn of the riots (about 5 miles away from where we were and in the opposite direction from the way we'd travel home). That's Sri Lankan mothers for you we chuckled to each other, then drove home vaguely aware of a few more Police sirens on passing vehicles than normal. We had eaten fish for dinner, with gazpacho to start.

On Sunday it still didn't seem like very big news. Some riots in Tottenham, a touch of looting, a Police shooting, well that's what goes on in these parts anyhow. Chavs, drug dealers, Police, that's what they do.

By Tuesday morning the situation was different. Things had erupted big scale and no longer confined to one area, it was all over London. You know it's bad when both David Cameron and Boris Johnston think about coming back from their holidays.

It had spread as far west as Ealing, down the road from my office, and everyone I knew was worried about what might happen in their area. One girl at work who lives in Ealing told us what she had witnessed and stories she'd heard first hand from people. Stories of families fleeing their homes, running to hotels and staying there for the night. Stories of gangs of poor quality people roaming the streets and destroying anything and everything in their path.

The particularly scary thing about it was that this was Ealing, a pretty suburban and respectable area. I have a few good friends who live there and it's as middle class as can be.

Thing also erupted in Clapham, one of those areas that's a mix of posh people and poorer types. It wasn't such a shock but still took many by surprise. The posh ones hurriedly got a big Waitrose delivery in and stocked up their Smeg fridges, shut their wine cellars and double locked their expensive doors and settled in to watch their staff riot and loot.

Pockets of trouble broke out all over Greater London, a city that wasn't looking so great. Croydon in the south was hit, with buildings burnt down, shops looted and businesses destroyed. Things got personal and everyone has a story to tell now. A story of someone they know or a business they're familiar with that has been ruined.

The public, well apart from the chavs, were furious and livid. In most case the Police weren't even present and, when they were, they failed to act decisively if at all. People were calling for the use of water cannons, rubber bullets, curfews and the army. Everyday shit for you guys in Sri Lanka I know, but not here.

Boris and Dave flew back from their holidays, though I'm not sure if they came economy or business class, and faced the people.

That's roughly what happened.

Why did it take place? How did people see things? What can we do about it? What's going to happen?

Here's what I think.

Perception.

Firstly, the way things are viewed by most here is that these troubles are not "protests". I've seen many from outside the UK refer to them as protests that have turned violent, that have started out as one thing and morphed into another.

Those who think that hold a view that is not shared by most people here. These are acts of riotous violent looting and thuggery carried out by gangs and mobs of idiots, nothing more, nothing less. Yes, the shooting of Mark Duggan, the following protest and unrest in his community were catalysts. But the mobs out on the streets at the moment are there because of mob mentality, because of nothing other than joining in with their mates and getting some free stuff.

I'm not trying to dismiss the reasons for this all taking place, but it does seem that the coverage from outside of the UK places far more emphasis on the protest element than we see here.

There are many underlying reasons why these kids want to do so, but I think very strongly that it's important to convey the depth of feeling here; that the "protest" element was only something that existed at the very beginning of things.

Social Media.

The roles played by Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and BBM have been large in recent days. They have been roles with positive and negative aspects. My humble O is that the positives have been far greater than the bad bits. The negatives however, have been instrumental in kicking things off in the first place.

BBM and Twitter have been vital tools for the mobs in organising where and when they're going to meet. Everyone has heard things that people have gleaned from these networks along the lines of "there's something going on in Kingston tonight" or "I heard people are meeting at the horse statue in Ealing Broadway at 6".

There was talk of the government getting these networks shut down temporarily. It hasn't happened, I'm not sure if it could be done, either legally or logistically, but I'm sure that the respective companies wouldn't want their names associated with being a tool of the mobs.

But on the positive side, there have been, in my eyes, far more tweets and Facebook statuses condemning the riots and people and expressing upset and dismay. There have been people organising cleanup groups and galvanising each other to do good things, much of that Great British gung ho spirit that makes me feel quite proud.

Youtube has been full of terrible videos of acts committed by the thugs. One video shows a poor teenager who's obviously been attacked in some way being "helped" by some others, who then proceed to nick his stuff when he's already injured. It looks to me as if the first black kid genuinely tries to help him, then doesn't have the guts to stand up to the white kid who opens the bag. I might be wrong, either way it makes me sick.

Other videos and pictures show similar. This one, whilst incredibly funny, I think also shows that this is mostly opportunistic and mob mentality at its worst.

I saw some negative and frankly stupid comments, statuses and tweets, specifically from people in Sri Lanka, which surprised and disappointed me. Sittingnut's idiotic retweet was one, as well as some Facebook bits and pieces that were unpleasantly anti British. I was amused to see a couple that were then deleted some hours later, presumably because the writers felt bad, more likely stupid.

Many a true word is spoken in jest they say. This comment from the legendary DB made me LOL. Out loud.

"I think the Snuts and other nutjobs probably are happy about it and are telling themselves that everyone is as well, but that's largely a load of bullshit.

But I say largely. 'Cos you know, imagine you're having some family problems, your daughter's on drugs and has a boyfriend who steals cars, and you're not sure what to do. But you've got this holier-than-thou neighbour who keeps telling you what a fucked up parent you are. Then your neighbour's daughter runs away with a drug dealer who gets her pregnant. How would you feel? You're not happy about it, and it doesn't solve your own probs, but perhaps it'll shut that neighbour up for awhile. know what I mean?"

Though I must say, I've been hit by a deluge of kind emails, messages and comments here on my blog from many true friends in Sri Lanka, all expressing concern for me and my loved ones, and that's heartwarming. Thank you.

Lots of people have become very hard on Facebook too, which has made me laugh. All sorts have made public what they think they'll do if they see a group of people down their road up to no good.

"I won't hesitate to wade in" blah blah blah. It's all well and good to say and some of them may well be telling the truth. But I, faced with an angry mob of kids with no respect for anything except MTV and The Beckhams, will grab my loved ones, a couple of snare drums, my top ten or perhaps twenty Superdry T shirts and get the hell out. Only then will I come back and beat the shit out of them, like I've seen Chuck Norris do so many times.

Me

So far in Kingston, where I live, things have been relatively calm and quiet. Last night (Tuesday) there were Police all over the place, which felt reassuring and, as far as I know, there was little trouble. There were rumours of gangs meeting but I don't think anything happened.

There have been pockets of trouble flaring up in many places. Shopkeepers have now come out to protect their property in anticipation of trouble and most people are wary. Last night was quieter in London but lots happened in Manchester and Birmingham as well as some other Northern parts of the country that no one really cares about anyhow.

I'd be lying or overdramatising if I painted a picture of me living through some sort of inner city hell, with Martin Luther King making speeches and Stevie Wonder doing free gigs in the local park. Currently it's calm for me, just in a tense, anything can happen at any time and place sort of way.

Strangely enough the only time I can recall in which I felt similar was in July '83, the big difference being that this time people aren't actually being targeted, more getting caught in the crossfire.

Why?

The death of Mark Duggan was merely the flashpoint in this. The people who are guilty of the actual looting and rioting have been like a pile of very dry combustible material waiting to catch fire. All the pile needed was one spark to flare up and become a huge fire, which is what happened.

We've got problems in the UK, everyone knows that. An economy that's fucked, a generation, perhaps two, who are materialistic in ways that previous ones never were and an I want it now attitude.

On top of that we've got a Police force that is rapidly losing its respect from its customers, because of things like the News International saga, the shootings of people like John Charles Menezes and Mark Duggan.

All of those were the fuel that had already been poured on the pile, just waiting for the spark. At the bottom of the pile were loads of metaphors and similes, like the dryest and most combustible material you can think of.

As a society we need to redress our values. We need to look less at teaching our kids to look after number one and teach them about looking after others.

We complain about the kids not having respect.

Well we need to earn that respect from them too. It might take years or decades but only then will we move on.

In the meantime things are likely to flare up at any time.

That's what I think.

UPDATE - Thoughts from The Auf are here.

Tell Me It's Not True

Sittingnut retweets a tweet by one RKKrishnan which says:

"Norway and England got what they deserved - this feeling is across the board in Sri Lanka, ppl tell me."

Sittingnut also retweeted a reply from sl130 who says:

"wrong mr. we sri lankans are not happy about those incidents. what we ask them is accept what terrorism is and not to support it"

Everyone I know here in London seems shocked, saddened and dismayed by what's happened and is happening.

What's your view from the motherland?

The Disillusionment Of The Diaspora

Indi's post entitled "How Diaspora Can Overthrow The Government" set me off on a train of thought. Thought about the Sri Lankan diaspora, its role in Sri Lanka, both now and in the future.

The first mental hurdle I encountered was that of the definition of the word "diaspora". What exactly is the diaspora?

I was once involved in a discussion here in London in which a Sri Lankan (as I saw her) lady objected to being classed as "diasporic". Her reasoning was that the diaspora was actually people who had forcibly left their country, which was not her specific case, and she requested that the rest of us refer to her by some other label. Sadly I can't remember what it was.

But, up until that point, I'd considered the term diaspora to be a general reference to emigrants. Broad I know, but that was pretty much it for me.

I looked it up in my handy Collins Concise Dictionary, which tells me that diaspora is:

" A dispersion of people originally belonging to one nation".

Am I any wiser with this bit of knowledge? Nope. In one way it tells me that any emigrant, from any country, is a member of the diaspora. In another it makes me question the definition of "originally belonging". Perhaps it's in the mind of the person, perhaps whether someone is diasporic or not therefore depends on that person's own mindset and definitions.

Indi's says in his post:

"It's very easy for the diaspora to remake their homeland. They just need to come home."

And I ponder and cogitate on this statement.

He also says:

"If they all come back and vote they can swing the Presidential election and win the provincial elections in the North and East. Then they can either remake Sri Lanka or claim significant autonomy."

Again it made me think very seriously.

Is Indi correct? Would the return of the voting diaspora change things politically in Sri Lanka?

My first question here is on the matter of a free and fair democracy. Does that exist in Sri Lanka? Would a body of voters, with their votes in the appropriate direction, actually change things? It's a matter we could debate endlessly. I'm dubious about it yet feel it's another argument for another post at another time.

But we then move on to the issue of whether the body of voters would vote in the directions Indi suggests they would. I suspect he's correct, but we'll never know until it actually happens.

My view though is that the statement Indi makes; that "they just need to come home" is another example of polarisation politics, of the "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality, of the black or white and forgetting of the very existence of grey mindset, that pervades much of the thinking around the Sri Lankan situation.

It's not healthy. Or, as I used to say to my girls when they were young, it's not funny and it's not clever.

I have known and do know many Sri Lankan people who have left the country and feel let down by their motherland.

My maternal Grandmother, a proud and peace loving Tamil, was one of them. I was there with her in July '83 and, though she died a couple of years later anyhow, she never wanted to return to Sri Lanka.

She felt devastated and heartbroken by the behaviour of people she had considered her own (Sinhala and Tamil) and was particularly affected at having to deny her identity to save her life.

I know many others now who left the country many years ago and feel similarly. Most of them have been in the UK or other countries for decades, many now having their own kids, some even grandparents.

I certainly don't make any claims to be able to speak for them but the impression I glean is that they don't have that love for Sri Lanka that many others do. The thing is, if you consider what some went through, can you blame them? I can't. Not only that but they've carved out lives and existences in other countries.

Telling them to come back, to return to the country that they feel abandoned them, in order to change things is like telling someone that the only way to save the sinking ship "might" be to jump back on it. I'm not actually saying that the ship is sinking, I'm saying that many of those diasporic potential voters think so. Would you give up everything to try to save the sinking ship? Do you love the ship enough?

Increasingly, as I look around me at the many Sri Lankan diasporic people I know, I see a sense of disillusionment. I hear a communal sigh as Sri Lankans around the world get exasperated and give up, walking away from the engaging in the debate, the processes and the discussions. Most of these people don't consider themselves to be at either end of the political spectrum. No, they see themselves as moderates, just slightly to one side of a line.

It's the result of crushing the voice of dissent, of the "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality and of the polarised and frankly unproductive I am right you are wrong arguments that seem to go on all over the show.

Sri Lanka is losing out on some highly intelligent people, some great minds, as well as a lot of idiots through this. No one is bothered about the idiots, but the great minds should be valued.

One of the things that I've learned in life is that very controlling people usually surround themselves with "yes" men. It's a great plan when you want people to tell you how great you are, what a good job you're doing and kiss your backside, but it's not so effective when you need good input, when you want someone to give an alternative idea or plan.

For the longer term good of the country the Government of Sri Lanka needs to figure out ways in which to engage positively and constructively with the diaspora. Ways that are less black and white than saying "come home and vote or shut up".

How should this be done I know not. One thing I'm certain of is that people like myself (second generation Sri Lanka, born and bred in Britain etc) should have minimal or no say in things. I'm actually talking about "proper" Sri Lankans, people who've been born in Sri Lanka, who have passports and the like.

A good friend suggested that perhaps different degrees of involvement, depending on variables, might be a solution. I think that's got great potential but could be seriously complicated. Still, inventing the mobile phone was complicated, as was designing the Barefoot sarong, and those things happened!

Surely, if you get the diaspora involved, get them to be part of the process, then they'll start to return. Isn't that the best order to do things?

Lately In The Political Lankanosphere....

If all has gone according to plan you'll be able to look at my mindmap above and see the structure of this post. It might be on the left though, I haven't decided yet.

It's a complicated mindmap, there are links, lines and bubbles all over the shop and even I, who sometimes can read my own handwriting, find it hard to get to grips with.

The crux of the matter is that the Lankanosphere has suddenly launched itself into a round of politics and political posts, the likes of which we haven't seen for some time.

To quote Jack Point

"After a very long sojourn, politics seems to have returned to the local blogosphere. What is more interesting is that it has sparked some reasonable debate, something that has been missing for a long time. "

Where and when did it all start? My thoughts are that a lot of it was catalysed by both The Killing Fields and Sangakkara's Cowdrey lecture. I'm uncertain how things began in the Sri Lankan blogosphere, but certainly the first post that caught my attention, very probably yours, was this one, by Indi. Entitled "The War Is Over. Tell Your Friends" it created lots of feeling.

The main theme of it can be summed up in this quote:

"For a long time Sri Lanka was defined only within the war frame. Indeed, many local people/publications (like Groundviews) have trouble adjusting to a post-war mindset. They’re still all war all the time while the average Sri Lankan is like, ‘breakfast?’"

Indi then tried to prove his theory with some of those word cloud things, showing the most commonly used words on some websites, including Groundviews. A bit of a bitch fight between Indi and Sanjana threatened to break out but nothing came of it really. Disappointing. I'd quite like to see a proper physical fight break out. In fight between the two of them they're both so lacking in the Chuck Norris / James Bond / Sly Stallone stakes that I suspect they'd both lose. David Blacker would probably win without being in it or even being near the scene.

And lots of people, including me, took a different view to Indi. Some commented on Indi's blog, some wrote posts.

I wrote this little one and it generated a bit of discussion too. It seemed to annoy a lot of intelligent people, which wasn't my intention. DD threw all his toys out of his pram and left me staring at my monitor in disbelief with some of the things he said. I put it down to the fact that he must have had a particularly busy week dreaming about killing muggers. Muggers that is, who sound like Dick van Dyke trying to do cockney.

"Cor blimey guv'nor, I'm a cockney don't you know, now hand over yer frickin' wallet. I've got a chimney to sweep."

I do get frustrated when I see the diaspora being tarred with one brush, as I tried to explain in this later post. One of the ironies is that I was criticised for tarring people with one brush with what I said.

Then, with my apologies if I haven't got the chronology totally accurate, we had the great Indi vs Guru debate on Al Jazeera. It was a bit of a let down when Indi's connection got lost for an important chunk of the segment, but it was interesting. Many thought that, in the win / lose context it was billed, Guru emerged as the clear winner. I agree, yet feel disappointed that it had to be billed and presented in that context. Indi has said on too many platforms to link to that he was trying to reframe the context of the debate rather than engage in it.

A couple of now rare yet much welcomed voices entered the arena. First we had Electra, showing us that she's still around and lurking with intent. This post was a very specific response to Indi as well. When I first read it I thought that Electra has said some similar things to my thoughts, just with bags full of intelligence, eloquence and detailed knowledge that I don't possess. Sometimes I wish I wasn't so simple.

I smiled to myself at the fact that a load of comments have appeared on Electra's post advertising cheap made in China sportswear sites.

And Cerno chipped in his two cent's worth too. He says:

"All those clever arguments seem far removed in the un air-conditioned reality live by most Sri Lankans (I’m only partially air conditioned). The war and its political fault lines (both current and historical) seems far away from the grinding business of life."

Which I suppose is one of the key points that many people are trying to say; that while some go on about sanctions, inquiries, international bodies and punishment, many in Sri Lanka are trying to deal with some very harsh realities of daily life.

I know only too well about these day to day trials and tribulations. I was looking at the price of Dominic Sansoni's new bags in Barefoot only the other day and thinking that there must be a small percentage of the population who can't even afford basics like these.

There's an element to Cerno's post that I don't understand; it;s the bit when he talks about the irrelevance to the Sri Lankan blogsphere. I'm unsure if Cerno is saying that the Lankanosphere is pissing in the wind by talking politics or that us bloggers aren't interested in SL politics. If it's the former, then I see it differently, but I'll come to that at the end. If Alanis Morissette writes another song, perhaps calling it "Ironic two" she should bung this line in it:

"That Cerno, ooh ooh,

Could have the time ooh ooh,

to write a blog post, ooh ooh,

saying that he envies those who ooh ooh,

find the time to blog (big drum fill here)"

Jack Point, the most serious court jester to ever exist, put out this post which told us his thoughts on things. He was one of the many who reminded us of the evil, terror and despicable actions of the LTTE. For what it's worth I reckon these actions should be remembered by all, to help put things in perspective.

Groundviews published a bit of a round up of the state of play at the time, specifically on the "Sri Lankan identity and race relations" theme that has run consistently while everything else has been going on.

Meanwhile over on the all comments are closed blog owned by Rajiva Wijesinha, the man who makes my accent sound heavily Sri Lankan, things are carrying on as normal. His approach, of attempting to shatter the credibility into a zillion pieces of anyone or any institution that deigns to criticise the GoSL, continues.

Finally, let me tell you my current concluding thoughts. These are subject to change without notice.

Yes, the war is over. No, the memories and consequences of it are not and they need to be dealt with.

Talk, when constructive and positive, is good and needed. Someone told me the other day that my opinion, me saying things, won't change anything. I agree. But someone, somewhere will be the person with the millionth or billionth opinion, blog, comment or statement that just might break the camel's back and cause change.

Apologies for the long post, the jewellery shop's worth of links and the crazy jumble of fonts and quotes. One of these days I really must change over to Wordpress!

RD

In Praise Of Indi

I believe in praise where praise is due, which is why I write this. I give Indi enough criticism when he says something I disagree with so I feel I should also do the opposite.

This post of his contains words and thoughts that I think we could all do with reading and pondering on, including me. We all do it, we group bunches of people together. I think it's very commonly done regarding the diaspora, but it's also done with the "local Sri Lankans", as if you who live in Sri Lanka all have one group opinion, thinking the same thing along every front.

As Rajiv and N pointed out in my recent post, I sometimes do it and I apologise for that. The sooner we start to realise that the diaspora contains about as many different views as it has people, that the local Sri Lankans hold more different opinions than even Hi!! Magazine features photographs of its own editor, the quicker we'll make progress.

The counter to that is that there are certain groups of people who are bonded by some communal thoughts and views, but one view shared doesn't mean all other views are shared.

Some people supported the LTTE's initial reasons for taking up arms, which doesn't mean that they supported the ongoing violence and warfare and terror. Some didn't support them from the start and others were forced to contribute financially because they wanted peace. And of course, sadly in my opinion but true, some supported them from start to finish.

Others may have supported the GoSL to different degrees. Some were okay with some things, not with others.

Many in the diaspora, many within Sri Lanka hold many views. There are stupid, ignorant and downright unpleasant people in all corners, but there are also bright, intelligent and sensible ones. Not only that, but there are people who can be every combination all in one.

It's a mad and mental world and that's just the Sri Lankan side of things!

I Am Sri Lankan

Just a quickie here that struck me a minute ago.

It's all very well for Indi, Kumar Sangakkara and others to talk about the fact that they're Sri Lankan and not defined by their race.

Maybe, just maybe, instead of discussing why people who are part of the Sinhala majority already feel Sri Lankan, we'd be better off looking at why so many other people DON'T feel included in the "Sri Lankan" identity label.

Or is that just mad?

Ignorance - Is It A Defence For Colonialism?

I'll start this by setting my stall out; I'm fundamentally against the principles of colonialism. To me, in this day and age, in just seems wrong.

I've also witnessed, mostly in the last few years it seems, an increasing degree of animosity and antagonism towards the British and their colonisation of Sri Lanka from 1802 to 1948. Truly, I question the motivation behind some of this animosity.

My questioning comes from the fact that I just don't hear much said against the Dutch and the Portugese, both of whom, as I'm sure you're aware, also colonised Sri Lanka. The Portugeezers were there for around one hundred and fifty years, the Dutch then for about one hundred and forty years followed by us Brits for about one hundred and fifty years.

It remains to be seen how long the Chinese will be in occupation for, but it's fair to say that in previous times each occupier was there for about the same time. But these days it's the Brits who get all the flak. Call me naive, which you probably will, but I don't hear much anti Dutch talk or sentiments about the harm that the Portugese did, yet from all I can find out they raped the land, the people and the resources as much as anyone. Though of course the Dutch left lamprais and the Portugese left the baila.

Of course there is one thing that has hit me; the fact that these days the Dutch and the Portugese aren't that vociferous on their calls for investigations and inquiries into things that may or may not have happened in Sri Lanka. The Dutch are usually too stoned and the Portugese may be just too worried about their own place going bankrupt to be at all bothered about little old Sri Lanka.

A cynic might conclude that much of the anti British colonialism thing is actually a way of attacking the credibility of the British, rather than a real problem with the effects of colonialism.

The thing about colonising other countries is that it's a thing of the past, isn't it? Those days, from the fifteenth to the twentieth century, it was all the rage in Europe. It was the means by which many nations built prosperity, power and profit. It wasn't right, it was exploitation, but we know that now, which is why it's not up there along with surfing the net and getting my phone hacked by News International as one of the hobbies of most European leaders.

I compare it with smoking. Slightly.

You know when we see all those old adverts about smoking, the ones where a company says that most Doctors recommend Marlboro as the best fag to smoke, or where they extol the benefits of smoking Benson and Hedges. Well, in the cases where we've later found out that the tobacco companies actually knew about the evils and perils of smoking but ignored them or chose to lie, then that's downright despicable behaviour clearly.

But, in the cases where we just hadn't discovered the dangers, when people really thought smoking was good for you, then we don't actually get angry with those responsible do we? Sure, we would get angry with people if they tried to do the same now, with the knowledge we have.

And that's what I wonder about. Colonialism was the done thing. It's not now.

A wise friend told me something that has stuck; that every colony, once granted independence, goes back in its development to some point between when it was first colonised and the point at which independence happened, then continues to develop from there. It's a bit like a post divorce marriage. I reckon a country takes some years to get its bearings, to figure out where it wants to start from, and I think that's what Sri Lanka is doing at the moment, whilst dealing with all the other things going on as well.

It's no mean feat is it? Colonialism, for Sri Lanka, wasn't all bad. There were some positives as well as lots of negatives. It's going to take time to figure out the negatives, let alone get rid of them.

So shouldn't we, Sri Lankans, in which I include myself, be more angry, concerned and worried about China's behaviour which is actually happening today and now, than towards what the British did over a hundred years ago when I'm not sure that they knew any better?

I don't know the answer, just thinking aloud really. What do you think?

On War, Peace, Indi, The Diaspora and The Locals...

I read this post by Indi and it slightly incensed me. "Slightly incensed" might even be a oxymoron, though not to be confused with being attacked by one of those chaps selling incense sticks.

I can't really define exactly why or how the post got to me but it's something to do with the way Indi has simplified things, condensing them into neat little packets of logic, ones that are often irrefutable yet you just feel are wrong. Also, for a grown up, albeit it one with American or Canadian background, he uses the word "like" far too much and too often.

I asked K, one of my daughters, the other day to see how long she could last without saying "like" in a sentence, except where it was genuinely needed as a word. She managed about twenty seconds of conversation before like crashing and like burning. She's fifteen.

I have some thoughts and comments on what the Blogfather tells us and there are too many of them, in too rambled a fashion, for me to whack them up on his post as a comment.

His post begins with a sarcastic line insinuating that he can't comment on the phone hacking scandal going on here in the UK because he doesn't live in the country and therefore isn't an expert.

"Isn't it funny that Sri Lanka experts are usually sitting abroad?" he continues.

Errr no, it's not Indi. First off, I think you're confusing the word "expert" with someone who can hold an opinion. Secondly the number of people in the Sri Lankan diaspora is approximately ten per cent of the total population of Sri Lanka.

It's a high figure compared to most other countries. The comparable figure is eight per cent for the UK and Wikipedia states that there are approximately two million French nationals living outside of France, which has a population of about sixty three million. Wikipedia of course can be wildly wrong about things, something to bear in mind.

Lastly, another reason it's not funny is that many Lankans live abroad as a direct result of the conflict. You, my esteemed reader, don't need the likes of me to tell you that many Lankans left their homeland for safety, seeking refuge in other international communities.

Should these people have a voice? Should their opinion matter? Ask me those questions and you'll hear a resounding "yes". But you knew that anyhow.

Indi goes on to say "the war is over and the only people that can't really accept it are either abroad or facing abroad".

Well I can't figure out what he means by "facing abroad", but forgetting that, I wholly disagree with the sentence, in as much as I understand it. My view is that everyone I've come across, which isn't a huge amount of people, say forty thousand as an example, but is a wide cross section of folks, accepts that the war is over. It's just that many, me included, believe that the consequences of that war remain, in fact will remain until they're addressed instead of brushed under the carpet.

If a chap goes out and does a bank robbery and kills someone in the process then it's not appropriate to just forget about the robbery the following day, to say to people that they should accept it was in the past and move on. The family and friends of the person killed will be affected, there will be consequences of the act, they need to be dealt with. Only then can many actually move on.

I have come to realise something that I think is crucial in Sri Lanka moving forward; there isn't right and there isn't wrong, there are only different views and different perspectives.

Many years ago in the business environment I learned about the phenomenon called helicopter vision. It's something most good business people possess. Imagine you're in a helicopter. As you lift off you see everything on the ground in great detail but you don't see a wide range. The further the aircraft climbs the wider a range, but the less detail on the ground, you also see.

I reckon you can figure out where I'm going with this.

The thing is, the views from the helicopter, at whatever altitude, are "correct". There are no wrong ones, just different ones, showing varying things.

And the "locals" in Sri Lanka are the people who, for the last thirty or so years, have had to worry about lots of the day to day issues that those of us in the diaspora haven't. Issues like the cost of living, like whether you or a close relative will get killed in a bomb blast. Those are things that diasporic types like me haven't really dealt with.

But, there are also many in the diaspora who do have close family and friends back in the motherland, who have had to worry about day to day issues as well.

So the view of people living in Sri Lanka is often a ground level one. Totally valid, totally genuine and as real as it gets.

But people not living in Sri Lanka are higher up in the helicopter and can see a bigger picture, missing out on lots of the detail. Their view is not wrong, not invalid, just different. They (we) need to remember that we didn't all go through the day to day agony that many in Sri Lanka did.

When people in the island talk about the war being over and say that people should move on, it's a wholly understandable view. As is that of the diasporic people who can look at a wide ranging picture, one that takes little or no account of the finer, but very important, details that affect people every day.

It's not actually about where you live, it's about how much you know and how much you care.

The Problem With Averages

I glanced at this interesting post about the GNP of Sri Lanka the other day and it got me thinking.

So the Sri Lankan per capita income for 2010 has been estimated to be around $2400. That's got to be a good thing hasn't it?

Well you know me, given a choice between optimism and pessimism, there's no choice. Optimism, in my book, is good, whereas the p word is bad. Of that I have no doubt. But, they're different perspectives that should be used in order to view a situation, neither is necessarily the approach one should take if a balanced and well thought out view is what's required.

And, like Ratmale says in the original post, things aren't always what they seem.

First of all there's the fact that the figures are reported by the Sri Lankan department of census and statistics. Actually, if I was to be really strict on this, the fact is that Ratmale is reporting this. He seems like a trustworthy fellow, but academics and brainy sorts might question his reporting. I won't, let's assume his is an accurate depiction of what the department of census and statistics has told us.

There are many who would say that the figures themselves aren't accurate. Let's face it, the statistics published by any government are questionable at the best of times, such is the somewhat sad nature of the short termism of politics.

But, even if these figures are accurate, I'm unsure about what to really feel here.

A mathematical average is a statistical tool. I'm highly and seriously qualified to tell you this, having got a B in my 'O' level statistics back in 1981 or so, no mean achievement I think you'll agree.

As statistical tools go, per capita income is pretty simple. It's the equivalent of the old one size manual flat head screwdriver that you've had for so many years that you don't want to throw away that sits in your toolbox. You might grab it and try to use it every time there's a screw to be turned, but it rarely does the job. Fuck me, I must confess I could go on for ages with this screwdriver and toolbox metaphor. I rather like it. In fact it's a bit like that old......

No, wait, the thing is that per capita income merely takes the total income and divides it by the total population, or something along those lines. I think it gives no more than a very general picture on the economy of a nation, if that.

And we all know that currently in the isle of Serendib there are a lot of rich people. And many of them are hungrily and busily making vast sums of money and growing richer. That's cool with me. They're people taking advantage of the opportunities that have opened up post conflict, the opportunities within and outside of Sri Lanka.

Meanwhile there are a lot of poor people at the other end of the scale. The people who struggle to pay for gas and bread and rice and the basics, the people who, some say, are struggling more each day, who others say are going to prosper in time.

Sociologists, those with an economic bent, will say that this is what happens as an economy grows; that the upper echelons of society are the first to prosper and then, as they start to use the working classes in order to grow their wealth, the working class people begin to get more affluent and move up the ladder.

What we have here, in my humble O, is a current situation in which the top chaps makes shed loads of wedge, the bottom level struggles and the average rises, yet there are very few people who actually live like the "average".

How do I know all this? What statistics and proof do you have about this RD? I hear you asking.

None. Nothing. Zilch.

It's just my feeling.

And could I borrow that flashy screwdriver, the electric one with all the different heads please? My one's a but crap.

Change, Democracy, Pomp And Police

Over here in the UK we've now had our change of Prime Minister and government and, for the first time in my life, I've watched the events and proceedings with a certain sense of optimism and hope about the state of British politics.

I drove home from work on Tuesday night and listened to the radio. The friendly but slightly arrogant presenter told us that the negotiations between the conservatives and the liberals looked to be almost at their conclusion, that there would possibly be an announcement that night on a coalition government. At worst the feeling was that things would be sorted by Wednesday morning, even the barrage of "experts" being interviewed every few minutes agreed with this.

I got home, did a poo, as a man does, then did some sit ups and relaxed. Then I turned on the TV and, lo and behold, my expected trip to Albert Square, E20, to watch Eastenders was rudely interrupted by all sorts of fascinating shenanigans representing many of the good things about Britishness and not a few of the (m)/(b)ad.

Gordon Brown was just leaving Downing Street and heading off to Buckingham Palace to tell the Queen that he was resigning. His timing could have been better. One can only hope the Queen doesn't watch Eastenders or she would have been as pissed off as the rest of us. As I listened to the commentary it became apparent that he'd decided to do this before the conservatives and the lib dems had formally agreed on anything, an interesting twist, maybe his last attempt at some sort of a powerplay.

His car was swanked by a couple of Police bikes and a few cars and they stopped the traffic with the ease and seamlessness that most people who've lived in London will have witnessed many times. It's a highly effective sort of relay in which one to three of the Police bikes go ahead, stop traffic at the next couple of junctions, then let the VIP through and overtake his car and repeat the whole process.

I've heard stories that in some countries, even when it's not so much a VIP but more a distant relative of a slightly VIP (cerno would call them a DROASVIP), the whole area is closed down for a period of several hours to let the person through and this happens many times a day because so many people want to be seen as important. Well we have none of that over here, where British understatement and head down behaviour is all the rage, not that we have rages.

It was funny to watch. The pomp and circumstance that is part of our monarchy, the way in which Gordon had to officially go and see the Queen to tender his resignation. The helicopter camera followed his five minute journey and then other cameras showed him entering the Palace. After that we waited and the TV anchormen, desperately seeking things to say while we all waited, speculated on what exactly the Queen would say to him and how long things would take.

The level of detail that the presenters talked about was astounding, yet I couldn't help find myself being caught up in it and being interested in things that, on balance, probably weren't relevant to the running of a country.

My mind, and you won't be surprised about this, went on a wild extrapolating spree. I wondered if the Queen would have made some sandwiches for Gordon, if he might have asked to use the toilet before he left. Would she, at the end of the meeting, ask if he wanted to stay for some pot luck? And, seeing as he did work for her really, would she accept his resignation and, if so, what sort of reference would she give him?

Some time later he left, clearly not being asked to stay for dinner, he'd probably stop off at an Indian and get a takeaway on the way home, not that he had a home anymore. I thought this was a bit thoughtless of the Queen to be honest, but then she's not Sri Lankan and she might have been keen to see Eastenders, which was on hold until things had finished. She may have let him use the phone at the Palace to ring the Indian and order his food, that would have been the decent thing to do.

As his car pulled out of Buckingham Palace the commentators remarked on two things that were so British and insignificant yet strangely important. The first was the fact that the guards at the Palace saluted Mr Brown when his car entered the gates but then, when he left, they also saluted him, which they shouldn't have done.

Our esteemed commentators told us that it was correct protocol to salute the Prime Minister but he left as a common man and therefore didn't warrant a salute. Perhaps they had decided to throw protocol to the wind and act a bit madly. In royal circles giving a chap a salute he's not entitled to is like dancing the baila with your sarong folded up at the back to reveal your bum to everyone; a little bit crazy and mad but something we've all done.

The second thing was along the same lines. He arrived with the aforementioned Police escort and outriders but leaving as a civilian meant that he wasn't entitled to all of that. So he exited the grounds of Buckingham Palace being driven in his car with no privileges whatsoever. The helicopter footage showed his car on its own with no entourage, getting stuck in traffic and queuing with the rest of the plebs, most of whom were travelling home blissfully unaware of who was sitting in the back of the car next to them.

After that was all done it was the turn of David Cameron, the leader of the conservatives and now our new Prime Minister, to do the same thing, but in reverse. He turned up at the Queen's house in his solo car, battling through the London traffic like any civilian, to "be invited" by Her Maj to form a government.

I reckon this "be invited" terminology was an interview of sorts. She probably asked him about his previous jobs, why he left them, what his strengths and weaknesses are, that kind of thing. Of course whether he lives locally and if he's ever run a country before would have been taken into consideration very seriously and they might have haggled over the salary a bit, maybe Cameron held out for a slightly higher specification car or a longer lunch break.

Finally, before offering him the job, she would have asked him about his personal interests, what level of badminton he actually plays, just to establish if he'd bullshitted on his CV, standard stuff.

Whatever happened it was enough for the Queen to give him the job and the new Prime Minister left, with Police escort. I can't recall if the guards saluted him, but he headed to Downing Street where he gave a quick speech and went in, presumably to meet his new staff. His wife was with him. I guess she wanted to have a look, see where the hoover's kept and what redecorating she wants to do, that kind of thing.

Why am I optimistic?

Well I'm not a fan of the conservatives per se. But most people I've encountered have expressed exasperation with Gordon Brown and the labour party. It hasn't helped that Brown isn't a charismatic looking leader, if he went out on the pull with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair it's a safe bet that he'd be the one going home alone at the end of the night.

On the other hand, while it seems so many were disillusioned with labour and Brown, there weren't many who strongly backed one of the alternatives. I was one of these types; a fundamentally labour person who had doubts if labour under Brown was the right choice but didn't want the conservatives in and didn't think the Lib dems would get in anyhow.

What we've got, with a little bit of wind in the right direction, could just be a government with hints of everything good. At the very least, in my world that is, it's a government that seems to reflect what the public wanted, except those people who wanted labour.

As the bloke who fixed my watch said; time will tell.

And it all dragged on for so long that they postponed Eastenders.

General Election - British Style

So I voted. It's 6.08 PM on election day as I write and, by the time you read this, the UK will have a new, or maybe the same, Prime Minister.

It's quite good voting in a country like this one. First thing this morning I dug out my electoral register voting slip thing and peered at the map on it to try and figure out where my polling station was. Off I went. Winnie the Pooh would have enjoyed the sun and blue sky and hummed a little ditty, something along the lines of

"Dum dum di dum di dum"

I'm not a fucking talking bear so I didn't. I just did my usual thing; walked and tried to look cool in a not trying to look cool way. The polling station was the local library and as British as chicken tikka masala; quiet, calm and understated.

There wasn't the slightest feeling of impending violence, no white vans lurked suspiciously and things were generally quieter than on one of the library's normal working days. As I walked towards the entrance a sweet old woman asked for my polling card number and made a note of it, they do that to look at turnout I think, and then I went in and did my thing.

X marked the spot and I had two votes, one for the Parliamentary election and another for the local council election. I read the instructions on the wall of my booth, trying to convey that air of knowing what I was doing, as if I was glancing at the wall with disinterest rather than reading the instructions before my maiden parachute jump.

Then I jumped. Well, I bunged a few Xs in the appropriate places, hardly a parachute jump to be honest.

As I left I was accosted by the chap at the front, the one who'd watched to make sure I put the ballot paper in the box properly. It sounds easy but you'd be surprised at how nervous I was about doing it correctly.

"Excuse me, can I ask you a question" the chap said.

I baulked that little bit, thinking that it was inappropriate for one of these official fellows to ask who I'd voted for.

"Have you got a brother?" he continued.

"Erm yes" I said. Cleverly. Not that either of their names is actually "Cleverly", like Beverley, which seems to be a name strangely popular among Sri Lankan men. Why is this? I've never met a white man called Beverley but have known three Sri Lankan males with the B moniker.

Turns out that the chap went to school at my old school and was a classmate of Music Biz bro. We had a little catch up talk and then parted.

And that was it. On the way out the sweet old woman asked me the same question as she had on the way in, then realised her mistake and apologised profusely.

Off I went with a total lack of ink marks applied to any of my fingers, or even those of my grandmother.

As I write this the country has been enveloped by a certain eerie calmness. Campaigning is over and I guess many people are still to vote. It's three or four hours until the post election results programmes begin on all the TV channels and each of them attempts to parade the most eye catching technology and the best analysis.

Once the counts start to come in all hell will break loose. Every expert in the country will be predicting all sorts of things and swingometers will be swinging more than King Louie out of Jungle Book on a banana hunt.

But one thing I reckon is a certainty.

Tomorrow, or today, whatever the result, whoever we decide we want in charge of the country, and it will be our decision, the loser won't be arrested and charged with, well, unknown charges.

Hmmm....democracy. I think I like it, though I prefer string hoppers.

Centre For Monitoring Election Violence????

Just a thought here.

Wouldn't it be far more positive, constructive and generally in the better direction if the Centre For Monitoring Election Violence (CEMV) was actually called the Centre For Monitoring Election Peace?

It's a bit radical I know, but hell, you know me.

Land Like No Other (unconfirmed)

Like so many other diasporic Sri Lankans I'm at my desk watching things unfold from afar, which is not to say that there are loads of us huddled around my desk, you probably know what I mean though.

Twitter, Facebook, email and text messaging are working as hard as a Polish builder in London to keep me as informed as possible. With the way the motherland is I wonder if I'm more, less or just differently informed compared to you people out there.

Latest reports, all unconfirmed, say that SF is at the US Embassy at the moment, the Cinammon Lakeside is surrounded by armed personnel and Delifrance has run out of Tuna mayonnaise. Things are that bad.

The election results look to be firmly in favour of MR, but who knows for sure at this stage? As I type I've just seen on FB that state media has declared MR to be the winner, but that there's no word from the elections commisioner.

The government is to sue SF and four German tourists in the swimming pool at the Cinammon Lakeside have complained about the noise.

The vote went with SF in the North East and MR in the rest of the country, or so it seems. It suggests that those in the North East, those who voted at least, wanted change. The rest of the country wanted more of the same.

And now a government minister has announced that they've provided security to the hotel where SF is staying. Hmmmm....... is my considered opinion on that one.

And crazily I've just been looking at the availability of flights in the coming weeks. I doubt I'll be able to organise the time and diary windows to do it, but I really feel that calling, the one to get out there and smell that aroma of Serendib, to be immersed in things.

Yes, it's fucking mental and crazy, but when Sri Lanka is in your blood it stays there. (unconfirmed).

PS - thanks to Groundviews, Indi, Dinidu and too many others to mention for all the updates on all the mediums.

The View From London

So here we are, the most important week in Sri Lanka until the next very important one. Everyone's talking about the election, of who'll win and, maybe more importantly, who'll lose.

Yesterday I had lunch with a bunch of diasporic Lankans and the conversation, in between juicy chunks of gossip about various CMB 7 types, wandered over to thoughts on the election. One fellow said that he reckoned, if the turnout is high, then SF would win. But he said that the turnout could be low and then Mahinda will get his next term.

If I was voting I'd face a tough choice. In one corner we have the President incumbent, the one, the only President who managed to defeat the LTTE. It's a fact, one that really cannot be disputed. We can argue about the methods, the Human rights issues, the allegations, the videos and the Western conspiracy theories, but we can't argue against the fact that Mahinda Rajapkase was the President who finally ended the decades of conflict.

In the other corner we've got Sarath Fonseka, a fact you probably don't need me to tell you, the General who won the war. As a politician he has a track record that's about as long as something very, very short, like me or any other average height Sri Lankan. I don't mean we have a short political track record, I mean we're short, often so short that we don't get any taller as we walk towards you.

As I see it you're faced with a simple scenario; vote for Rajapakse if you want more of the same. The nepotism, the despotism, the corruption and the two fingers up at the international community will continue, maybe even get stronger with MR in for another term.

If you want change then the only option is a vote for the General (retired). But you don't actually know if he can give you change, or if he does, whether it will actually be change for the better.

If I had a vote I think I'd give it to SF, just to take a chance and hope for reformation.

I wouldn't hold my breath though, it just seems like the only way to find out what will happen.

Kottu Stats Gone Mad?

A cursory glance at the Kottu stats made me do a double take. Twice.

Are the most popular Lankan blogs getting even more hits than usual or has there been a glitch in the system?

One thing's for sure; with the election looming larger than a pair of old Muslim aunts at a Sri Lankan wedding, the Lankanosphere's taken on a very different look and feel to normal, whatever normal is. Politics, of the Presidential kind, is all the rage these days.

Meanwhile I've been learning Mr Brightside and wondering what it is about it that so many people love.

Et vous?

To Not Vote Or To Not Not Vote

David Blacker's comment on this eloquent and well written piece by Electra got me thinking. DB says, and I quote, hence the quotation marks:

"Whatever your viewpoint, I don’t think not voting is the answer. That’s the equivalent of saying I’m going up to my room, lemme know when it’s all better. To not vote is to avoid participation. I think a major fault of many SL voters is to want to back a winner rather than vote in a winner. In SL sometimes change for change’s sake isn’t an entirely bad thing. However, I think there are clear differences between the candidates — and just as important — between their allies."

It got me thinking about the issue of choosing not to vote in a democratic election. You see, fundamentally I believe that we, in whatever democracy we live, have the right to abstain. That right in itself is a part of the democratic process. It's an example of freedom, one of the two pillars of democracy, the other being pol sambol as we all know.

However, David also has a valid point when he says that not voting is the equivalent of saying I'm going up to my room until it's all better. In one way it is avoiding participation, in another way it's participating by not engaging with the process, which in itself can be interpreted as engaging with the process of democracy.

In the very specific case of the forthcoming Lankan Presidential election we have two main candidates and the likelihood, or the definite situation, is that one of them is going to win. Go and vote for one of the other twenty candidates and you're effectively throwing away a vote. So the choice lies between throwing away a vote with one of the minor candidates or giving your backing to SF or MR.

Many people don't back SF or MR, saying that it's a Hobson's choice. It's like being up shit creek without a paddle then getting thrown one made of crepe paper and chewing gum. These people are then in the position of voting not for the person they want but against the person they want the least. Of course not voting adds to the equation the very real possibility that your vote gets used without your knowledge anyway.

To me this is one of the most frustrating aspects to politics and elections and it's not unique to Sri Lanka by any means. We're facing the prospect of an election here in the UK and I'd be in the same position, that of voting for the party I thought was the least bad.

What is the solution to this dilemma?

One possibility is that, should the turnout for an election be below a predetermined figure, then the results are declared as invalid and a further election be called. But it's impractical. An invalid election would mean that the incumbent Prez or Government would probably remain in power until the next election, thereby perpetuating the problem of the people's dissatisfaction, not to mention the potential cost of further elections.

A further option is to somehow share power between the people who get a percentage of the vote if the overall turnout is low. So, if the required number of voters isn't reached, then a coalition government must be formed with the power divided in proportion to the votes each part actually receives. I don't know how this could work with regards to a Presidential election and it's got more drawbacks than the circumcision department at Apollo.

What ideas have you got? There must be a way in which we the voters are able to express our dissatisfaction with the options we're offered. Or is that what democracy should be to start with?

I'm off up to my room now.

No Island Is An Island

"Pity the poor Sri Lankan voter" began Chris Patten in his Op Ed in the New York Times.

And, before he'd even typed that final r in "voter" a band of people could be heard shouting from their platforms. They weren't just any platforms either, they were platforms on rooftops. They were shouting about the enemy West not supporting Sri Lanka, how it oh so hates Sri Lanka, of Chris Patten's "awful, patronizing and counter productive piece" and sounding like a "colonial dick".

From where I view things, yes I know, a million miles away from Sri Lanka, never having actually lived there and about as Lankan as George Dubya B wearing his cowboy boots and cowboy hat, at least that's what some think, the picture is vastly different.

"We have a real choice at this election and it's already delivering results" Indi says.

I say you're faced with a choice that really comes down to which moustache you prefer. The fact is that your next Prez will have a moustache, all well and good if you're a facial hair fan but not so rosy if you want a clean shaven chap.

Some of those results are the emptying of the IDP camps, the release of Tissainayagam and of course the building of the new flyover at Dehiwala junction. It's pretty much indisputable that they're good things. It's just the motivation behind them, the what might happen next after the election and the incredible coincidence that these things have only happened since the election was announced that many question.

Tissa's out on bail, the IDP's are no longer the grave potential threat they were to national security they were a few weeks ago and the flyover's only got two lanes anyhow. Putting innocent people in captivity then releasing them is good is it? Or is it fundamentally wrong that they were held in the first place?

"How dare the West criticise when the Americans and British went and invaded Iraq under false pretences and they're not being held accountable for that?" I've been asked.

"A million people protested against the Iraqi invasion in the UK and you still went ahead" I've also been told.

It has more or less been proved that Saddam didn't have WMDs and therefore we, the British public, were misled or misinformed. But to me the most salient point is that a million, or however many people, were allowed to voice their opposition. I didn't, I think I had a band practice that night, but I could have protested without thinking realistically that I might get shot or put in prison for the rest of my life as a consequence. I quite like that.

On top of that, I wasn't personally responsible for the Iraq situation, nor for Afghanistan, so telling me that I've no right to criticise things in Lanka because of the actions of the West is akin to telling me that I shouldn't talk about the dangers of driving at speed because a friend of mine got done for speeding once, which is to say, irrelevant.

Indi, and I'm sorry to focus on him so much but his is one of the most widely read blogs and his opinion is weighty at times, goes on to say

"The JVP and people like Gotabaya Rajapakse are trying to spread this idea of an international conspiracy against Sri Lanka and Patten plays right into their hands."

I think it's actually people with opinions like Indi's one who are playing into the aforementioned hands. The first line of defence, that of the international conspiracy, is becoming cliched and tiresome, it's a way of avoiding the very real issues, like a child sticking its fingers in its ears and saying "I'm not listening, I can't hear you."

"You don't live here, you don't know what it's really like" is another thing many say to many people. As a fellow who falls firmly in the you don't live here category I can only concur. But I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing.

The views of the diaspora and of any individual from afar are going to be different, they'll perhaps be more detached and less influenced by some of the nitty gritty and very local issues. That, however, doesn't make those views wrong or bad, just different. Perhaps, just perhaps, there's something to be gained from listening to the Chris Pattens of this world.

We the diaspora sit here in our ivory sugar coated towers and preach at you, the poor Sri Lankans who have to deal with things on a day to day basis. Well yes, in a way that's true, but another way to view things is that the perspectives of people at ground level and those at other levels can be used together to build up an overall picture upon which ideas and solutions can be based.

Let's stick two fingers up at the West, let's tell them where to put their money, their GSP Plus concessions, we don't need it, we'll manage without, some also say. Sri Lanka, like most other countries, depends heavily on international trade. There's tourism, garments and a plethora of other trading that goes on between Serendib and other countries.

It's all well and good to make a big gesture and say that we'll do fine on our own, we don't need your aid, but it's not about aid alone. There's also international relations, diplomatic relationships and strategic alliances to be considered.

I for one don't want my motherland to become the Chinese Republic of Sri Lanka. I want the chinese restaurants in Sri Lanka to be called chinese restaurants, not just restaurants.

For what it's worth I think Sri Lanka, the entity we all love with that weird passion we can't explain, needs to stop acting like the petulant kid. Disagree with the West? Sure, feel free. But stop telling others that they don't have the right to an opinion because their shoes are the wrong colour or because they once did something wrong.

My Thoughts On The Election

With only a couple of weeks to go until the Presidential election things are hotting up and reminding me of everything that is bad about politics the world over.

The mudslinging is relentless and the arms of the slingers are rotating like those of a cartoon character throwing, well mud at a wall. I was chatting to an old friend at lunchtime yesterday about the imminent general election here in the UK and was I remarked on how governments, Prime Ministers and Presidents are voted out, never in.

Some would jump up and say that Barack Obama was voted in, but I beg to differ. Dubya was voted out for bad grammar, we all know that.

MR's campaign is seemingly being paid for by state funds and based around pointing out the things that are so wrong about SF. SF's campaign isn't being paid for by state funds and largely consists of saying bad things about the Rajapaksas.

And then we all know that the few positive election promises made by both of them will be reneged upon anyway. The MR supporters tell people not to vote for SF as he'll never actually abolish the executive presidency as he has promised to do, but MR promised and failed on that count too. So it's better to vote for the chap who's failed on one count than on the one who'll no doubt fail on the same count if he gets the chance.

I'm glad I'm not eligible to vote. It would be a Hobson's choice for me; do I vote for the bloke who has never really run a country during peacetime or do I vote for the other one? Do I vote for the crook or the patriot? I'm as confused as a fart in a colander.

Vut too dooo?

Which way to go?

I know, I'd vote for the one with the moustache.