I would like to congratulate President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his
Cabinet of Ministers for the courageous decision to ban the import of
highly-polluting two-stroke engines from the end of this year.
This ban is long overdue and is one of the best decisions of any
Government in recent times and is really in the interest of the public,
especially young children and the elderly people.
Minister Maithripala Sirisena must be congratulated for his courage
in moving in this matter as minister in charge of the subject of
environment.
However, I find that there is a lot misunderstanding about the
government's move and would be grateful if you could permit me to
elaborate on what exactly is proposed by the government and how it would
benefit all.
For the record, this is what the government has proposed:
1. Ban the import of two-stroke vehicles from the end of 2007.
2. Ban the import of spare parts for two-stroke engines from 2011.
There is no move whatsoever to ban existing two-stroke
three-wheelers, numbering about 280,000. Therefore, there is no question
of any three-wheel operator being without a job after 2008.
One could argue that they will run out of spares after 2011. In
theory this is correct. But, it would be more than optimistic to expect
a two-stroke three-wheeler engine to last for more than a few years.
Wear and tear on two-stroke engines is very high, certainly higher
than comparable four-stroke engines. So, there is no question of the ban
driving three-wheelers off the road. They will do that themselves,
thanks to the antiquated, inefficient and inferior technology adopted by
the Indian manufacturer.
The Government must also look at measures to penalise the company
that has irresponsibly flooding the Sri Lankan market with
environmentally hazardous vehicles.
If we can ban the use of siri-siri bags on the grounds of
environmental pollution (another good move of the Rajapaksa
administration) we should immediately slap a ban on the highly polluting
Bajaj three-wheelers and other offenders.
Some of the points to ponder are:
1. The sharp increase in the import of anti-asthma inhalers in recent
years with almost every schoolchild reporting some sort of respiratory
problem. For those travelling in air-conditioned cars, smoke from other
vehicles may not be a big problem, but for schoolchildren and commoners
on motorcycles and in non-AC vehicles, breathing is a challenge.
2. Why has India - the country from which Sri Lanka imports most of
its three-wheelers - banned the use of two-stroke engines and prohibited
these three-wheelers from operating in metropolitan areas?
3. There are plenty of other vehicles belching smoke and they too add
to pollution. But look at the numbers: there are over 280,000 three
-wheelers compared to 3,800 buses operated daily by the SLCTB and
roughly double that number of private-owned buses. The police already
have enough teeth to enforce anti-pollution laws and they should ensure
strict enforcement for all contraveners, even though the bigger vehicles
contribute less towards pollution compared to the huge fleet of 280,000
trishaws spewing out raw, unburnt gasoline and engine oil. (Although
badly maintained diesel buses emit black smoke, those emissions are less
harmful compared to fumes from gasoline engines.)
The authorities should not wait till the year is over to implement
the ban. They could use fiscal measures such as slapping an
environmental clean-up tax on all two-stroke engine vehicles and make it
uneconomical for anyone to import them. It is not as if there is no
alternative.
Anyone who wants to import a Bajaj three-wheeler can still get down a
four-stroke machine which is slightly more expensive than the two-stroke
model, but lasts longer, is better on fuel economy and much more
environmentally friendly.
There is another aspect to the safety of three-wheel vehicles. We
should ask ourselves where we want this country to be in the next five
to ten years.
By introducing three-wheelers which do not meet any safety standards
of any country, we have made our roads that much more unsafe and
produced a new generation of Sri Lankans with chronic respiratory
problems.
SUNIL MENDIS
Colombo
via email
I condemn the smear campaign against our leading personality Mohan
Samaranayake, said to be by Orla Clinton of UN agency.
Mohan Samaranayake is an asset of Sri Lanka who is not reluctant to
expedite genuine comments, good or bad on any socio-economic entity.
Some of the points which have puzzled people like us in so called 3rd
world countries, especially he described in the media the terms such as
globalization and strategies invisibly led by the so called super-powers
in the world.
Needless to say Samaranayake has the guts to comment on the truth
about terrorist organisations like the LTTE in media being true Sri
Lankan who can understand the LTTE's ruthless and harmfulness to Mother
Sri Lanka.
We can't find any fault with Samaranayake's comments but anybody who
could not or needless to understand peacefulness or harmonized Sri Lanka
can automatically find faults.
Let us give more confidence and moral support to Mr. Samaranayake to
face this situation, prior to Mr. Samaranayake's receipt of seamer
attacks from the culprits.
Ananda Manage
Kandana
via email
I congratulate Dayan Jayatilleka for his analytical reporting on
'Victory at Vakarai' (Reference DN Jan. 22). The last paragraph of his
well-written essay deserves the attention of the small number of
statesmen amongst the abundant camp of political adventurists of Sri
Lanka.
The majority Sinhala Buddhists would undoubtedly benefit from
properly understanding and assimilating the relentless truth of
escalating global trends in Centric Politics.
Embracing extreme views in Sri Lanka would help the LTTE cause. I am
sure Sinhala Buddhists fully understand, whether it is religion or
politics, Middle Path is the Right Path.
JAYATI WEERAKOON
via email
I obtained receipt bearing no. 6845, for posting a registered airmail
letter enclosing a valuable document to my son in UK, through the
sub-post office in my area on November 1, 2006 for Rs. 175. Until
December 1, 2006 as it has not reached my son, I made inquiries from the
sub-post office concerned.
To my surprise, I was given a form and asked to pay Rs. 40, get the
form countersigned by both post offices (sub and the main) and handed
over to the main post office, to be forwarded to the relevant division
for query.
On view of the unnecessary hassle that I was asked to go through
which would have taken long and as the document was required urgently, I
gave-up the idea of querying and proceed with a fresh application which
cost me altogether around Rs. 650 again, to obtain same and made
arrangements to hand deliver the document through a friend which also
took about another two and half months.
What I cannot understand is "are we still living in the stone age"
when there are much more speedy ways of obtaining such information.
Furthermore, why should I as the sender, having spent a sum of Rs. 175
only for postage, made to go through hassle at an additional cost to me.
When a customer pays an extra fee to register a letter, isn't there a
guarantee of safe despatch of a letter/parcel and in the event of loss
of transit which cannot be forgiven. Has the customer got to pay
additionally and go through a tedious process to ascertain the fate.
I believe, once a customer hands a letter/parcel to the sub/main post
office, it is the sole duty of the postal authorities and feel with
latest technology available, the main post office should be in a
position to provide a reply to the customer within a few hours or a day
the most.
Otherwise, the latest technology available at the GPO will be of no
use and the Department is not making good use of the assets in
possession, which has cost the department much money.
In view of this unnecessary delay, may I pose this question to the
Post Master General to provide a reply through the courtesy of your
column, as to my knowledge one can only get a query settled promptly
this way.
Otherwise, it will either end-up in the wastepaper basket or lie on
somebody's table until a reminder is sent and the most important
question is who should bear the loss of this valuable document, and its
cost, the delay the many unwanted overseas telephone calls, both parties
had to make in view of the inordinate delay and also what is the purpose
of registered mail if they are lost in transit.
However, todate the document is missing and wish to find out the fate
of same, as definitely somebody has robbed it or else, if should have
been returned to the sender, being a registered.
Hence, over to you Post Master General for a speedy reply and
reimbursement of all expenses of the missing letter.
B.S.G.M.
Moratuwa
|
