Features
More on inconsistencies and conflicts among Acts
Closure of Public utilities Commission – II
By Dr Janaka Ratnasiri
This is further to the writer’s piece on the same title appearing in The Island of 07.12.2020. See https://island.lk/closure-of-public-utilities-commission-cutting-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face/.
LETTER FROM PRESIDENT’S SECRETARY
The organization under scrutiny, the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), was established in 2002 through an Act of Parliament No. 35 of 2002, mainly for the purpose of regulating the utilities industries in the country. Initially, the electricity and water service industries came under the Act. Later, through a resolution passed in the Parliament, the Petroleum Industry was also included.
The Commission comprises five members appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. However, any member could be removed for any alleged unbecoming reason, only after the Minister submitting a report to Parliament, including the complaint against the member, as well as the member’s representations, and the majority accepting the recommendation for the removal of the member. Under such a background for the removal of a Commission member, it is unlikely that the President’s Secretary has the powers to close down the Commission altogether.
Further, it appears that in instructing to close down the PUCSL, natural justice has not been exercised, which requires that a person, or an institute, is given adequate notice, receive a fair and unbiased hearing, before a decision is made against the person/institute. If the Government felt that the PUCSL was responsible for the alleged delays in building power plants and implementing generation plans, the logical action the Government should have taken was to appoint a competent and unbiased committee to examine the allegations and make recommendations, after giving a hearing to the PUCSL’s explanations.
Even if the allegations are found valid, the correct course of follow-up action would have been to either remove the Chairman, or the Director General, if they are found responsible, or amend the Act, and certainly not close down the Commission. If the government still feels that the PUCSL is not wanted, an Act needs to be passed in Parliament to repeal the original PUCSL Act. The writer believes the President’s Secretary is well aware of this procedure. Further, in an hour-long interview given by him to a TV Channel on Sunday (6th) which went past midnight, he described how he takes decisions on important national issues. In that context, it is very unlikely that the alleged letter was issued by him.
Perhaps, the response of the government Parliamentarians, claiming that the letter was a fake, when the matter was taken up by a member in the Opposition, may have some truth. According to media reports, their attempts to contact the Secretary to the Treasury to verify the authenticity of the letter ended up with no success. If the letter is indeed a fake, the government should find out who originated it and prosecute him for dis-reputing the government.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PUCSL AND THE CEB
Nevertheless, it is necessary to clarify certain matters pertaining to these two organizations, the PUCSL and the CEB, irrespective whether the letter is a fake or not. This is because there is a burning issue between them as evidenced from the remarks made in the Budget Speech and by the CEB Chairman, described in the writer’s previous article. Hence this write-up is published.
In the first half of the last century, electricity was available only in Municipal and Urban Council areas, and they themselves generated the electricity and distributed it within their own jurisdiction areas under the general supervision of the Department of Government Electrical Undertakings. With the development of the Laxapana Hydropower Complex, beginning 1950, and building of a national grid to transmit the electricity generated to the rest of the country, the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) was established under Parliament Act No. 17 of 1969. The CEB has been granted powers to generate, transmit and distribute electricity in bulk or otherwise, under Article 11 of this Act.
The Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) was established mainly for the purpose of regulating the utilities industries in the country, including the electricity industry. In order to give effect to this provision in this Act, the Sri Lanka Electricity Act, No. 20 of 2009 was passed for the purpose of regulating the electricity industry. By Article 2(1) of the Act, the administration of the provisions of this Act was vested in the PUCSL and the Commission shall exercise, perform and discharge all the powers, functions and duties as are conferred on or assigned to it under this Act.
Among the functions vested in the PUCSL under Article 3(1) of the Electricity Act No. 20 are the following:
to act as the economic, technical and safety regulator for the electricity industry in Sri Lanka,
to advise the Government on all matters concerning the generation, transmission, distribution, supply and use of electricity in Sri Lanka; and
to approve such technical and operational codes and standards as are required from time to time to be developed by licensees;
It should be noted that the PUCSL serves as the regulator, not only for the electricity sector, but also for the water services and petroleum industries. Having such a regulator is an internationally accepted practice and it enhances the confidence among overseas parties to invest in these industries and the credit-worthiness of regulated industries. Any attempts to close down the PUCSL is therefore a very shortsighted measure, to say the least.
PERMISSION TO GENERATE, TRANSMIT AND DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY
Under the Article 9(2) of the Electricity Act No. 20, “No person other than the Ceylon Electricity Board, (CEB) shall be eligible to apply for the issue of a transmission licence”, while the CEB, a local authority or a company incorporated in Sri Lanka is eligible to apply for a transmission or a distribution licence. When a Chinese Company was planning to build a transmission line from its power plant being built at Hambantota to their industrial estate, they had to do it jointly with the CEB to circumvent this restriction.
In the past, generation licences have been issued to several independent power producers (IPP) for operating thermal power plants and to a large number of IPPs for operating renewable energy power plants. Whereas, only one company, a subsidiary of the CEB has been issued a distribution licence. It may be recalled that prior to the establishment of the CEB, generation and distribution functions, within the municipal and urban councils were handled solely by the respective local bodies.
Under the Article 13(3) of the Act, “a person shall not be granted both a transmission licence and (a) a generation licence; or(b) a distribution licence, while the Article 13(4) says “a person shall not be granted both a generation licence and a distribution licence”.
What this means is that both the PUCSL and the CEB were acting in violation of the Electricity Act No. 20, because the CEB was issued licences by the PUCSL for generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, disregarding the provisions in the Act.
In the Amended Electricity Act No. 31 of 2013, the Article 9 of the original Act was amended to “exempt any person or category of persons from the requirement of obtaining a licence for the generation or distribution of electricity, where such person engages in community-based electricity generating project on a non-commercial basis. However, as described before, under the CEB Act 79 of 1979, the CEB has the powers to generate, transmission and distribute electricity in bulk or otherwise.
So, there appears to be a conflict between the CEB Act and the Electricity Act No. 20. Neither the Electricity Act 20 of 2009 nor the Electricity (Amended) Act No. 31 of 2013 has repealed the CEB Act. Hence, the provisions of the CEB Act with regard to its powers to generate, transmit and distribute electricity still remain valid.
REFORMING THE POWER SECTOR
In order to comply with the provisions of the Electricity Act, it is necessary to have separate entities for undertaking the three functions – generation, transmission and distribution. For this purpose, a draft bill titled Electricity Reforms Bill was presented to the Parliament in 2002, outlining sector reforms comprising restructuring of the electricity industry by breaking the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) and Lanka Electricity Company (LECO) into several independent state-owned companies to carry out generation, transmission, and distribution functions.
The Bill when presented to the Parliament brought in strong protests from many quarters including CEB trade unions and other trade unions as well as from several political parties. They saw this Bill as an initial step towards privatizing the CEB and consequently loss of employment for its staff. Once the government gave the workers an assurance that the companies formed will hold 51% share by the government and that the workers’ rights will be safeguarded, the protests died down and the Bill was passed in March 2002.
It was gazetted as Electricity Reforms Act No. 28 of 2002 on 13 December 2002. However, the necessary order to give effect to the Act was not gazetted by the Minister and as a result the Act was left in abeyance, until it was repealed by Article 63(1) of the Electricity Act No. 20 of 2009.
However, considering the need to unbundle the CEB, including compliance with the Electricity Act and also to make its administration more flexible, the writer published an article in The Island of 07.12.2020, highlighting the advantages that could accrue by unbundling the CEB as recommended by several international consultants. The article is accessible via the link: https://island.lk/power-sector-reforms-urgent-need-to-revisit-them/.
CEB’S LONG-TERM GENERATION EXPANSION PLAN
In Article 13 of the Sri Lanka Electricity (Amended) Act No. 31 of 2013, the Section 43 of the principal enactment was amended and the following section is substituted: (2) A transmission licensee shall, based on the future demand forecast as specified in the Least Cost Long Term Generation Expansion (LCLTGE) Plan prepared by such licensee and as amended after considering the submissions of the distribution and generation licensees and approved by the Commission, submit proposals to proceed with the procuring of any new generation plant or for the expansion of the generation capacity of an existing plant, to the Commission for its written approval.
Though the requirement that procuring of any new generation plant or expansion of generation capacity should be based on the LCLTGE Plan prepared by the CEB has been incorporated into the Act, the concept of a LCLTGE Plan itself is highly flawed, as described in the writer’s previous article. Hence, the Act itself is placed on an unsound footing when it specifies that compliance with the Plan is necessary to proceed with a project to build a new power plant. The other reason is that the Plan is updated once in two or three years and the requirements specified in the Plan with respect to the type of plants and their capacities keep changing. Hence, it is difficult to ensure compliance with such a Plan.
In the proposed amendments to the Acts in the Electricity Sector, priority needs to be given to exclude the reference to the compliance of any new power project with the CEB’s LCLTGE Plan for reasons given above.
SRI LANKA SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AUTHORITY’S ROLE
The Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority (SLSEA) was established under the SLSEA Act No. 35 of 2007, with the objective to “(a) identify, assess and develop renewable energy resources with a view to enhancing energy security and thereby derive economic and social benefits to the country and (b) develop a conducive environment for encouraging and promoting investments for renewable energy (RE) development in the country”. The idea was to promote the generation of electricity through renewable energy projects. However, there are many barriers put in against this.
The Act specifies that no person shall engage in or carry on an on-grid (Article 16) or off-grid (Article 23) renewable energy project .. except under the authority of a permit issued by the Authority, and the person who is desirous of engaging in and carrying on an on-grid renewable energy project shall make an application to the Director-General for the same in the prescribed form together with the prescribed fee and the prescribed documents. The fee for issuing the application form, the writer understands, is LKR 100,000 irrespective of the size or the type of the project.
Further, the SLSEA Act says that “a permit issued on approval of an application .. shall be valid for a period of twenty (20) years, provided that the developer commences the project and begins to generate electricity within two years of being issued with the permit. At the end of the period of twenty years, the Board may .. extend the period, of validity of the permit by a further period, not exceeding twenty (20) more years. Does this mean that after the lapse of 40 years, the 100 MW wind power plant being commissioned today (8th) at a cost of USD 150 million, will have to be sold for scrap?
Then there is another problem faced by an investor of an RE project. According to the SLSEA Act, he has to obtain a permit upon payment of a fee, from the SLSEA to commence the project. But the Electricity Act No. 31 says that he has to obtain a generation permit from the PUCSL for the same project. Then, at the end of the project, he has to get the approval of the CEB to get the project output connected to the grid and sell power to the CEB. In the past, several projects permitted by the SLSEA have been delayed for years by the CEA citing various excuses which would discourage the private sector to invest on renewable energy projects in Sri Lanka. In any case, what is the necessity to have so many permits for a single project?
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ELECTRICITY SECTOR ACTS
The 2021 Budget has made a proposal “to amend the Public Utilities Commission Act and the Ceylon Electricity Board Act to allow the rapid implementation of projects”. There are actually five (5) Parliamentary Acts that govern the development of the electricity sector in the country. These are CEB Act No. 29 of 1979, PUCSL Act No. 35 of 2002, SLSEA Act No. 35 of 2007, Electricity Act No. 20 of 2009 and Electricity (Amendment) Act No. 31 of 2013.
Naturally, there will be conflicts and inconsistencies among them, making decision making and implementation difficult. Limited space does not allow the writer to list these deficiencies one by one. A few, described briefly in this write up above, are summarized below.
Conflict in the CEB’s power to generate, transmit and distribute electricity
Removal of the compliance with the CEB’s Least Cost Long Term Generation Expansion Plan
Multitude of permits required for undertaking renewable energy projects
Community RE projects exempted a permit under Elect. Act No. 31 but not under the SLSEA Act.
Need to unbundle the CEB for greater efficiency and ease in operations
In addition, often the Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) are referred to the Attorney General which causes further delays in granting approvals for the projects and sometimes denial for not conforming to the Act.
CONCLUSION
It is desirable if a competent committee comprising representatives from the Ministry of Power, Ministry of Renewable Energy, Ministry of Finance, Legal Draftsman’s Dept, PUCSL, CEB, SLSEA as well as representatives from the IPP industry, Renewable Energy Industry and an independent academic be appointed to examine these Acts and make recommendations necessary to streamline the project approval process and improve the general efficiency of the system for rapid utilization of RE sources in the electricity sector ultimately leading to realization of the President’s target of achieving 70% of electricity generation by 2030 from renewable sources.
- News Advertiesment
See Kapruka’s top selling online shopping categories such as Toys, Grocery, Flowers, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Clothing and Electronics. Also see Kapruka’s unique online services such as Money Remittence,News, Courier/Delivery, Food Delivery and over 700 top brands. Also get products from Amazon & Ebay via Kapruka Gloabal Shop into Sri Lanka.
Features
Islamophobia and the threat to democratic development
There’s an ill more dangerous and pervasive than the Coronavirus that’s currently sweeping Sri Lanka. That is the fear to express one’s convictions. Across the public sector of the country in particular many persons holding high office are stringently regulating and controlling the voices of their consciences and this bodes ill for all and the country.
The corrupting impact of fear was discussed in this column a couple of weeks ago when dealing with the military coup in Myanmar. It stands to the enduring credit of ousted Myanmarese Head of Government Aung San Suu Kyi that she, perhaps for the first time in the history of modern political thought, singled out fear, and not power, as the principal cause of corruption within the individual; powerful or otherwise.
To be sure, power corrupts but the corrupting impact of fear is graver and more devastating. For instance, the fear in a person holding ministerial office or in a senior public sector official, that he would lose position and power as a result of speaking out his convictions and sincere beliefs on matters of the first importance, would lead to a country’s ills going unaddressed and uncorrected.
Besides, the individual concerned would be devaluing himself in the eyes of all irrevocably and revealing himself to be a person who would be willing to compromise his moral integrity for petty worldly gain or a ‘mess of pottage’. This happens all the while in Lankan public life. Some of those who have wielded and are wielding immense power in Sri Lanka leave very much to be desired from these standards.
It could be said that fear has prevented Sri Lanka from growing in every vital respect over the decades and has earned for itself the notoriety of being a directionless country.
All these ills and more are contained in the current controversy in Sri Lanka over the disposal of the bodies of Covid victims, for example. The Sri Lankan polity has no choice but to abide by scientific advice on this question. Since authorities of the standing of even the WHO have declared that the burial of the bodies of those dying of Covid could not prove to be injurious to the wider public, the Sri Lankan health authorities could go ahead and sanction the burying of the bodies concerned. What’s preventing the local authorities from taking this course since they claim to be on the side of science? Who or what are they fearing? This is the issue that’s crying out to be probed and answered.
Considering the need for absolute truthfulness and honesty on the part of all relevant persons and quarters in matters such as these, the latter have no choice but to resign from their positions if they are prevented from following the dictates of their consciences. If they are firmly convinced that burials could bring no harm, they are obliged to take up the position that burials should be allowed.
If any ‘higher authority’ is preventing them from allowing burials, our ministers and officials are conscience-bound to renounce their positions in protest, rather than behave compromisingly and engage in ‘double think’ and ‘double talk’. By adopting the latter course they are helping none but keeping the country in a state of chronic uncertainty, which is a handy recipe for social instabiliy and division.
In the Sri Lankan context, the failure on the part of the quarters that matter to follow scientific advice on the burials question could result in the aggravation of Islamophobia, or hatred of the practitioners of Islam, in the country. Sri Lanka could do without this latter phobia and hatred on account of its implications for national stability and development. The 30 year war against separatist forces was all about the prevention by military means of ‘nation-breaking’. The disastrous results for Sri Lanka from this war are continuing to weigh it down and are part of the international offensive against Sri Lanka in the UNHCR.
However, Islamophobia is an almost world wide phenomenon. It was greatly strengthened during Donald Trump’s presidential tenure in the US. While in office Trump resorted to the divisive ruling strategy of quite a few populist authoritarian rulers of the South. Essentially, the manoeuvre is to divide and rule by pandering to the racial prejudices of majority communities.
It has happened continually in Sri Lanka. In the initial post-independence years and for several decades after, it was a case of some populist politicians of the South whipping-up anti-Tamil sentiments. Some Tamil politicians did likewise in respect of the majority community. No doubt, both such quarters have done Sri Lanka immeasurable harm. By failing to follow scientific advice on the burial question and by not doing what is right, Sri Lanka’s current authorities are opening themselves to the charge that they are pandering to religious extremists among the majority community.
The murderous, destructive course of action adopted by some extremist sections among Muslim communities world wide, including of course Sri Lanka, has not earned the condemnation it deserves from moderate Muslims who make-up the preponderant majority in the Muslim community. It is up to moderate opinion in the latter collectivity to come out more strongly and persuasively against religious extremists in their midst. It will prove to have a cementing and unifying impact among communities.
It is not sufficiently appreciated by governments in the global South in particular that by voicing for religious and racial unity and by working consistently towards it, they would be strengthening democratic development, which is an essential condition for a country’s growth in all senses.
A ‘divided house’ is doomed to fall; this is the lesson of history. ‘National security’ cannot be had without human security and peaceful living among communities is central to the latter. There cannot be any ‘double talk’ or ‘politically correct’ opinions on this question. Truth and falsehood are the only valid categories of thought and speech.
Those in authority everywhere claiming to be democratic need to adopt a scientific outlook on this issue as well. Studies conducted on plural societies in South Asia, for example, reveal that the promotion of friendly, cordial ties among communities invariably brings about healing among estranged groups and produces social peace. This is the truth that is waiting to be acted upon.
Features
Pakistan’s love of Sri Lanka
By Sanjeewa Jayaweera
It was on 3rd January 1972 that our family arrived in Karachi from Moscow. Our departure from Moscow had been delayed for a few weeks due to the military confrontation between Pakistan and India. It ended on 16th December 1971. After that, international flights were not permitted for some time.
The contrast between Moscow and Karachi was unbelievable. First and foremost, Moscow’s temperature was near minus 40 degrees centigrade, while in Karachi, it was sunny and a warm 28 degrees centigrade. However, what struck us most was the extreme warmth with which the airport authorities greeted our family. As my father was a diplomat, we were quickly ushered to the airport’s VIP Lounge. We were in transit on our way to Rawalpindi, the airport serving the capital of Islamabad.
We quickly realized that the word “we are from Sri Lanka” opened all doors just as saying “open sesame” gained entry to Aladdin’s cave! The broad smile, extreme courtesy, and genuine warmth we received from the Pakistani people were unbelievable.
This was all to do with Mrs Sirima Bandaranaike’s decision to allow Pakistani aircraft to land in Colombo to refuel on the way to Dhaka in East Pakistan during the military confrontation between Pakistan and India. It was a brave decision by Mrs Bandaranaike (Mrs B), and the successive governments and Sri Lanka people are still enjoying the fruits of it. Pakistan has been a steadfast and loyal supporter of our country. They have come to our assistance time and again in times of great need when many have turned their back on us. They have indeed been an “all-weather” friend of our country.
Getting back to 1972, I was an early beneficiary of Pakistani people’s love for Sri Lankans. I failed the entrance exam to gain entry to the only English medium school in Islamabad! However, when I met the Principal, along with my father, he said, “Sanjeewa, although you failed the entrance exam, I will this time make an exception as Sri Lankans are our dear friends.” After that, the joke around the family dinner table was that I owed my education in Pakistan to Mrs B!
At school, my brother and I were extended a warm welcome and always greeted “our good friends from Sri Lanka.” I felt when playing cricket for our college; our runs were cheered more loudly than of others.
One particular incident that I remember well was when the Embassy received a telex from the Foreign inistry. It requested that our High Commissioner seek an immediate meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr Zulifikar Ali Bhutto (ZB), and convey a message from Mrs B. The message requested that an urgent shipment of rice be dispatched to Sri Lanka as there would be an imminent rice shortage. As the Ambassador was not in the station, the responsibility devolved on my father.
It usually takes about a week or more to get an audience with the Prime Minister (PM) of a foreign country due to their busy schedule. However, given the urgency, my father spoke to the Foreign Ministry’s Permanent Sectary, who fortunately was our neighbour and sought an urgent appointment. My father received a call from the PM’s secretary around 10 P.M asking him to come over to the PM’s residence. My father met ZB around midnight. ZB was about to retire to bed and, as such, was in his pyjamas and gown enjoying a cigar! He had greeted my father and had asked, “Mr Jayaweera, what can we do for great friend Madam Bandaranaike?. My father conveyed the message from Colombo and quietly mentioned that there would be riots in the country if there is no rice!
ZB had immediately got the Food Commissioner of Pakistan on the line and said, “I want a shipload of rice to be in Colombo within the next 72 hours!” The Food Commissioner reverted within a few minutes, saying that nothing was available and the last export shipment had left the port only a few hours ago to another country. ZB had instructed to turn the ship around and send it to Colombo. This despite protests from the Food Commissioner about terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit prohibiting non-delivery. Sri Lanka got its delivery of rice!
The next was the visit of Mrs B to Pakistan. On arrival in Rawalpindi airport, she was given a hero’s welcome, which Pakistan had previously only offered to President Gaddafi of Libya, who financially backed Pakistan with his oil money. That day, I missed school and accompanied my parents to the airport. On our way, we witnessed thousands of people had gathered by the roadside to welcome Mrs B.
When we walked to the airport’s tarmac, thousands of people were standing in temporary stands waving Sri Lanka and Pakistan flags and chanting “Sri Lanka Pakistan Zindabad.” The noise emanating from the crowd was as loud and passionate as the cheering that the Pakistani cricket team received during a test match. It was electric!
I believe she was only the second head of state given the privilege of addressing both assemblies of Parliament. The other being Gaddafi. There was genuine affection from Mrs B amongst the people of Pakistan.
I always remember the indefatigable efforts of Mr Abdul Haffez Kardar, a cabinet minister and the President of the Pakistan Cricket Board. From around 1973 onwards, he passionately championed Sri Lanka’s cause to be admitted as a full member of the International Cricket Council (ICC) and granted test status. Every year, he would propose at the ICC’s annual meeting, but England and Australia’s veto kept us out until 1981.
I always felt that our Cricket Board made a mistake by not inviting Pakistan to play our inaugural test match. We should have appreciated Mr Kardar and Pakistan’s efforts. In 1974 the Pakistan board invited our team for a tour involving three test matches and a few first-class games. Most of those who played in our first test match was part of that tour, and no doubt gained significant exposure playing against a highly talented Pakistani team.
Several Pakistani greats were part of the Pakistan and India team that played a match soon after the Central Bank bomb in Colombo to prove that it was safe to play cricket in Colombo. It was a magnificent gesture by both Pakistan and India. Our greatest cricket triumph was in Pakistan when we won the World Cup in 1996. I am sure the players and those who watched the match on TV will remember the passionate support our team received that night from the Pakistani crowd. It was like playing at home!
I also recall reading about how the Pakistani government air freighted several Multi Barrell artillery guns and ammunition to Sri Lanka when the A rmy camp in Jaffna was under severe threat from the LTTE. This was even more important than the shipload of rice that ZB sent. This was crucial as most other countries refused to sell arms to our country during the war.
Time and again, Pakistan has steadfastly supported our country’s cause at the UNHCR. No doubt this year, too, their diplomats will work tirelessly to assist our country.
We extend a warm welcome to Mr Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. He is a truly inspirational individual who was undoubtedly an excellent cricketer. Since retirement from cricket, he has decided to get involved in politics, and after several years of patiently building up his support base, he won the last parliamentary elections. I hope that just as much as he galvanized Sri Lankan cricketers, his political journey would act as a catalyst for people like Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene to get involved in politics. Cricket has been called a “gentleman’s game.” Whilst politics is far from it!.
Features
Covid-19 health rules disregarded at entertainment venues?
Believe me, seeing certain videos, on social media, depicting action, on the dance floor, at some of these entertainment venues, got me wondering whether this Coronavirus pandemic is REAL!
To those having a good time, at these particular venues, and, I guess, the management, as well, what the world is experiencing now doesn’t seem to be their concerned.
Obviously, such irresponsible behaviour could create more problems for those who are battling to halt the spread of Covid-19, and the new viriant of Covid, in our part of the world.
The videos, on display, on social media, show certain venues, packed to capacity – with hardly anyone wearing a mask, and social distancing…only a dream..
How can one think of social distancing while gyrating, on a dance floor, that is over crowded!
If this trend continues, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Coronavirus makes its presence felt…at such venues.
And, then, what happens to the entertainment scene, and those involved in this field, especially the musicians? No work, whatsoever!
Lots of countries have closed nightclubs, and venues, where people gather, in order to curtail the spread of this deadly virus that has already claimed the lives of thousands.
Thailand did it and the country is still having lots of restrictions, where entertainment is concerned, and that is probably the reason why Thailand has been able to control the spread of the Coronavirus.
With a population of over 69 million, they have had (so far), a little over 25,000 cases, and 83 deaths, while we, with a population of around 21 million, have over 80,000 cases, and more than 450 deaths.
I’m not saying we should do away with entertainment – totally – but we need to follow a format, connected with the ‘new normal,’ where masks and social distancing are mandatory requirements at these venues. And, dancing, I believe, should be banned, at least temporarily, as one can’t maintain the required social distance, while on the dance floor, especially after drinks.
Police spokesman DIG Ajith Rohana keeps emphasising, on TV, radio, and in the newspapers, the need to adhere to the health regulations, now in force, and that those who fail to do so would be penalised.
He has also stated that plainclothes officers would move around to apprehend such offenders.
Perhaps, he should instruct his officers to pay surprise visits to some of these entertainment venues.
He would certainly have more than a bus load of offenders to be whisked off for PCR/Rapid Antigen tests!
I need to quote what Dr. H.T. Wickremasinghe said in his article, published in The Island of Tuesday, February 16th, 2021:
“…let me conclude, while emphasising the need to continue our general public health measures, such as wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding crowded gatherings, to reduce the risk of contact with an infected person.
“There is no science to beat common sense.”
But…do some of our folks have this thing called COMMON SENSE!