letters

Ex-SL Govt. varsity scholar challenges Dr. Clarke: Third Millenium
Third millenium will dawn here on 31 Dec. 1999 at 6 p.m.

Mr. G. B. A. Fernando's article reported under the above heading on Page 2 of the Sunday Island of 10th January, 1999 is enjoyable reading. It raises memories of the Flat Earth Theory by a certain University Professor of some four decades ago.

Numerous letters have appeared in the news papers in recent times on this subject (Dawn of the Third Millenium), but they have all been by way of discussion. However, in his scholarly treatment of the subject, Mr. Fernando challenges Dr. Arthur C. Clarke's claims that the Third Millenium begins with the year 2001 and not year 2000, then easily dismisses it as misconception and proceeds to prove his own novel conception.

The dawn of the Third Millenium is a definite predictable event and requires only simple reasoning to be understood. It is unlike an astrological forecast. There is no need to delve into the history of calendars: their origins, revisions, users etc. They cannot influence or bear any relevance on the fact that the 21st. Century and the Third Millenium will dawn at zero hour on 01st. January, 2001, and all in good time too.

This 'problem' cannot be settled by debate or argument because it is not a problem in the first place. It is a natural event conventially destined to occur on a certain date, and we can only understand the convention. We cannot revise it simply because it takes away so much of the promise of revelry the change from 1999 to 2000 holds. One way to understand the event is to look up any standard dictionary - that is if one is not inclined to challenge this too.

Most dictionaries give numerical examples thus: First Century Year 1 to Year 100; Twentieth Century Year 1901 to Year 2000. The years are reckoned from the birth of Christ and denoted by AD standing for Anno Domini. It will be noticed that there is no Year 00 to start the count and the centuries must end with the end of Years 100 and 2000, otherwise each will have only 99 years. Today we are in the Year 1999 AD and the 20th. century will end when Year 2000 AD ends.

Another way to figure this out is to start now (1999), go backwards to the beginning of Year 1 (not nought) and come forwards again to the end of Year 2000.

Suppose a child was born at midnight (00 hours) on 01st January, 1999. He will be one year old on completion of 12 months i.e. at midnight on 31st December, 1999. (Actually midnight i.e. the end of a 24 hour day belongs to that day. So, strictly, midnight 31st Dec. is 24 hrs. 31st Dec. and is also the same instant as 00 hrs. 01st January) From 00 hrs. on 01st January, 2000 he will start life in his 2nd, year.

From the instant of his birth the child begins to live in his first year: at the end of 10 seconds he will be 10 secs old, although he had not completed one full year. If there were a year 00 then all of the 12 solid months at the start will belong to this year and consequently count for nothing. That means up to a fraction of a second before he completes 12 months his age will remain zero. This is ridiculous.

Zero is only a starting point of counting whether it be of time, distance, weight or whatever. It has no size or magnitude. It ends when and where it begins. Just like Mr. Fernando says, 'AD begins where BC ends.' This statement, incidentally, holds the solution to the 'problem'. How he bypassed it is a mystery; perhaps it was in his hurry to get to the Third Millenium by Year 2000.

Now, to get back to our child's anniversaries.

Let us make a new calendar starting on his birthday - that is assigning year 01 to Year 1999. That means his 1st. birth anniversary will fall on 1st. January, Year 02 (Real Year 2000); his 10th. on 1st. Jan; Year 11 (2009) and the centenary on 1st. Jan; Year 101 (2099). Only if he is around on this last date can he celebrate, if he misses it by even one day others can only commemorate.

Now if we shift our imaginary calendar to coincide with the real one, 01st. January 1999 will become 01st. January Year 01 (not nought). And his anniversaries mentioned above will fall on 01st. Januaries, Years 02, 11 and 101 respectively. Also, if he could out do Methuselah, he can enter the 21st. century or the 3rd. Millenium only on 01st. January, 2001. There is no short cut.

Mr. Fernando cites the example of a cricketer completing a century and starting his second century with 101 runs and comments 'This scale is different'. 'Certainly it is different but for a different reason. He is comparing non comparables: runs and time. If the batsman spends one whole hour and scores a 'duck', his score appears to have some size only because he cannot score runs in instalments like, say, one thousandth of a run each time. Unlike runs in cricket, time elapses in infinitely minute units. That is why it is said that time and tide waits for no man.

It is common knowledge that each day begins at mid-night of the previous day, which is zero hour of the day being born. 06 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) Dec. 1999 will no doubt start off 01 January, 2000 here in Sri Lanka, but certainly not the Third Millenium. Further, we could conveniently go by our clock times instead of concerning ourselves with GMT. Ours is a '100 year problem' not one of just 6 or 24 hour age difference.

There still seem to be people on whom the exact date of the dawn of the Third Millenium has not yet dawned but continue to argue. Such argument is that much more misleading when it takes the form of a scholarly treatise and very unfair by the ordinary intelligent reader.

However much such people may argue, Year 2000 will remain only a Mirage of the third millenium.

M. Z. Abdeen

Manners and morals

Recently I was at St. Lucia's Cathedral following a Sunday Mass when my umbrella which I had left on the bench fell down. Even before I could bend down and pick it up, a small child of about five years who was seated with his parents a few pews behind me darted and picked up the umbrella and handed it over to me. I was very much touched by that child's action. For that child to have done that, the source and cause would have been his parents.

Today, one finds that even some of the grown up boys and girls do not bother to say even sorry when they knock down something from a person. The society on the whole seems to be moving towards an indisciplined, unmannered selfish way of life.

If we want a fair and just society, we must begin at the beginning. The child, who will be the maker and supporter of the society and even the ruler, will have to be brought up in the correct way. For that the parents, or rather those who are going to be parents, should be educated and trained, to bring up children in the correct way.

Parents, like the politicians, are the only people who do not need any qualifications to engage in the profession of producing and bringing up children. Even to become a labourer one has to have some qualification. But not for bringing up children, the future pillars and rulers of the society. Some people have learned to train their dogs but not their children!

Very soon we will find that boys and girls of nine and ten years dating each other. And we will be very proud that we are advanced like the West. Advancement to us has become aping the west.

Parents sent their children to learn all sorts of activities - games, dancing, sewing, cookery, elocution, acting and so on, but not send them to learn first aid, or have them to learn to look after babies, to feed them, to bathe them and such matters which will enable the youths to bring up their children in the correct way when they have children.

So, like people without any training jumping into the field of politics and making a mess of the society, people also jump into the field of parenthood without any training and make a mess of themselves, their children and the society, because we are said to be having the freedom to do anything though one does not have the freedom even to go about on the streets without an identity card!

All our thoughts and actions seem to be really messed up.

Arul
Colombo 13.

More details about Korea desireable

I am a Korean undergraduate on a short holiday in Sri Lanka.

I have read with interest Dr. Stanley Kalpage's article on South Korea in your issue of Sunday January 10. On the whole I agree with the general outline but I wish to point out a few aspects arising from the article.

First, the analysis of the Korean economic crisis is insufficient. The reason for the Korean economic crisis is simply not because of internal problems alone. Of course, the Korean economy is beset with problems but the loan situation is not as bad as it was before. Some economic indicators are better than before.

Dr. Kalpage does not mention the world circumstances that led to the economic debacle. For example, the attack on neo-liberalism, the aggression of speculative funding and the economic relations between South East Asia and South Korea.

Secondly, the example of Kim Myung Youn and the plan to train workers in computer programming and other high-tech skills are about persons of a high academic background. There are many people who are in worse circumstances. The Korean Government has still to initiate plans and counter measures to meet that situation.

Thirdly, the coverage of Chaebol involvement in the Korean economy is insufficient. The reader is only told that chaebol reform is a necessity.

Fourthly, South Korea's policy towards North Korea must not be viewed in the short term. Right now the 'Sunshine Policy' does not seem to be working but the policy towards North Korea must be thought out in the long term. The North has always adopted a 'Green Frog' policy towards Korean Unity i.e. to oppose at all times efforts at Korean Unity. South Korea should not change its policy towards North Korea and Unity. Consistence in policy towards North Korea is the key.

Finally, it would have been better if Dr. Kalpage had dealt with the effects of the latest development in relations between Korea and China in North Korea.

Thank you for reading through the points I have dealt with in brief. Please favour me with a more comprehensive article on Korea.

Jung Kyu Hae,
Han Yang University, Seoul, South Korea,
1135/2, Pannipitiya Road, Talawatugoda.