In a recent outburst ("Power Development- A Reply", The Island October 11, 2001) a writer who calls himself Gard admits that Carlo Fernando is responsible for including a coal plant in the CEB’s generation plan. "When?" he does not say, but claims that Carlo is also responsible for delaying Norochcholai, and adds with malicious intent "perhaps due to other reasons, other than Engineering or Terrorism". Then for good measure, he drags in the Bishop with "thus giving strength and ammunition for the Bishop of Chilaw to object".

He says, "It is my understanding and belief that all those who object on various grounds, environment etc. are hiding their inner feelings which they are ashamed to come out with, as the reason is not valid to a laymen - St. Anne’s Shrine". So now the "other reasons" Gard initially attributed to Carlo alone, have now become the reasons why everybody if objecting to Norochcholai!

Quite some years ago Gard claimed that his knowledge of electricity supply was first hand for he held a lowly office in the CEB! Under this cloak of ordinariness, and anonymity, Gard merrily slings mud at all those who object to constructing a coal plant at Norochcholai. His comments, made from his little perch in his lowly office, suggests that the concerns that make those, whose wider knowledge, experience and understanding, object to the Norochcholai site is beyond his comprehension.

In his early forays Gard used to attack Carlo Fernando because Carlo Fernando was for coal. Obviously Gard did not know then that coal would be needed soon and it was time to start building a coal plant.

Now that coal is considered to be long overdue and some are advocating building it at Norochcholai Gard has climbed that bandwagon and is claiming that Carlo Fernando has ulterior motives in pointing out that it is unwise to build a coal plant at Norochcholai. Perhaps Gard will tell us whether it was ignorance that made him oppose coal earlier?

Earlier in his letter Gard states "He (Carlo Fernando) should know that the civil engineering aspects have been studied comprehensively by local and foreign consultants and finalized". Gard does not tell us who these consultants are, or what they "finalized".

The article on "Those opposed to Norochcholai are right!" (Island 1st October 2001) by Peter Lowe, who obviously knows something about structures on the seabed close to the shore, expresses a view quite contrary to that of Gard. He says that the Master Divers - without whose aid the supports of the pier and the jetty cannot be built for they know best about the sea bed around Sri Lanka - have very clearly advised the Consultants for Norochcholai that these structures should not be built. Perhaps, Gard will read - or if he has read it, reread - and seek to understand.

Peter Lowe also claims that the foreign consultants who were asked to review the Norochcholai project have endorsed the Master Divers view.

It is clear that by his assertions Gard hopes to ridicule Carlo Fernando, who for long has pointed out that the building of the 4.2-km pier and the jetty is unwise. Gard on the other hand has no credentials, no responsibilities, no good name to protect - a ghost with whom ordinary mortals cannot grapple. So here comes one of the same ilk from the same underworld, to do battle for the sheer hell of it!
'B. L. A. Guard'