I admit that I don’t possess a huge amount of knowledge about micro and macro nutrients but I don’t agree that it’s necessarily the best option to replace people with machines and chemicals in order to boost productivity.This would mean thousands of plantation workers would be unemployed with very bleak prospects, having very little experience in any other trade, which would in turn cause yet more social problems. Alternatively, conditions could be improved and other markets could be targeted such as the West, where consumers are becoming increasingly concerned about where goods come from and working conditions and salaries of labourers in developing countries. UK based company Fairtrade has seen its sales double in the last 3 years and its tea and coffee is now being sold by major companies such as Starbucks. Also, how can you be so sure that profits generated by using alternative agricultural methods would end up in the pockets of the workers?

As for ‘hands on’ experience with the plantation sector, I accept that I am no expert but I do have experience in the arts and using them to raise awareness about social problems, which is ultimately what the article deals with. I am therefore unsure as to how making people aware of their citizenship rights and helping them to overcome social problems such as alcoholism, through the medium of drama, would incite violence or how this would further any cause other than human rights.

Your article deals with temporary measures which can be only applied to a handful of plantations. It goes to show how little hands on experience the writer has with the plantation sector. I just wonder if the writer is trying to further the cause of the LTTE terrorist by inciting violence in the plantations?