Baseless attack on the LLRC by low-life at the Sunday Leader
Posted on August 22nd, 2010

Ajit Randeniya

As far as double-barrel names go, the name of Mandana Ismail-Abeywickrema (MIA), one of the self-described “ƒ”¹…”investigative’ reporters at The Sunday Leader is a “ƒ”¹…”corker’, as an Australian would say.

 This MIA has probably been more fortunate with her naming than her other inheritance,  the mantle of that erstwhile “ƒ”¹…”investigative reporter’ and current editor of the rag, Frederica Jansz; now that is a real “ƒ”¹…”dog’.

 Before we get to MIA’s work at the Sunday leader, it needs to be put on record that the first name Mandana is a name made famous in the UK in the 1990s by a British actress named Mandana “ƒ”¹…”Jones “ƒ”¹…”. Research shows that the name Mandana in fact has Persian origins, coming from queen Mandana of Media, the mother of the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great: the name apparently means “ƒ”¹…”wise mother’ or “ƒ”¹…”female seer’!  

 To digress for a moment, Mandana  Jones played the role of prisoner Nikki Wade on the British television series “ƒ”¹…”Bad Girls’: a lesbian who finds herself in jail after killing a police officer for assaulting her lover, and falls in love with prison governor (played by Simone Lahbib of “ƒ”¹…”Monarch of the Glen’ fame).  According to audience research, the “ƒ”¹…”collective’ performances of these two characters have transported many a viewer, dare I say predominantly the middle-aged demographic, to “ƒ”¹…”bliss’.

 Now, before the morally upright types start rushing to conclusions about a middle-aged Sri Lankan man’s interest in such debauchery portrayed in a teen-oriented TV show such as “ƒ”¹…”Bad Girls’, the writer wishes to stress that his keen interest in the lengthy, complex story line involving these two characters was purely bookish, with his devoted viewing of the show leading to the valid criticism that the scenes involving “ƒ”¹…”key moments’ were wanting in the area of anatomical detail: such detail could have greatly enriched the plot!

 Getting back to the real subject, MIA, unfortunately, does not seem to represent the above mentioned etymological roots of her name. Her attempt to make the point that the LLRC “that was appointed to show the government’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and prevent the recurrence of another violent war” (emphasis added)  may be unable to deliver the goods as expected proves the point.

 MIA’s approach to investigative journalism, as revealed by this latest piece on Mr Gotabhaya  Rajapakse’s evidence at the LLRC, and her previous “ƒ”¹…”work’,  reveals that she has inherited Jansz’  “ƒ”¹…”kitbag’ of biases, prejudices and ignorance that is her hallmark.

 MIA’s beef in this particular instance is that the members of the LLRC failed to pose any questions on the “ƒ”¹…”various’ allegations leveled against the government and the security forces by some Vavunia residents, the “ƒ”¹…”international community’ and the UN.  

 She is also unhappy that “Given its mandate to report on reconciliation, no questions were posed on the role played by KP or his role in the government’s reconciliation plan”.

 In a clearly fraudulent “ƒ”¹…”attribution’ of the source of her story, MIA tells us that ” the public and the media” that witnessed the session were of the view that the Commission failed to ask more pointed questions from Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

 Pity her! This is the standard technique, in fact the modus operandi, of the BBC, CNN, AFP, AP and other wire services who represent the so-called “ƒ”¹…”international community’: they often “ƒ”¹…”report’ what purports to be “ƒ”¹…”news’ from the developing world to their home audiences and wider, based on statements such as “ƒ”¹…”most people do not trust the government’ and “ƒ”¹…”most Tamils feel unsafe’ etc.

 Needless to say, this particular construction makes it obvious that what is “ƒ”¹…”reported’ is in fact a subjective “ƒ”¹…”view’ or an “ƒ”¹…”opinion’. MIA’s adoption of this method, knowingly or unknowingly, puts her particular gripe in to the same category.

 In order to support her apparent belief that the LRRC is merely a charade staged by the government as a diversion from the Ban Ki Moon “ƒ”¹…”panel’ and that the Commission “ƒ”¹…”may not be able to deliver the aspired results’, she even quotes the Cabinet memorandum presented by President Rajapaksa. But it is simply irrelevant because she simply has no foundation to base this non-complaint!

 She not only blames the LRRC for not confronting Gotabhya with certain “ƒ”¹…”allegations’ by some residents of Vaunia, but also blames them for “ƒ”¹…”praising’ the military for progress and for reporting the detainees’ appreciation. On what basis is she alleging that the LRRC members are being selective? What about the Tamil members?

 Then she questions Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s evidence that civilian casualties in the war were being “ƒ”¹…”confused’ with the LTTE causalities: this is a commonly known fact due to the standard terrorist tactic of disguising as civilians and mingling with them, including in refugee camps; the moment the law enforcement officials ask questions, arrest, or kill, they are invariably reported as attacks against “ƒ”¹…”civilians’.

 The BBC and Rupert Murdoch owned global media then publicise such cases as civilian casualties and “ƒ”¹…”atrocities’: this is another technique used by them. Those who remember the casualty figures reported by Gordon Weiss (the spy who infiltrated the UN) and Catherine Philp of the Times in May 2009 would readily identify this method.

 MIA is also taking umbrage against Gotabhaya’s account of the measures taken to assist the rehabilitation of the LTTE militants who surrendered. But she does not seem to have any basis for this unhappiness!

Then the alleged acquisition of “ƒ”¹…”private’ lands in the North and G. Rajapaksa’s denial of such a move and the assertion that the land being used to build Security Centres is government land: Rajapaksa has clearly stated that any private land would be “ƒ”¹…”purchased’ from its owners and alternative lands would be provided to them; but this does not seem good enough for MIA! She is suffering from a condition known as stupidly bad faith!

 This type of inane attacks on the government shows that The Sunday Leader is a cancer on the body politic of Sri Lanka: it attempts to attack, criticise, and cast aspersions at the least, on any and everything the government does.

 The incurable “ƒ”¹…”bile bags’ at the Sunday Leader suddenly find Rule of Law they have been clamouring for is “ƒ”¹…”bad’ when the foreign agent Sarath Fonseka is brought to book! They spread the baseless lie that sacking of Mervin Silva is an “ƒ”¹…”eyewash’, and he will soon be reinstated!

 The low life at the Leader is motivated by foreign money and “ƒ”¹…”bad faith’.

2 Responses to “Baseless attack on the LLRC by low-life at the Sunday Leader”

  1. Raj Says:

    These ‘bile bags’ are paid by who?. John Perkins gives the answer. Read John’s best selling book ‘confessions of an economic hit man’ OR watch the videos here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8

  2. marat2010 Says:

    LLRC is appointed by the Govt to appease the international community and possibly to get back lost concessions. Personally I don’t feel any need to go back to war period as in any war human rights violations occur and it is hard even for the most sophisticated army to distinguish civillians in the haze of war. LTTE who never cared about others’ right to exist got just desserts. Hence its frivalous in the part of international communioty to dig up this mess. Such incursions by western nations would further alienate moderate voices in our society giving more leeway to rabid nationalist extremists like Wimal Weerawansa for an example. Or is it what the Western nations acually want ?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2017 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress