යුතුකම මාධ්‍ය හමුව

By A.J. Abeynayake Courtesy The Island

State Minister for International Trade Sujeewa Senasinghe had received Rs. 3 mn from W. M. Mendis Company, a subsidiary of Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL), the Criminal Investigation department (CID) informed Fort Additional Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne, yesterday.

The CID said that Rs. 3 mn had been received in three cheques between Aug 24, 2015 to March 31, 2016.

W. M. Mendis has been named the third accused in the treasury bond case.

The court was told that of the three cheques received by Senasinghe, two had been encashed by his police bodyguards and the other by a person involved in his political work.

Senior Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda told the court that Senasinghe would be called by the CID to record a statement.

Kodagoda said that UPFA MP Dayasiri Jayasekera, who had received Rs. 1 mn from Walt Rowe and Associates in July 2015 had yet to report to the CID to make a statement though he had been asked to do so.

The Attorney General’s Department also told court that the then Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran, the first accused had received Rs. 3.2 mn in three separate cheques from PTL.

Cheques received by Mahendran had been encashed by a peon identified as Gamage Roshan Sanjeewa in January, April and May, 2016 and the funds used to settle the then Governor’s credit cards bills, his Secretary Amila Dissanayake was quoted as having told the investigators.

The court was also told that documents related and useful to the investigation, were recovered from the PTL office during recent search, carried out on a judicial directive.

Revealing that four laptops containing very important information, other equipment and three hand phone numbers had been found, Kodagoda said that the PTL had used the National Identity Cards of its employees

to obtain SIM cards given to those who provided vital information to the company.

Kodagoda said that PTL owner Arjun Aloysius and its CEO Kasun Palisena had so far heeded court directive given on March 15, 2018 to furnish their asset declarations.

President’s Counsel Kolitha Darmawardena, who represented W.M. Mendis company told court that his client had received money from PTL to settle Rs 700 mn owed by the company due to the construction of a distillery at Kalkudah.

Darmawardena said that his client was facing major crisis as its employees and customers were being investigated.

The PC said that his client had paid Rs 32 bn in taxes during the past eight years.

Having remanded Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena, second and fourth accused, respectively, the magistrate directed the CID to conclude the investigation as soon as possible as they could not be kept in remand custody indefinitely.

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, June 7 (newsin.asia): The Chief Minister of Sri Lanka’s Tamil-majority Northern Province, C.V.Wigneswaran, had suggested to the government that the Lankan armed forces be divided into nine equal parts and evenly distributed over the nine provinces in the country.

But the government had turned a deaf ear to that suggestion, the Chief Minister said at the opening of a branch of the Sri Lanka Export Development Board (EDB) in Jaffna on Thursday.

The Chief Minister said that he had given an easy solution” to the dilemma faced by the Government in housing an enhanced army not required any more during peace times.

I asked them to divide the number in the Armed Forces into nine equal parts, allowing each unit to occupy the nine Provinces. This way the undue concentration of the Armed Forces in our war torn region after nine years since the end of the war could be averted.”

But that advise fell on deaf ears giving the impression to our people that the government purposefully stations the Armed Forces in our areas with ulterior motives,” he charged.

Wigneswaran went on to allege  that many activities to bring in members of the majority community from outside the Northern Province into the province had been undertaken by the State and its agencies including the Armed Forces.

The tense situation in the Vadamaratchi Eastern sea area which has erupted now is a direct result of the occupation of our areas by the Armed Forces. Fishermen or others from outside our region are taking over our People’s traditional sea coast fishing grounds and their sole means of livelihood, with the concurrence and active support of the Armed Forces.”

Our sea coasts are dotted with huts put up for them, thanks to the support given by the Armed Forces. Our government officials are threatened openly or indirectly to give in to the whims and fancies of the intruders and their protectors.”

Shed Security Perspective

Asking the government to shed its obsession with security, Wigneswaran said: We continue with a state security perspective. Hence every legitimate political action on the part of our people connote treasonable activity to the Government. There is no mutual trust among us. Yet you want our entrepreneurs to move forward unconcerned.”

Training his guns on the corporate invasion” from Colombo to the North ,Wigneswaran said that corporate invaders” had introduced many consumer articles to a luxury starved Tamil community on instalment basis. But when the people could not repay their installments they were deprived of their consumer articles as well as the installments paid up to the time of corporate execution.

Delicate Situation

The Chief Minister said that the Northern Province is sitting on a powder keg which could explode anytime.

However much the Army and our people might want to maintain peace and order, the slightest provocation could trigger off violent activities by either side. How would this fit into a peaceful vibrant environment needed to promote trade and commerce, export and entrepreneurship?” he asked.

I refer to the negatives for you to be conscious of the reality of the situation current in this region,” he told the EDB officials from Colombo.

Planned Immigration Into North

Wigneswaran said there is a conscious effort by people from the South to take over our lands and sea beaches along the Mullaithivu area with the active support of the armed forces.”

Condemning it he said: That does not augur well for our commercial and industrial promotional activities. We could ignore and carry on. But we must remember that at any stage the presence of the military in these areas could provoke a reaction. Such reactions would be falsely identified as terrorist activities and then we would have to start from the beginning.”

Need to Give Assent Chief Minister’s Fund

As soon as a federal constitution is brought about the Tamil  Diaspora would want to invest in the north in a big way and be a powerful source of help to entrepreneurs here, the Chief Minister said.

But the Government must give them guarantees that obstacles and barricades would not be placed on their path of progress. Any attempt to discriminate against them would make them withdraw.”

The Chief Minister’s Fund Statute is a good example of how the government and government departments place obstacles on our way. Despite the amendments that were asked to be made by the Attorney General’s Department being accordingly effected, the Attorney General’s Department is again sitting on the CM’s Fund Statute now for several months.”

Earlier it took eight months to say there were some amendments needed. In fact the amendments were already made when the first draft was returned by the AG’s Department but the Governor had sent the wrong draft.”

Unless the Government could show its goodwill, genuineness and credibility in such small matters as passing a Statute which completely conforms to the State’s expectations, our attempts to aid and foster the National Program might come to naught,” Wigneswaran warned.

Giving another example, he said: We had done all the preliminaries to set up a Vegetable and Fruit exporting business enterprise in Thunukkai in the Wanni region with collaboration from Messrs.Aitken and Spence. Though all tests and preliminaries were completed one year ago the project is still with the Commissioner General of Lands.”

When we do our part with enthusiasm and efficiency we often find a negative attitude on the part of Colombo.”

(The featured image at the top is that of Sri Lanka’s Northern Province Chief Minister C.V.Wigneswaran) 

BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

Some analysts have expressed many debatable comments in relation to the agreement of the Hambantota Port Development Project, which was signed by the government of Sri Lanka and the Chinese Merchant Port Holding Company owned by the Chinese government based in Hong Kong.  A major point highlighted by analysts was that the agreement contains an unmitigated risk, which is beyond the tolerable level to Sri Lanka.  The clauses of the agreement indicate that it is a long-term development and management related project, which involves in a legally leasing of Hambantota port and adjoining Sri Lanka’s government lands of 15000 acres to the company for more than 50 years period.  Other analysts were of opinion that it was an effort of privatizing or selling government assets to a foreign company, completely eyewash of the public, who have little understanding about the project.  Many ordinary people in Sri Lanka assume that the project has ample of similarities to the lease agreement had between China and Britain for Hong Kong Island and when the island returned back in the early 1990s, Hong Kong was a huge developed country adding a massive economic strength to China.  An imperative political truth about the Hambantota agreement is that the original lease was initiated by the Rajapaksa regime during the civil war, which incurred a monumental infrastructure destruction in the country, when foreign donors were reluctant to help Sri Lanka.

It was widely propagated that the original agreement was wisely renegotiated by the current government elected in 2015 with a view to changing potentially disadvantaged clauses in the original agreement in a way Sri Lanka’s government wanted to attract more benefits to the country. In fact, the original agreement was slightly altered and the project was given to another company which is also owned by the Chinese government. The fundamental point assimilated with the agreement is that whichever the company is involved in the project management, it is fully owned by the Chinese government.  The project is a big plus to Sri Lanka because the country was able to sign a strong agreement with the second-largest economy in the world gaining not only economic benefits but also a deep security brace to the country and the region.

It is further revealed that the Port Development Project covers not only the Hambantota port development but also include a massive investment in an industrial park surrounding lands of the port. What is wrong with a massive investment project that Sri Lanka desperate to attract.  People who have a good understanding of the pattern of world economic development evidence that many countries in Asian region such as India, Philippines, Malaysia, China, Taiwan, South Korea and Indonesia became richer in foreign assets and employed a huge volume of workforce developing industrial parks. Sri Lanka too reduced its high unemployment rate adopting the concept and creating industrial parks in Katunayake and Biyagama.  I read many criticisms and different opinions on this development project and the most attractive vision I have seen was the project would be led to establish another SHANGHAI city in Sri Lanka.

When Mr. Xi Jingping, current Chinese leader visited Sri Lanka in 2014, he promised to invest US dollars 2.0 billion in the country while $ 20 billion to invest in India.  China already agreed to develop Colombo Port City which is now working after restarting the project. The latest fashion of economic project developments in the world seems ports development with multiple economic activities, China had already developed a highly attractive port city in Sakhalin, which was criticized by certain international media showing covetous attitudes. Sri Lanka also has a potential to develop tourist parks in the seaside area between Yan Oya to Maduru Oya and Chilw to Mannar in the entire Puttam District, which will attract millions of Asian tourists to Sri Lanka and billions of dollars to foreign exchange inflow making Sri Lanka as a foreign asset rich country like Taiwan, if the government considers attracting massive Asian investments flow and to appreciate the foreign value of Sri Lanka Rupee possibly to SLR 60.00 = US $ 1.00.

When people express opinion on Chinese investments in Sri Lanka, it should not ignore the fact that only China came forward to generously support Sri Lanka ending the terrorist war despite many Western countries supported to prosecute Sri Lanka at international courts of justice instead of helping the country to rebuild war damages. China positively expressed supports to the Rajapaksa regime and agreed that when Sri Lanka needs help, it would help the country, which means that China was ready to protect Sri Lanka, in spite of the allegations made against the country for defeating LTTE.  Some NGO crooks, who were enjoying dollars from the West and neighbouring countries too joined hand with the prosecution effort purely based on hegemony.

It is natural that people have different opinions as well as criticisms against the Hambantota project and certain views may have originated with the support of international influences. The past experience always reminds that any business involves with Chinese assistance was subject to severe criticism of India and the West.  I read an article written by Prof Swaran Singh in Asian Tribune, Why is India Worried about China Consolidating in Sri Lanka”. The article expressed some strange opinion to Sri Lanka. As Prof Singh stated, “Sri Lanka’s policy of equidistance itself generates anxieties against India’s policy makers”. India also expressed the opposition to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port development project, which is similar to Hambantota Port Development Project. Why India opposes to economic projects assisted by the Chinese government, inadvertently assuming that such economic projects would be a threat to Indian security.  No country surrounding India wants to engage in a war with India or even China has no intention to declare a war with India. The blatant truth in the Indian assumption might be Indian policy makers’ patrimonial attitudes rather than a vicious hate of Indian neighbours.

The rapid economic development of neighbouring countries opens Indians to expand business and would strengthen the economic stability of India with a strong support of trade with surrounding countries. Aristocracy was a bygone practice that would not appropriate in the modern era, which needs the cooperation and equality in association than hegemony with surrounding countries.  The attitudes of Indian policymakers need briskly changes with a view to establish new cooperation and strengthen mutual trust between India and neighbours.

The views of politicians in the government and the opposition appear to be very weak as they are concerned on the short-term impact of the project and look at how the project will impact on their political life.  It needs looking at a broader spectrum of analytical views and especially, the point of views of economists, who are concerned about the long-term positive impact, which will be vital benefits to the people of Sri Lanka. The dream of common people of Sri Lanka is to initiate a massive economic development process, which will bring the economic prosperity to the nation.  People of Sri Lanka always look at developed past in Anuradhapura and Polonnaruva eras assuming that current economically backward country could be defeated by socially and economically advanceable investments, if successful policies are developed and implemented in the country.  It is visible and leads to imagining from historical ruins and information uncovered from archaeological excavations that Sri Lanka was a prosperous nation with a small volume of population in the history and people believe that modern governments have vehement challenges to regain the prosperity status back. The way to achieve the prosperity is no other way than developing economic projects which can generate enormous economic benefits to the country.

I also watched a TV program in Sri Lanka in which a person of an NGO group, who supported to defeat the Rajapaksa regime, made a wrongful and malice statement that massive development projects such as Colombo Port City and Hambantota Project were illegitimate children of former president Rajapaksa. I don’t think any patriotic person to Sri Lanka happy with such a fraudulent and insulting statement. People of Sri Lanka love to develop mega projects as they are the beneficiaries of such projects. People have no political differences or party politics in regard to economic project developments.  NGO people want to create contentions with a view to gaining unfair advantages from Western countries showing that they are real promoters of democracy.  Australia also has given its Darwin Port Management to a Chinese company but neither Australian has made such a dirty statement against the leaders of Australia as Australian government gave the Darwin Port to a Chinese Company for the management of the port with a view to attracting foreign investments for economic activities in Australia.

As a result of the Hambantota port development and industrial park, two nations would be interacted in the future in relation to the project management and employing skilled labour. I read certain politicians comments on the social impacts of the project concentrating the possible changes in a demographic setting in Hambantota District in the future.  It is a vital point that intelligently deal with but the political platforms engross in the possible demographic changes with more racist attitudes.  Sri Lanka has a past experience in regard to the importation of Indian labour for the plantation industry and later it became a serious issue between India and Sri Lanka.  When the import of Indian labour incurred, Sri Lanka was governed as a colony of the British government and Sri Lankans had no power to independent decision making or ability to influence the decisions of the colonial rule.  Now Sri Lanka is an independent state with the supreme power to make right laws, regulations, and policies for the interest of the country and its own people.  The potential demographic impact or the possibility of incurring demographic disadvantages by the import of Chinese labour have to be analysed not from a racist point of views but considering the possibility of check and control maintained by the government of Sri Lanka.

Before explaining the economic impact of the project, it is quite useful to consider a point raised by Dr. Dayan Jayatilake, who is a respected political analyst, university academic and foreign diplomat. His opinion was that Sirisena and Wickramasinghe government wouldn’t have to lease the Hambantota port if the government implemented the COPE report in regard to Bond scam, which imaginably covered more funds than the borrowings for Hambantota port project.  His indirect opinion was that Chinese involvement forced Sri Lanka because the corruption in domestic borrowings of the government created additional debt burden to the country forcefully going to China for leasing the port. This was a controversial point the political platform but not an intelligent forum.

The borrowing for the Hambantota Port Development Project was less than the US $ 500 million and the total debt to China remains about the US $ 8.0 billion.  The Hambantota project began several years ago with financial supports from China and the Central Bank bond scam first incurred in February 2015 and the second scam took placed in March 2015.  The COPE report on this matter clearly analysed how a massive loss created to EPF, Central Bank and even to other trading banks. If the government recovered the lost money or if the bond scam did not happen, the Hambantota project related debts could have been paid easily.  It was certainly unpredictable suggestion because the government borrows from China not only funding for the spending of the project but also know how and management skills, which are not available in Sri Lanka.   The argument of Dr. Jayatilake attempts to blame the government highlighting a point that the indebtedness was a created crisis in spite of the economic environment prevailed in the country. The project generates a massive revenue and many other economic benefits to the country.  Debt retirement is not a significant issue in the proceeds of debt are used to generate a positive cash flow to the country.  The argument of Dr Jayatilake is a point for political platforms and there are many economic strategies to tackle debt repayments.

When people talk about debts in relation to economic projects, it generally needs to understand a significant point.  Economic growth and the total debts of a country are positively correlated factors which mean that debts of Sri Lanka have positive association with the economic growth, which supports the macroeconomic advancement of the country. It will be based on the value of correlation coefficient.  If debts are used for economic projects that generate an excellent positive revenue flow, which can be used to repayment of debts. Ignoring this fact, party politics in Sri Lanka shows that debt is a vicious devil. As I was a policy making banker in Sri Lanka I personally know that rich people in Sri Lanka did never achieve richness bring money from home but from debts obtained from credit sources.  Researchers found that Sri Lanka economy positively correlated with debt until it equal to 60% of GDP and under the Rajapaksa regime, treasury economists and the Central Bank planned to reduce Sri Lanka’s total debt to 60% of GDP in response to the research findings. If Sri Lanka’s debt level goes unreasonably higher lever as result of the borrowing for the Hambantota Port Project, the best option will be converting the debt to equity rather than holding the project. It was an original strategy developed by the Rajapaksa regime.  Selling of shares of the Hambantota port to China would be a right strategy to successfully manage Sri Lanka’s debt level at less than 60% of GDP.

(To be Continued)

BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

If the debt level of Sri Lanka negatively associated with the economic growth, there is no doubt that Sri Lanka will ambush to a debt trap and the country must be able to manage the debt service (interest and instalments) including to the total government spending with a less than 6% of budget deficit.  It may be an unimaginable task at the current weak debt and budgetary management. However, Sri Lanka has a capacity to avoid the disastrous situation by wisely using a successful debt management strategy for restructuring and budgetary management concentrating the elimination of spending for unnecessary areas.

When analysing the annual budget spending, the most vicious aspect is allocating a large sum of funds for provincial administration and unproductive public enterprises management.  Should the government actually want to control this, there are strategies that could be used without involving in party politics    If entire Chinese debts converts to equities and annually buy back the equities with an organized plan or encourage Sri Lankan investors to buy back such equities, Sri Lanka can achieve an excellent economic prosperity.  Another white elephant in Sri Lanka is the management of government banks.  There are billions of risk assets in the public banks which are non-performing and the government needs to take actions to improve the net worth of public banks either restructuring them or writing off from the book. Late 1980s I conducted risk asset review of the Bank of Ceylon and found that the corrupt practices of the management have relegated the banks to obscurities.

The proceeds generate from economic projects such as the Hambantota Port, Colombo Port city, high way projects and all others, the excess after spending for project management must be used for debt retirement and buy back equities of credit projects. If this type debt management created, Sri Lanka Rupee will be daily appreciated and Sri Lanka will be the best destination for foreign investors.

The most positive aspect of the Hambantota Port development project is that the government uses a strategic plan of converting debts into equities. As a result of this strategic plan, Sri Lanka government gets a strong relief of debt service, which has gone far than the affordability of the country.  The new strategy would positively effect to save a considerable volume of funds and to reduce the stress of debt service. It would create a strong pressure to Sri Lanka’s government as well as Chinese companies to manage credit projects generating good net profit level and this situation helps the government to increase tax revenue reducing the pressure to maintain the standard budget deficit.

It is noteworthy to point out that the strategy does not widely appreciate in terms of traditional practice in Sri Lanka.  People in the traditional society used to borrow money giving lands as surety. When the borrower failed to payback collateral becomes assets of the lender. Many traditional land owners became poor or even some of them forced to be beggars on the road tendering own lands for failure to meet borrowing covenants.   The Hambantota transaction could not compare with the incidents experienced in the traditional society as the transaction already done was a widely accepted strategy in the modern world.  The consequence of the transaction is the ownership of the port will be shared to a ratio of 69:55 and 30:45.

The converting debt to equity has been a strategy that developed and widely used in many countries.  There is nothing wrong in converting debt to equity in the Hambantota port project because visibly it is the best strategy to Sri Lanka at this moment, many commercial banks in Sri Lanka use debt restructuring when the borrower fails to meet the obligations. The strategy does not restrict obtaining further financial supports for new projects, which have many opportunities to attract further Chinese supports in the future and the debt converting to equity strategy used in the Hambantota port development project would not be a barrier for borrowings.

However, it seems that a mistake has taken place when converting Chinese debt into equities in the Hambantota project.  The government of Sri Lanka did not value port shares listing on the stock exchange, the process helps to maintain the value of the port and grow local investors to buy shares.   If it happened the listed shares could be monitored and the Chinese company has to maintain the value of share with an upward trend of value otherwise China Merchant Port Holding will be incurred heavy losses and such a management style would be a challenge to the company.

Members of parliament and trade unions expressed that the country could have generated a good revenue flow from the Hambantota Port, if it was on the hands of government without leasing, but they are mere rhetoric because the public enterprise management has already proved during the past several decades that the management stewardship of the government is utter weak under the henchmen of political parties and in other public  enterprises created   a colossal loss pressuring the fiscal process in the country. Sri Lanka’s government managed many projects under the public enterprises management process but they were obviously failed and were subject to severe corruptions.  Ultimately what will happen is Sri Lanka’s fiscal system pressurize with spending and subject to accept conditions from donors and lenders that are unpopular among ordinary people like in Greece.

Sri Lanka has been desperately looking for strategic accomplishments for growing its foreign assets and reserves. During the 1960-decade Sri Lanka was given ample of feedback by the World Bank when there were emerging signs in constraints to development. The issue of devaluing exchange rate arose with the issue of the British pound.  However, there were no concrete plans without political rhetoric for the enhancement of foreign reserves of the country.  The repercussion of this weakness mainly reflected in declining the foreign and domestic value of the exchange unit. When Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948, a US $ valued to less than Rs 4.00 but it has skyrocketed to Rs 155.00 now, which is 3500 times of depreciation. The real impact of depreciating the currency value appears to be negative towards lower income earning middle class and poor people in the rural community. To avoid this negative situation, Sri Lanka can develop more port projects and export zones.

The new development projects reflect that the government has realized the issues in relation to the external economy ending the civil war in 2009 and also initiated mega economic projects with Chinese assistance. The Hambantota Port and Industrial Park development project would positively impact on foreign reserves of the country because it will generate a larger foreign exchange flow in to the country through the maritime services provided in the port.  As a result of increasing foreign reserves, the foreign value of Sri Lanka rupee will take upward trend reducing in cost of living burden.

The other macroeconomic impact in relation to port developments will be increase in employment opportunity because a broad category of jobs will be created in the project.  It will be a successful solution to absorb increasing labour force and to promote skill training process.  In other word, the project has a positive impact on the diversification of the training system in the country.  Sri Lanka needs diversification and sophistication of human resource training and development. The current practice is devoted to export human resources with a small training at a lower price.

However, the most valuable and significant impression of port development projects concern with export and services development.  Since early 1950s it can be seen that a severe competition for export of goods has been going throughout the world. In this contention, Sri Lanka faced with giant constraints mainly because of the quality of product and technological advancement were at lower level creating disadvantages to the country.  The concept of port and industrial parks development will force the export mechanism to increase the quality and sophistication.  When Sri Lanka associates with an export giant China, its competitiveness could be improved and find solutions for international trade related problems such as terms of trade, trade balance and the balance of payments etc.

Many international analysts are of opinion that Hambantota will be a centre of the traditional Chinese Silk road, which will be modified through Kra Cannel in Thailand.  The proposed Kra cannel project attracted to many countries in South East Asia and Sri Lanka would be benefited from the modern diversification of economic operations.  In this situation, why certain people in Sri Lanka oppose to such a massive development program is difficult to comprehend.

Since 1978 Sri Lanka has been engaged in reasonable level of open trade and outward looking market economic system investing in larger development projects.  As a critical observer, I notice that there is a serious weakness in policy development process in Sri Lanka, it has a weak policy monitoring and remedial management process.  Sri Lanka needs a high-powered policy monitoring and direction for remedial management.  Most of projects initiates with behemoth hopes but many objectives are subject to miscarriage in the future as there is not powerful authority to policy monitoring and remedial management.

The limited market economic system adapted in 1978 brought immense benefits to people of the country.  The weakness of the system was that there was not a competent policy authority to monitoring and remedial management resulting indiscipline’s in operations of the market economic system.  It can be seen that many people criticize the market economic system without a clear understanding of the system and lots of positive impacts incurred in the economy and the society.  The mentality of Sri Lankans aligned to certain areas.

The port development projects are highly related with a new culture for the country. The port development is also engaged with services, which would be successful only they delivered the expected efficiency and the quality.  As the concept of port development is expanding to many countries in the modern era, the quality, efficiency and competitiveness would be prime factors of the success of projects.  How can achieve such goals is a question in Sri Lanka and a high-powered policy committee can monitor the policy and make remedial management.

Sheain Fernandopulle Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Nearly 186 people had received money from Arjun Aloysius, Campaign for Free and Fair Elections (CaFFE) and Centre for Human Rights and Research Sri Lanka (CHR) Executive Director Keerthi Tennakoon said yesterday.

He said these figures might increase as more and more hidden data on the bond scam were exposed.

We have done our part in educating the people on the bond scam. Now, it is up to the officials to take necessary action and expose the details of those who have received money from Arjun Aloysius,” Mr. Tennakoon said. Politicians, state officials, religious leaders, journalists and some others are included in the list. We urge those responsible to expose these names before we unearth them and release them to the people.”

He said he had written to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya requesting him to obtain affidavits from the newly appointed Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) members, to prove they had not obtained any funds from Mr. Aloysius.

lanka C news

අර්ජුන් ඇලෝසියස් තමනට මුදල් දුන්නේද දුන්නේ නම් ඒ කීයක්ද කියා දන්නේ නැති බව රාජ්‍ය ඇමති සුජීව සේනසිංහ මහතා පවසයි.

තමන්ගේ මැතිවරණය මෙහෙයවන්නේ මිතුරන් විසින් බවත් අදාල ලියකිවිලි පරීක්‍ෂා කර බලා ඒ සමබන්දයෙන් අදහස් පල කල හැති බවත් ඔහු සදහන් කරයි.

අර්ජුන් ඇලෝසියස්ගෙන් මුදල් ගත්තේදැයි මාධ්‍ය විසින් කල විමසීමකදී ඔහු මෙම අදහස් පල කලේය.

අර්ජුන් ඇලෝසියස් යනු ප‍්‍රභාකරන් නොවන බවද ඔහු වැඩි දුරටත් කීවේය.

By Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka Courtesy The Daily Mirror

This is a sign of just how managerial and technocratic we have become; so much so that mediocre utilitarianism confuses itself with professionalism. And all of this is in place of what could be called humanism.”— John Ralston Saul, ‘Voltaire’s Bastards’

From President Sirisena’s whistle-blowing ‘State bank privatization plot’ speech to the surrounding social anomie, we are living through a great variety of morbid symptoms” which appear in this interregnum” as described in Antonio Gramsci’s classic passage with the opening definition the crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born.”

Is the post-2019 future to be a rightwing Authoritarian Populism” as Stuart Hall named the Thatcher (or more broadly the Thatcher-Reagan) phenomenon? Or is it to be a left-of-centre, progressive and democratic populism in which nationalism is part of the protean mix? Is the patriotic populist vision of a strong State and strong leadership, to be of the centrist Putin-Erdogan variety or the rightist Trump-Netanyahu variety?

Any design for a new vision for Sri Lanka should centrally and explicitly address the mounting social crisis. A front page lead of an English language newspaper (May 27) disclosed that 40% of Colombo’s children are malnourished. The overall malnutrition figure for most provinces is a shocking 25%-30% i.e. 2 or 3 out of every 10 persons! The report was based on a presentation on May 24 to a Parliamentary Sectoral Oversight Committee on Women and Gender and the Children’s caucus, by Dr. Thusitha Wijemanna.

The same newspaper reported on May 30 that the Global Nutrition Report (GNR) 2017, a World Health Organisation (WHO) publication, documented that in Sri Lanka ‘Anaemia among women of reproductive age’ i.e. ages 15-49, had risen to 33 per cent as at 2016, when compared to lower figures of 25.7 per cent as at 2011.
Early in 2015, when the Yahapalana Government took office, a noteworthy economic conference was held in Colombo. Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Prof. Joseph Stiglitz, sat next to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and urged that the key to optimal economic development in Sri Lanka should be regarded as the question of equity. By January 2016, Prof. Stiglitz had written a key article containing his recommendations. He has proved prophetic:

Some suggest that Sri Lanka turn to the International Monetary Fund, promising belt tightening. That would be hugely-unpopular. Too many countries have lost their economic sovereignty in IMF programmes. Besides, the IMF would almost surely tell Sri Lankan officials not that they’re spending too much, but that they’re taxing too little.” (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sri-lanka-development-growth-by-joseph-e–stiglitz-2016-01)

So far, Stiglitz’ recommendations have been ignored by the UNP and its Alt-Right challengers. The vision for Sri Lanka articulated by Joe Stiglitz, the world’s most renowned economic policy intellectual, pays particular and repeated emphasis to precisely the public” rather than the corporate/private: public goods,” public investments,” public infrastructure,” public services,” public transport” etc. His recommendations for Sri  Lanka stress the public factors and dimension rather than the private sector, the market realities” or public-private partnerships:

Any design for a new vision for Sri Lanka should centrally and explicitly address the mounting social crisis

…Likewise, another frequently proposed strategy, public-private partnerships, may not be as beneficial as advertised. Such partnerships usually entail the government bearing the risk, while the private sector takes the profits. Typically, the implicit cost of capital obtained in this way is very high. And while the private sector can, and frequently does, renege on its contractual obligations (through bankruptcy) – or force a renegotiation under the threat of reneging – the government cannot, especially when an international investment agreement is in place.”

…Heavy public investment in infrastructure, education, technology, and much else. Indeed, such investments are needed for the entire country…”

…This gives the country the opportunity to create model cities, based on the adequate provision of public services and sound public transport and attuned to the cost of carbon and climate change.”

Sri Lanka, beautiful and ideally located in the Indian Ocean, is in a position to become an economic hub for the entire region – a financial centre and a safe haven for investment in a geopolitically-turbulent part of the world. But this won’t happen by relying excessively on markets or under-investing in public goods.” (Stiglitz, Ibid)
Godfrey Gunatilleke is the most distinguished Sri Lankan development thinker-practitioner alive. Volume 1 of his selected essays ‘Towards a Sri Lankan Model of Development’ (May 2017), contains a final chapter entitled ‘A Vision of Sri Lanka 2025 and 2035: from High Human Development to Very High Human Development.’ Anybody who attempts a vision for this country should study it.

The latest vision statement for Sri Lanka rolled out at the Viyathmaga event at the Shangri-La by Gotabaya Rajapaksa is one which does not mention, one single time, any of the following keywords and core concepts: ‘citizens’/‘citizenry,’ ‘social,’ ‘public,’ ‘poor’ (except for ‘poor returns’), ‘poverty,’ ‘inequity,’ ‘unemployment,’ ‘rural,’ ‘peasantry,’ ‘agrarian.’ This is by no means a centre-left, moderate or middle path policy paradigm.

What Sri Lanka needs is not to mimic, adopt or adapt a model from the US, India, China or anywhere else. What it needs, firstly, is a deep study of its own realities and development experience, and a balance sheet of the positives and negatives of each development episode/phase, with a view to combining the best practices adopted by all Sri Lankan governments hitherto. Secondly, this study must be informed by a creative application of the best development practices in other parts of the world, insofar as they are relevant.

Development is not a spectator sport, where the majority of citizens watches and cheers while corporate profits and high-rise buildings ascend, as their own quality of life declines or stagnates. The foreign policy component of the Viyathmaga sessions completely-omitted the main challenges: how do we successfully combat – not merely decry and denounce – the threat of universal jurisdiction and unilateral sanctions? How do we reverse the diminution of our soft power”?

Sri Lanka’s international relations cannot be insulated from Sri  Lanka’s nationalities question. The Tamil question was globalised decades ago and is now more globalised than ever. No serious discussion on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy can ignore this problem and omit the political solution we propose, which is vital in managing our relations with India — without which we lose international space and are strategically-vulnerable.

In 2015, Sri Lanka broke with the settled traditions of its democracy and brought Right and Centre together in a coalition government with ghastly results: we inhabit a decadent, fraught, ‘Weimar moment.’ Will Sri Lanka return to the successful democratic conventions and traditions that have prevailed since 1947 (including over the JVP and LTTE): the competitive alternation of centre-right and centre-left that propelled our high social welfare and sustained our pluralist democratic freedoms? Or will we see post-2019, roughly the same pattern, that we did post-1977—an euphoric ‘new beginning,’ a great economic upswing initially, a harsh authoritarian interlude justified by calls for stability in the cause of rapid economic advancement, and a culmination in multiple conflicts, internal and external, with foreign troops on our soil?

The most effective political struggle against the rightist-dominated government has been waged post-2015 by a progressive, broadly centre-left opposition. Which ideological tendency, progressive centre-left, moderate–centrist or neo-nationalist right, prevails in the broad oppositional space and as the opposition’s option, will depend considerably on the SLFP’s new course.

Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Who would have thought President Maithripala Sirisena was not in agreement with the 100-day-programme marketed by those who toiled to see him as the President following the 2015 election? This has been the case, according to the President himself, who broke the news last week.

President Sirisena dumbfounded the entire country, perhaps including his family members, at a function held last Wednesday at the Sri Lanka Foundation to commemorate the 76th birth anniversary of the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera, when he questioned as to who compiled the 100-day-programme. He said with only 47 UNP MPs in Parliament, a programme was prepared in calendar form to be implemented within 100 days. He said the right thing that should have happened was to have dissolved Parliament the very next day he was sworn in.

He baffled the entire country by implying he was oblivious to the 100-day-programme. It is a well-known fact that the Presidential election campaign was purely planned and put in practice by the United National Party (UNP) leadership and therefore, there may be some truth in what the President says. The UNP might have strategized the course of action without the knowledge and consent of their common candidate, but in belief there was no reason for him to oppose it. And also the UNP, during its two tenures under Presidents of other parties, had been exercising the habit of bulldozing through the latter’s wishes and it might have ignored the President as he implies.

Yet, why did he wait for so long (three and a half years) to speak this truth” to his countrymen? It is unlikely that people would believe what he said as the programme seemed to have had his blessings and the support of the SLFP group that paralyzed former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s leadership along with him, throughout the 100 days when some of the 100 points of it were implemented. The President rightly boasted on Wednesday that it was he who gave necessary Parliamentary support as head of the SLFP to give effect to the main components of the 100-day-programme such as the mini-Budget with so many concessions to the people in the first month of his administration and the 19th Amendment which was passed in Parliament in April 2015. Did he mean support was given to implement a programme which he did not agree with?

The common Presidential candidate of the opposition, Maithripala Sirisena had announced on the first day of his candidature that he would appoint UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister immediately after his election; he readily kept that promise. If he had not expected some programme – 100-day or else — to be implemented in days to come, why did he appoint a Prime Minister and board of ministers without dissolving the Parliament straightaway?

One has to accept the important point he articulated about the role of the SLFP under his leadership in bringing in democratic reforms after the so-called Yahapalana Government came to power. There were 142 MPs who had accepted the leadership of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa then, and without their support no reforms could have been brought in by the UNP which had only 47 MPs. The President used his SLFP chairmanship to make his party members support those reforms. The fact that he is not only the SLFP Chairman but also the Executive President of the country might have worked towards this end.

However, his outburst points out that bickering between the UNP and the President’s group in the government is worsening. And neither party seems to be giving in which has already adversely affected the country. They have to put up with each other for the next 18 months as the law does not allow people to replace the incumbent government with another. Hence, circumstances demand leaders from both ruling parties to act responsibly.

By Malinda Seneviratne Courtesy The Daily Mirror

The burning political question of the day appears to be who and how many Parliamentarians received money from Perpetual Treasuries Ltd (PTL) for their respective election campaigns. In a political season marked by scandalous memory-loss some have claimed that they didn’t always know who was depositing money in their accounts. Meanwhile, the full list of beneficiaries is proving to be elusive; first it was said that PTL had funded the campaigns of 116 politicians, later the number was upped to 166 and now it stands at 186.

What is interesting, as Shamindra Ferdinando of ‘The Island’ recently pointed out in a television discussion, is that no one is talking about the money that the Government of the United States of America has pumped into certain political campaigns here in Sri Lanka. The then US Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged that his Government had spent US$582 million ‘to strengthen democracy’ in Sri Lanka, Burma and Nigeria. The Sri Lankan chunk was ‘invested’ in the run up to the change-of-government in January 2015. The US Embassy in Colombo has not responded to a request by Ferdinando to reveal the amount relevant to Sri Lanka.

Now ‘democracy’ is a good word and sounds decent too, but it has been prostituted so much and by no country as much as the USA, that it’s become a global joke whenever the USA is involved: ‘Do as we say!’ says Uncle Sam, ‘or else we will bring democracy to you!’ That could mean anything from drone attacks, a civil war, a devastated economy and misery lasting years.

It’s now a blame game about inefficiency, incompetence, wrongdoing and rank stupidity

What is relevant however is that even if those political friends of Uncle Sam got just 10% of this democracy-fund it is still about 7000 times more than what any of the politicians that PTL helped out during that election. PTL is under a cloud, sure, but then again the sky above Washington DC, metaphorically speaking, has been jet black for centuries. Sorry, that’s being overly generous. Washington DC is not under a cloud, because that indicates the possibility of innocence. The point need not be elaborated. The question that Shamindra raises is pertinent: if these politicians erred in receiving bucks from PTL, what of the parties (and individuals) that were bucked by the State Department?

Given all this, maybe someone can argue that Russia, if that country got involved in the first place in the US Presidential Election, ‘was only strengthening democracy’ since the giver can use the word regardless of intention and regardless of the color of the particular currency (robbed, plundered, swindled or printed).

Let’s get to the burning political question of the past three years: Yahapalanaya or lack thereof. What we are seeing almost on a daily basis is a scenario akin to thieves falling out. It’s now a blame game about inefficiency, incompetence, wrongdoing and rank stupidity. The problem is that separate entities though they may believe themselves to be, while the Yahapalana knot stands, praise and blame accrue to all constituent elements of the coalition.

The problem about taking pot shots at one another in this case is that the assailants happen to be twins, joined at their political hips. It is too late in the day to breakaway because any surgery will result in both being wounded and will leave both with a limp that will be a decisive handicap in any political race.

Yes, we are talking about Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe. Yes, we are talking about the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the United National Party. Yes, we are talking about the entire Yahapalana Government. Whether or not reduced circumstances and fear of sojourn in a political wilderness will force these twins to recognize the reality of their congenital fate we do not know. What we do know is that they are sorely lacking in political choices at this point.

Things are so bad that quite contrary to Wickremesinghe’s message to the UNP, ‘focus on solving the problems of the people’ all constituent parties of this government and their backers are betting on distractions.

The issue of PTL funding politicians is a good example. The focus of a true yahapanalist (yes, the lot swearing by that term are patently fake) should be the issue of transparency and accountability in campaign finance. An individual yahapalanist politician, even at this late date, would say something like this: ‘from this day forth I shall accept donations only on the condition that the name of the donor and the amount will be immediately made public’.

If any Yahapalanist was truly concerned about politicians being funded by a company that was accused of benefitting from as scandalous a scam as the one associated with Central Bank bonds, then such a person would also take issue with the interference in domestic affairs by the USA. But no, they never had issues with such things back in 2015.

Therein lies the problem. Wrongdoing is not an issue. Wrongdoing by those who are not with them can be an issue whereas wrongdoing by someone in the family becomes a problem only when the integrity and political future of the clan could come under threat.

That’s Yahapalanaya in a nutshell, folks; rather the UNP-SLFP version of it.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

සිරංගිකා ලොකුකරවිට උපුටාගැණීම ලංකාදීප

By Shivanthi Ranasinghe Courtesy Ceylon Today

By Dr. Tilak S. Fernando Courtesy Ceylon Today

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, June 6 (newsin.asia): An attempt by dissidents in the ruling Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) to unite rivals Maithripala Sirisena and  Mahinda Rajapaksa, received a setback on Tuesday when they failed to get common candidate” Dr.Sudarshani Fernandopulle elected to the post of Deputy Speaker of Parliament or even get a decent number votes.

Dr.Sudarshani should have got 90 plus votes if Sirisena and Rajapaksa were united. But she got only 53. The United National Party’s candidate Ananda Kumarasiri got  97 votes and won convincingly.

Many MPs of the 224 strong House did not participate in the voting.

Before the voting, SLFP (S) dissident leader S.B.Dissanayake had announced that Dr.Sudarshani would be the common candidate of the Sirisena and Rajapaksa factions. A leading follower of Rajapaksa, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, had even seconded Dr.Sudarshani. But voting showed that there was no unity.

Those SLFP MPs who had stuck to Sirisena had decided to vote for the United National Party (UNP) candidate Kumarasiri as he was part of the ruling SLFP (Sirisena)-UNP alliance.

Thus, the ploy of the 16 SLFP dissidents to unify the Sirisena and Rajapaksa factions and split from the alliance with the UNP backfired.

According to political observers, the unity move has some miles to go before it can register progress.

The fact is that at this time, neither the Rajapaksa nor the Sirisena faction wants to rush into unification. Any serious moves, one way or the other, will be made only before the next major elections, political observers said. But elections are not far away. Some Provincial elections are expected to be held later this year. The Presidential election is due in January 2020 and parliamentary elections are to be held in August 2020.

In the meantime, President Sirisena would like to fully utilize his position as the Executive President of Sri Lanka to garner support for his faction. He would like to beef up his strength before going for a link up with Rajapaksa. Rajapaksa, in turn, would also like to make use of his growing popularity to get the best bargain in a unified SLFP.

As a Hill Country Tamil MP Thilakaraj said, Rajapaksa would have made a serious effort to get Dr.Sudarshani elected if she had been from his faction, which is now known as the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna or SLPP. But she was not. She has also not been consistent. She had broken away from Rajapaksa and joined Sirisena. But after the SLFP (Sirisena) got a drubbing at the hands of the SLPP  in the February 10 local bodies elections, she became a rebel and a votary of unification with the SLPP.

It is said that Rajapaksa will not admit the rebels unconditionally. Some of his conditions may hurt the dissidents’ egos. By getting Dr.Sudarshani defeated, Rajapaksa was conveying the message that the rebels cannot take his support for granted.

Meanwhile, Daily Mirror reported that the 16 SLFP (S) rebels are themselves a divided house, with some saying that it is too early to move away from Sirisena and that a low profile and thoughtful actions are called for at this juncture.

Rickety National Unity Government

Be that as it may, the SLFP (Sirisena)-UNP alliance continues to be rickety. There are sharp ideological differences. While the Sirisena group is leftist, nationalistic, and somewhat Sinhalese- majoritarian in its thinking, the UNP is a neo-liberal, Right of Center and pro-West party.

There have been clashes over policy and decisions since the National Unity Government (NUG), comprising the SLFP (S) and the UNP, came into being in January 2015. The President, as SLFP (S) leader, has revered many decisions of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremsinghe who heads the UNP.

The absence of unity in the National Unity Government” led to a policy and administrative paralysis which made the government unpopular.  Its unpopularity was reflected in the February 10, 2018 local bodies elections, in which the SLFP (S) and the UNP were both severely mauled by Rajapaksa’s  SLPP.

The election defeat led to a mild revolt in the UNP against its Supremo, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. But this was soon quashed by Wickremesinghe with promises of policy changes.

But the electoral defeat’s impact on the SLFP (S) was greater as it came a poor third in the elections. Sirisena’s followers blamed the alliance with the UNP and the premiership of Wickremesinghe for the electoral debacle. They wanted President Sirisena to sack Wickremesinghe.

When Sirisena said that the 19 th. Amendment of the constitution (enacted in 2015) had taken away the President’s power to sack the Prime Minister, the dissidents, numbering 16 MPs including cabinet ministers, walked out of the government side in parliament and sat with the opposition. The ministers resigned from their posts.

However, the rebels insisted that they were still SLFP (S) members and would work for the unification of the Sirisena and Rajapaksa factions with the aim of setting up an SLFP-led government without the right wing UNP.

Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana Courtesy The Daily Mirror

A sum of US $ 20 million has been obtained as commissions from a foreign company involved in the construction of the Norochcholai Power plant, State Minister of Power and Renewable Energy Ajith P. Perera told Parliament yesterday.

State Minister Perera made this revelation in response to an oral question raised by government MP Nalin Bandara in the House last afternoon. He said that there was evidence to say that certain irregularities had taken place when constructing the power plant, the State Minister said.

State Minister Perera also revealed that there had been irregularities pertaining to tenders to supply coal from 2010 to 2015. He said a contract had been awarded to a company named Nobel Resource Limited for the supply of coal to the CEB without tenders being called. The State Minister said a sum of US Dollars 366. 353 million had been paid to this company for supplying 4,585, 670 metric tonnes of coal without a tender procedure.

According to State Minister Perera, the company Nobel Resource Limited has supplied a total of 4,585, 670 MT of coal to the Ceylon Electricity Board from 2010 to 2015

He said that the operation of the Norochcholai Coal Power plant was interrupted for 24 days as the company failed to supply coal on time. The time duration was from September 28, 2011 to October 23, 2011. The loss to the government by this shipment delay was Rs. 3500 million. He pointed out that a further Rs. 12,500 million loss had been recorded for the same reasons during years 2014-2015 as well.

By Rohana R. Wasala

A recent  article titled ‘Why Violent Buddhist Extremists Are Targeting Muslims in Sri Lanka’ by Andreas Johansson of Lund University in Sweden available at https://theconversation.com/why-violent-buddhist-extremists-are-targeting-muslims-in-sri-lanka-92951 is a classic example of the relentless anti-Buddhist propaganda carried on by the Western and allied media outlets for a long time now. Johansson’s inexplicable antipathy towards the Sinhalese Buddhist majority of Sri Lanka is clearly reflected in both the title and the opening paragraph, which runs as follows:

New clashes between Buddhist extremists and Muslims occurred in two different towns in Sri Lanka, Kandy and Ampara, in early 2018. Triggered in part by hate-filled posts spread by nationalistic Sinhala Buddhist Facebook groups, these riots resulted in the death of one Muslim and the destruction of many buildings”.

This sort of ‘scholarly’ writing, whose quantity over the past many decades has been as extensive as its quality is low, is most probably meant to give an aura of academic authenticity to politically motivated potshots at the long enduring Sinhalese Buddhist cultural foundation of Sri Lanka.

It at once becomes clear that Johansson is laboring under careless misconceptions about intercommunity relations between Buddhists and Muslims in Sri Lanka that characterize the whole essay. To the average reader unfamiliar with the truth about Sri Lanka’s past and present it could appear to be a learned paper by an authoritative Swedish academic. It is none of the sort. Its author seems to lack any appreciable knowledge of the most basic facts about the enduring Buddhist cultural ethos of Sri Lanka, nor about its history.

Violent religious fundamentalism is unknown among Buddhists.  There are absolutely no ‘violent Buddhist extremists’ in Sri Lanka. There is nothing in the Buddhist teaching or in its practice that encourages violence for any reason. But Buddhists cannot be expecxted to be suicidal pacifists. (Wherever violent incidents involving Buddhists or Buddhist monks are reported, it is always found that they are not the initiators of the trouble; they are found to be reacting to violence committed on them by others.) They just cannot afford to take refuge in otherworldly pacifism before unrelenting, unprovoked aggression from intrinsically violent sectarian religious ideologies; they are obliged to react to them in peaceful legitimate ways. Anti-Buddhist religious extremists, however, sometimes succeed in deliberately  inducing violent reactions among peaceful Buddhists (both laity and clergy) by casual provocative acts such as throwing stones at Buddhist processions or by deploying agents provocateurs in protest rallies organized by Buddhists. Islamists  resort to their customary strategy of playing the victim card, and overnight the ‘violent extremist’ label gets transferred to innocent Buddhists, be it in Sri Lanka, or Myanmar or Thailand, for that matter.

The truth about the present situation in Sri Lanka is that a handful of individuals belonging to a violent extremist Islamic sect (commonly known as Wahhabists) are intermingled with mainstream Muslims in Sri Lanka as happens elsewhere in the world. Ordinary Sri Lankan Muslims, like their Buddhist, Hindu and Christian neighbours, do not subscribe to any dangerous extremism. The Muslim minority (slightly less than 10% of the population) have coexisted peacefully for centuries with the majority  Sinhalese (75%) who are overwhelmingly Buddhist and minority Tamils (15%) who are predominantly Hindu. Muslims constitute a dominant business oriented community in the country, and to date they have been flourishing in commerce by catering to a predominantly Buddhist customer base. Sri Lankan Muslims are mainly Tamil speakers, but most of them are bilingual in Tamil and Sinhala. They have never been subjected to any form of discrimination in other spheres either, such as education, health and employment on grounds of religion or other form of ethnic identity. It must also be remembered that no post-independence government has ever targeted any community for adverse treatment in its general  welfare policies or development programs. Minorities including Muslims flourish in Sri Lanka mainly due to the unique tolerance and the characteristic humanitarianism of the age old Buddhist culture of the majority Sinhalese. There is not the slightest suggestion of the minorities having to live on sufferance of the Sinhalese Buddhists.

Incidentally, the few Tamil political extremists (separatists/federalists/eelamists) that are there are peripheral to the peaceful, nonviolent ordinary Tamil community in the same way as the small number of fundamentalist Islamists are inessential to the mainstream Muslim community: their ideologies find few converts among the mainstream. But lavishly funded and promoted from foreign sources, both these groups demonstrate much more power than their numbers can account for. Some opportunistic minority politicians exploit this in elections to win votes, because an appeal to communalism invariably rallies support for a candidate within any minority community against the majority. (In any country, the minorities are specially concerned about their acceptance within the totality of the population whereas the majority community takes its unthreatened status for granted, and tends to be less communally conscious than the minorities.)

The same strategy (of resorting to communalism for garnering votes) does not work for the Sinhalese politicians. The average Sinhalese only think in terms of the country, not race. The Sinhalese have always been the defenders of the territorial integrity of the country and of Buddhism as its defining culture. However, in the prevailing circumstances in which they are being falsely accused of racism and xenophobia for political reasons, the Sinhalese Buddhists feel increasingly besieged in their own homeland with nowhere else to go. Sinhalese Buddhists, about 15 million in total, are a global minority compared to Tamils and Muslims. The Sinhalese are now actually feeling like a persecuted minority. There is a gnawing sense of betrayal among them in general, for they are being subjected to a form of cultural genocide in various ways at present (encroachment, vandalizing, or destruction of ancient Buddhist sites, attacks on the Sangha, distortion of the Buddhist history of the island, etc.).

The feeling of insecurity and betrayal is less due to the unconcealed communalism of certain minority politicians than to the hypocrisy of some leading politicians from the majority community who, in a misguided belief that they would not get minority votes if they showed the slightest concern about the problems of the majority Sinhalese Buddhists, they show a readiness to accommodate even  utterly unreasonable demands made on behalf of the minorities by respective extremist groups that claim to represent those communities. These opportunistic majority politicians’ sole aim is to get the minorities to vote for them at the elections, which is a vain hope, when their own politicians try to attract them through appeals to the ‘herd instinct’ in them as a separate community.  Something that the Sinhalese politicians seem to never learn is that the majority of ordinary Tamils and Muslims are generally as reasonable and as national minded as the majority of the ordinary Sinhalese, and that therefore they need not act as if the Sinhalese never existed in order to befriend the Tamils and Muslims.  When certain leaders go to the north and launch verbal attacks on the so-called ‘racists in the south’, and participate in a government that discriminates against the majority they lose their credibility not only among the Sinhalese, but among the Tamils and Muslims as well.

Andreas Johansson describes himself as Director of Swedish South Asian Studies Network (SASNET) at Lund University. He claims to have a PhD (presumably for South Asian Studies) and says that he has done fieldwork in Sri Lanka. In spite of his apparently impressive academic background, Johansson seems to be a slipshod researcher like many nondescript Eurocentric scholars in respect of non-Western cultures that we have come across. Obviously, it hasn’t occurred to him that Buddhists are also human and that they also have a right to have their side of the story listened to by those who want to pass judgement on them. For his comments on the recent disturbances in the Kandy district and in Ampara he has entirely relied on biased media reports; his take on the actual historical and sociological background to the problem is similarly based on the wrong sources.

The truth of what happened in the Kandy district recently is something that is self-evident to the locals on both sides (Buddhists and Muslims), though it remains to be officially investigated and confirmed by the authorities. There is an allegation about government complicity in instigating the violence in order to transfer the blame to its opponents (This refers to recent statements in this regard made by Colombo district Member of Parliament Udaya Gammanpila, attorney at law, leader of Pivithuru Hela Urumaya which is a constituent of the Joint Opposition. He says that he is equipped with evidence to support his charges, and he proposes that a credible presidential commission be appointed to look into the matter). What is now public knowledge is that, according to eyewitnesses, a forty-one year old truck driver belonging to the majority Sinhalese Buddhist community was allegedly beaten up by three young Muslims at the provincial town of Teldeniya near Kandy, under the influence of liquor over some personal dispute (which, in fact,  had nothing to do with race or religion). The victim was grievously hurt as a result of the assault. He succumbed to his injuries after nine days in the ICU (intensive care unit) of the local hospital.

There was a popular feeling that the police were remiss in taking timely action to apprehend the suspects and secure justice for the aggrieved party. This was aggravated by a pre-existent undercurrent of communal tension between Buddhists and Muslims that was entirely due to certain questionable activities of the aforementioned extremist Muslim sect.  Successive governments have failed to address serious concerns raised by representative Buddhist monks and laypersons and their Muslim counterparts about the issue over many years now.  Routine governmental inaction in this regard  seems to be wrongly rationalized as being in the interest of ‘reconciliation’.  Reasonable ordinary Buddhists and Muslims are not impressed by the generally evasive policies of the present and past governments in respect of this problem.

Not only Buddhists and Muslims, but Christians and Hindu Tamils as well (i.e., all peaceful Sri Lankans) expect the government of the day (formed by whatever party or alliance at any time)to lawfully eliminate all forms of violent political and religious extremism and maintain law and order in the whole country, thereby enabling them to live peacefully in total independence and security wherever in the island they choose to live. Representatives of the different communities must get together and find ways and means to address the current unsettled situation brought about by extremists. It is not the exclusive responsibility of the majority community to do so; it is the common responsibility of all the communities. But each community must provide the leadership that is necessary to contain violent elements and movements within itself, and prevent them from posing a threat to national unity and security.

DHARSHAN WEERASEKERA

Maithripala Sirisena’s extraordinary speech at a commemoration for the monk Sobitha on 30^th May 2018 proves beyond any doubt that he (Sirisena) is a completely unscrupulous, unethical and unprincipled politician:  a pure opportunist.[1]  He will say or do anything as long as it serves his personal and political ends at any given time.

However, this might be the very attribute that helps the Sinhalas to get him to go quietly and let the person that almost every sensible person in this country now expects will be the next President to take power as soon as possible.  Sirisena’s single greatest fear at the moment is what will happen to him and his family when the Sinhalas take over in 2020.

So, all that the Sinhalas have to do is give Sirisena an iron-clad guarantee of safety, and he’ll walk away.  In this article, I shall briefly set out my reasons for saying that Sirisena is a pure opportunist, and also my proposal as to what the Sinhalas can do to take advantage of this.

• The Opportunist

To give just one example, Sirisena in his speech at the monk Sobitha’s commemoration says: ‘The One-Hundred-Day Program was one of the silliest things ever undertaken by this Government.’[2]  Recall that, the ‘100-day Program’ was Sirisena’s signature campaign pledge in the run up to the January 2015 Presidential Elections.  I am informed on good authority that there is video footage of Sirisena holding the leaflet in question aloft and pledging himself to it before a Buddha Statue.

I haven’t had the pleasure yet of watching that clip, but I do know that on page 5 of his Manifesto for the 2015 Presidential Elections, he says this:

‘Along with the political leaders and people who are with me I will implement in two stages a programme to stabilize the country.  The first stage is the Hundred Day Programme to solve urgent issues.  For that purpose a National Unity Alliance Government will be established for a hundred day interim period.  This programme will be implemented through a National Government comprising the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, the United National party, the Jathika Hela Urumaya and representatives of all other political parties in the present Parliament who are willing to join this programme.  The leader pf the Opposition Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe will be appointed as the Prime Minster of this National Government.’

‘Second, I will implement a six-year programme to build an ideal country through the government that will be established after the General Elections to be held after hundred days.  I have no greed for power.  I am only fulfilling the historic task entrusted to be to build and stabilize the country.[3]

(I should mention that the aforesaid Manifesto is the sole basis for Sirisena’s purported ‘January 8^th Mandate’ and to the best of my knowledge was accepted as such by the Supreme Court during submissions in the Special Determination on the 19^th Amendment,  The Manifesto is part of the record in those proceedings.)

Thus, according to his recent statement at the monk Sobitha’s commemoration, the entire first limb of Sirisena’s purported plan to rescue the country is a farce.  Where does that leave the second – i.e. the purported ‘six-year programme to build an ideal country?’  We now know that after the General Elections in August 2015 he established a ‘National Government’ using 45 SLFP MP’s who had no mandate from their voter to do any such thing.  In other words, a subverted democracy was to be the basis for the ideal country.

Finally, as for Sirisena not being greedy for power, in January he invoked Article 129 of the Constitution and petitioned the Supreme Court to find out whether he could stay in power for 6 years instead of 5. (The Presidential term had been shortened to 5 year as per the pledges made in the 100-day programme!)  In short, every one of the points he makes in the aforesaid key paragraphs of his Manifesto, is a lie or made in bad faith.  I repeat he is the quintessential opportunist.

• The ‘Deal’

When one is dealing with a person who is a pure opportunist, it is useless trying to ‘reform’ the chap, or even to get angry at him.  He is only doing what comes naturally to him.  It is far better to make it worthwhile for him to con someone else.  So, the Sinhalas must get Sirisena to turn on the persons and parties that helped bring him to power, because, in his own estimation, just as it was convenient for him to side with them in 2015, it is now convenient for him to reject them and side with the Sinhalas.

Who are the persons and/or parties that brought Sirisena to power?  They are:  Ranil, the Tamil Separatists, the NGO’ists and the foreigners, i.e. the U. S., India and the U. K.  Of these, Ranil has his UNP base and his Old-boys network and he can go back to those once the Sinhalas take over.  The Separatists have their various rackets to continue the push for Eelam.

The NGO’ists have made enough money pushing Yahapalanaya policies and programs over the past 3 years and will make even more once the Sinhalas take over, because their donors will pay more to dislodge the Sinhala’s again.  Only Sirisena will be left high and dry, because, his ‘45’ will drop him like a soiled handkerchief the moment the Sinhalas win.  So, Sirisena’s best hope is to get on the good side of the Sinhalas themselves.  All that the Sinhalas have to do is offer him a good enough deal.  For what it’s worth, I propose the following.

The Sinhalas will approach the Mahanayakas of the four nikayas and say that they (Sinhalas) will take a solomn vow, at a place of undisputed sanctity for the Sinhalas such as the Ruwanweli Seya, in the presence of the assembled Sangha along with the Mahahanayakas, and swear by everything sacred to them that, if Sirisena abdicates a year prior to the end of his term (i.e. in November 2018 instead of 2019) the Sinhalas will not raise a finger against him, his family and anyone else he designates.

Sirisena’s henchmen and hangers-on, and (this is hard for me) the ‘45’ can retire in peace.  Let them can take their ‘winnings’ – i.e. bags of cash, gold chains, gems and jewelry, penthouses, SUV’s, BMW’s, and whatever else they have hoarded during the past three years if not earlier – and just go, no questions asked.  As for Sirisena, he can retire to his official residence in Colombo (which will be given promptly) or his private chalet (I presume in Polonnaruwa) and enjoy life.

He can go for walks in the paddy fields, chat with his old school chums, banter with the villagers, play with his grandkids, whatever he wants, in perfect peace and tranquility.  There will be no court appearances, unseemly summons to various ‘investigating agencies,’ interviews with prosecutors, endless meetings with lawyers, and in general, the humiliation of being lorded over and treated like a common criminal by men and women who, when he was President, would have licked his slippers on command.

Sirisena will draft the contract for his side.  He can insert whatever conditions he wants.  The Sinhalas will even ‘sweeten’ the deal with a little something extra:  an honorary or ceremonial title, say, ‘Vice President.’

To digress a moment, I am informed on good authority that the Sinhalas are busy drafting a number of Constitutions which they hope to put to the People before the 2020 Elections so that candidates who ask for Sinhala votes know exactly what is expected of them, and there’s no backtracking once elected.  I am sure the Sinhalas can be persuaded to work something like a ‘Vice Presidency’ into one of these drafts.

Being a ‘Vice President’ albeit in a purely ceremonial capacity will enable Sirisena to continue to command the allegiance if not the respect of his henchmen, something no doubt very important to a retired politician, if not a former President.  I am reminded of King Lear’s poignant reply to his daughter Regan when she tells him that he no longer needs a retinue of a hundred knights, and recommends that he reduce it to a more manageable number.  He says:

‘O, reason not the need:  our basest beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous; allow not nature more than nature needs, Man’s life is cheap as beast’s.’[4]

To return, the Sinhalas will sign the aforesaid contract in the presence of the assembled Sangha and the Mahanayakas.  The contract will be in writing, and the Sangha will enforce it, not this or that Sinhala.   Under the circumstances, no Sinhala, especially a politician, will dare violate such a contract, and hope to continue in ‘business.’  It is as iron-clad a guarantee of safety as any person can ever hope to have in Sri Lanka.

If one looks at the above from the point of view of a pure opportunist, I can’t imagine why Sirisena wouldn’t jump at the aforesaid deal.  Not only will he ensure his safety, he will instantly become a hero to the Sinhalas, a modern-day Sirisanghabo!  And this in turn will help him make a run for the Presidency again, in the distant future, if he so wishes.  In any event, I urge the relevant ‘authorities’ among the Sinhalas to put some serious thought into this matter.

[1] I am relying on the text of Sirisena’s speech published in the ‘Divaina’ of 31^st May 2018 under the title, ‘Dina Seeye Vedesatahana Gena Mama Danne Ne’ (‘I don’t know anything about the 100-day Program,’  Divaina, 31^st May 2018, page 9; also, Daily Mirror, ‘Sobitha Thero Didn’t Ask the Common Candidate to Breat Into Banks,’ Daily Mirror, 31^st May 2018, Page 1

[2] ‘Sobitha Thero Didn’t Ask the Common Candidate to Break Into Banks,’ Daily Mirror, 31^st May 2018, Page 2

[3] Maithri:  A Stable Country, New Democratic Front, 2015, www.president.lk , page 5

[4] King Lear, Act 2, Sc 4

Courtesy Mail on line (UK)

Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya informed Parliament a short while ago that only some sections of the Bond Commission Report had been received and that they would be tabled, when the remaining sections were also received. He said he had requested for them as well.

By Meera Srinivasan/The Hindu

Jaffna, June 5: Last week, members of a Hindu outfit, ‘Siva Senai’, based in northern Sri Lanka, staged a protest in Jaffna, calling for a ban on cow slaughter and the sale of beef in the town of Chavakachcheri.

This is the land of Hindus and Buddhists. We worship the cow. Our tradition must be respected,” they demanded, days before Ramzan began.

In essence, they were a group of Tamil Hindus, who were asking fellow minorities, Tamil-speaking Muslims, to adhere to Hindu tradition”.

When the organisation was founded less than two years ago to prevent religious conversion and counter Muslim and Christian domination” in the island’s north and east, many saw it as a fringe group” that did not merit attention.

However, its recent campaign — including a petition to the urban council to ban cow slaughter in the area — showed it has since won some sympathizers. Further, their message reflected the religious biases within the Tamil society that have grown more apparent after the war ended in 2009.

A similar anti-minority sentiment emerged during the February local authority elections when some Tamil political groups and media houses resisted Jaffna Mayor Emmanuel Arnold being chosen for the post, citing Christian domination” of Tamil politics.

The anti-beef campaigners in the Tamil-majority north have some ready allies in the south, especially among Sinhala-Buddhist forces.

In Dehiwala, a suburb of Colombo where many Muslims reside, a cow vigilante organisation has put up a giant hoarding with an image of Shiva sitting on a bull. In bold Sinhala letters it reads: God bless those of you who don’t eat beef.”

More recently, a Sinhala newspaper reported the ban on beef sale in parts of the southern town of Embilipitiya, at the request of a Buddhist monk.

These developments cannot be seen isolated from the surge in anti-Muslim attacks in Sri Lanka’s Sinhala-majority south since 2012, prompting many to wonder if the minority community, which makes about 10% of the country’ population, had become a new target after the end of the civil war.

In the eastern province that is home to a sizeable Muslim community, Muslim women’s attire has become a major talking point for Tamils.

Shocking Call

In an island whose cuisine has fans world over — especially its exotic sea food and meat dishes — a call to ban beef sounds shocking to many locals. All the same, resistance to such protests has been limited to social media forums.

Some Tamil civil society activists issued a statement condemning the communally divisive” protest in Jaffna last week, and even hinted at influence of a neighboring country”, but the political leadership is yet to challenge what anti-beef campaigners questionably term our culture and tradition”.

The Sinhala polity has seldom challenged the influential Buddhist clergy, including hardliners, who are said to be driving these campaigns. In fact, the politicians’ now-familiar silence remains at the heart of the spate of anti-Muslim attacks witnessed in the last few years, most recently in Kandy in February.

On the other hand, the Tamil leadership — within the ambit of their predominantly nationalist politics — is yet to take a stance on religious or caste divisions within society. As Tamil leaders push for a political solution to the national question, progressives worry that the leaders’ silence on growing religious intolerance and discrimination within the community might prove dangerous.

(The featured image at the top shows the head of Siva Senai in North Sri Lanka – Maravanpulavu Sachithanthan)

TISSA DEVENDRA Courtesy The Island

June 5, 2018, 9:52 pm

Having served as Secretary of one Presidential Commission [Sansoni Commission] and Chairman of another [Salaries Commission] I am, to put it mildly, shocked by the unseemly haste in which the Presidential Secretariat buried the Bond Commission Report in the National Archives – where it will moulder for the next 30 long years – by which time the name Arjun/a will only mean a Hindu deity, and Aloysius a school in Galle.

The two Reports, with which I was involved, were given wide publicity in the media before being consigned to the Archives. I understand this has been the unvarying practice that every Presidential Commission has followed. Tradition and precedence in the Public Service did not require an RTI Act or NGO whistle blowers, such as Transparency International or CAFFE.

“Those were the days, my friend / I thought they would never end.” -but they did!

Gallege Punyawardana 

The theme of this year’s UN World Environment Day is ‘Beat Plastic Pollution.’ Plastic which is made of fossil fuel has been introduced to the society, particularly to the third world by way of development assistance and by now almost of all requirements of living are satisfied by fossil fuel-based products. That boils down to the fact that present day development could be defined as Plastic Development. Beating Plastic Pollution will therefore be nothing but Beating Plastic Development, which has ruined the entire organic planet and its environment.

As far as our country Sinhale- Sri Lanka is concerned the Process of development it had practiced through out the civilization is totally organic. It is much meaningful to define it as culture rather than development. Development is actually by product or a higher or a better state of affairs in the organic life and environment, Since water is the life blood of the organic environment, the people of this country during the course of civilization developed a method of collecting water by which the environment is sustained, enriched and enhanced, That is called Wewa, Over the time Wewa became the most important place in the village, In fact the Wewa is the Apex around which everything in social life emanates and rotates in the village. In this country every village has a Wewa. As the saying goes, there was no village without a Wewa, or Wewa without a village. Accordingly, the culture or the development as some would like to say, the country had was a Wew culture, which is totally organic.

Since this Wew culture or organic development process doesn’t promote trade and business, the International Community headed by UN, through its new world development programmes undermined the Wewa, the live wire of the organic society, and introduced fuel-based products. Through its massive advertising campaigns, and by formal and informal education programmes, plastic was introduced to satisfy all requirements of the people, resulting a plastic society and development today the UN system having understood it’s folly, in their attempt to clean up the society, has declared this year’s UN Environment Day as a day of beating plastic pollution. As far as this country is concerned, Swarna Hansa believes, the most ideal, fruitful and meaningful way of beating plastic pollution is to restore the Wew destroyed by Plastic Development.

Accordingly, Swarna Hansa under it’s Dahasak Wew programme, today on this World Environment Day helps the villagers of Wegedara in Galgamuwa to restore their village Wewa. The following photo shows the villagers, with the priest of the village temple and the Swarna Hansa officers posing for a photo to mark the historical event.

Gallege Punyawardana

Courtesy Relief Web

The Sri Lanka Red Cross Society (SLRCS) says it has now launched a recovery operation to assist 50,000 people affected by the recent monsoon-season floods, and for the first time it is using a drone to help volunteers gauge the full extent of the disaster.

The National Society said in a press release last week it was allocating nearly US$ 400,000 for a four-month operation to assist 2,800 household in Puttalam, Kalutara, Kegalle, Ratnapura, Gampaha and Colombo districts, identified as the worst affected.

Every year the Sri Lanka Red Cross Society along with its partners are launching recovery operations such as this after floods,” said SLRCS President Jagath Abeysinghe.

One thing we do constantly is to ensure that people affected have the means of getting back on their feet after a devastating experience.”

The Red Cross will provide households with unconditional cash grants of US$ 64 each – a standard amount set by the government, and also focus on rehabilitating wells contaminated by floodwater.

‘We cannot look at future disasters from the angle we used to. The dynamics are changing and the response should too’

A DREF grant from the International Federation of US$ 360,000 was issued on 30 May and will also support relief operations through the end of September.

The IFRC quoted the Sri Lankan authorities as saying that that 20 people had died in the heavy rains, strong winds, lightning and landslides” of the past few weeks, adding that worse weather was expected as the monsoon peaks.

Also last week the SLRCS released dramatic drone footage captured by aquatic volunteers with their new SwellPro quadcopter – billed by its makers as waterproof and the world’s first drone built for fishing.

SLRCS Colombo Branch Secretary Dr Amila Kankanamge said: This is something new we are trying in the face of these intense disasters that gain strength each year.

We cannot be looking at these future disasters from the same angle we used to. The dynamics are changing and the response should too.

That’s why we are opting to use modern technology in order to assist the most vulnerable people in our district.”

The Red Cross in Sri Lanka is using a drone to assess flood and storm damage from the air, and locate the most seriously affected people. (Photo: SLRCS via Facebook)

Courtesy LSE blog

The rivalry existing between China and India is based on a long historical trajectory dating back to the epoch of the silk route. Understanding the context of India’s dominant position in South Asia  is important to ascertain the current changing dynamics and the emerging role of Japan, which can be viewed through the lens of the stag hunt in economics game theory, writes Eshan Jayawardena.

The rivalry existing between China and India is based on a long historical trajectory dating back to the epoch of the silk route. More recent conflict emerged at a time when both states strived to emerge as nation states after facing colonial encounters for centuries. Nevertheless, the present-day antagonism between the countries mainly arose as a result of the border dispute and later converted into the respective quest of each to be a super power. In the recent past both China and India have emerged as new powers in terms of economy, political stability and military strategy.

This newly developed status of both countries has simultaneously fed a mutual suspicion of each other, which is why India keeps a watchful eye on the Chinese influence in South Asia and China shows the same attitude when Indians expand their operation in Central Asia, which geographically is sandwiched between India and China.

Understanding India’s paramount position in the South Asian region since the day it became a nation state is important to ascertain the current changing dynamics. It is true that since 1947 India has kept a tight grip over its smaller neighbours in various circumstances. After gaining  its independence, Indian policy makers strived to recast India as a strong nation state and influencing the internal affairs of other neighbouring states in South Asia became the common factor in Indian post independent foreign policy.

Having realised India’s superior position in the region, many of its neighbours have become cautious in their policy planning, upholding healthy relations with both Beijing and New Delhi.

However, Indian’s indispensable position in South Asia cannot be solely attributed to Indian military power or its effective diplomacy. It is rather the outcome of the Indian strategy of keeping other super powers out of South Asia by maintaining their own bilateral relations with them.  In many modern political moments of South Asia , the US, UK, Soviet Union or China had not meddled with South Asian states in order to avoid any confrontation with India. Even in the few exceptions in the recent past, major super powers were reluctant to make any moves that would upset Delhi. More or less, small South Asian states envisage the Indian dominance as a fait accompli since no other power has been willing to act as a balancer.

Why did Sri Lanka and other South Asian states fail to provide balance against India? In examining this, one has to understand the indispensable position of India as the omnipotent political power in South Asia which has decisively staved off major powers from getting involved in regional politics. The biggest example of this is how Regan’s administration avoided intervening in the Sri Lankan civil ethnic conflict in the 80’s, instead deferring to India even though the then Prime Minister J.R Jayawardene, nicknamed Yanki Dicki for his pro American policy, considered the US a closer ally. His initial expectation was that the US would play a bigger role in mediating the tension between Tamil separatists and Sri Lankan government. But to his biggest surprise the US state department clearly mentioned Sri Lanka should allow the Indian government into these negotiations. Having gone through much turmoil and diplomatic hurdles it is a fact beyond dispute that India holds the helm over in its neighbour states in South Asia.

Nevertheless, this tendency reached its ebb in the last decade with the rapid growth of the Chinese economy and the decline of Indo-Sino relations. As a matter of fact, the political and military relations between the two states have been in tatters for the past ten years although their economic interests have grown considerably. With affirmed political, military and economic stability, Beijing does not bother appeasing Indian before it enters into South Asia, even though it may cause agitation in New Delhi. With this in mind, India must either accept the end of its reign over South Asian politics or it should step up its game in a different way with Beijing.

India has presented a fascinating prism of the famous stag hunt method (as witnessed in Economics Game Theory) in which players must co-operate in order to hunt larger game, or in this case, to counterbalance China in the region.

In the mind of people in Sri Lanka, the image of India always has been hostile with its dominating involvement in Sri Lankan politics; many of Sri Lankans still despise New Delhi for its intervention over Sri Lankan ethnic conflict in 1987. However, China has been more astute and extended its clear support to Sri Lanka even during the hard times Sri Lanka underwent, for an example the country’s only international conference and international theatre were built under Chinese funds.

This rapidly increased during the last stages of the war where China unconditionally supported Sri Lankan financially, militarily, and in the International arena. Tamil Nadu’s pressure upon the Indian central government prevented them from aligning with Sri Lanka which created a public opinion on the island that India frequently hinders Sri Lanka’s stability.  Furthermore, even after the war ended China has extended its relationship with Sri Lanka, helping to develop its infrastructure.  The development projects embarked on by the Sri Lankan government in the post-conflict era were initially handed to India under the impression that India would heavily meddle with the nation building process in the island, but China took the plunge when such requests were denied by the Indian government, going on to develop its OBORas well as the ‘String of pearls’ strategy invested heavily in Sri Lanka.

Former Sri Lanka PM Mahinda Rajapaksa inaugurating the fuel bunker terminal, Hambantota port. Photo credit: President’s media, Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0.

The growing Chinese influence and presence in Sri Lanka during the regime of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa made New Delhi uneasy and the incident of arrival of Chinese submarine in 2014 was one of factors that that compelled New Delhi to pay its extreme concern over the Chinese presence in Sri Lanka. On the other hand when current SL president Maitripala Sirisena appeared as the common candidate in 2014 presidential election against Rajapaksa, his manifesto clearly illustrated that his future government would stop Chinese projects in Sri Lanka like Colombo Port city.

Following the unexpected defeat of Mahinda Rakapaksa and the present Prime minister’s open criticism of Chinese investments in Sri Lanka, including a statement that the massive port city project will be cancelled when they come into power, the government has since re-approved the project, paying a fine to the Chinese for its initial cancellation and subsequent delay.

India has realised it cannot stop the growing Chinese influence in Sri Lanka or in the Indian Ocean. Hence it has cultivated an alliance with Japan and USA to counter the Chinese influence in South Asia.  Even though the US has been a failure when it comes to investments in the subcontinent, it is apparent that the Japanese are going out of the way to counter the Chinese influence with the Japanese foreign minister who visited Sri Lanka extending unconditional support to Sri Lanka in terms of financial aid etc .

The Colombo South LG gas project India desired was initially not awarded on the grounds that the government was reluctant to award it to India alone. However in this instance, the economics stag hunt becomes apparent, as India managed to draw a partnership with Japan to work on this project. Similarly, India has partnered with Japan to develop the oil tanks in Trinco and the other ports in Sri Lanka as a measure to counter the growing Chinese influence.

The above mentioned foreign involvements in the Sri Lankan development project clearly show the continued role of the Indian influence and how it has come to also rely on other powers such as Japan in its attempt to balance the Chinese presence in Sri Lanka.

As the monopoly of the world economy is shifting towards Asia and Sri Lankan territory is been used in the geopolitics of the region due to its strategic location, leaders of Sri Lanka should be smart enough to play a moderate, but essentially diplomatic role in obtaining the better benefits for the country’s development.

This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the South Asia @ LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.

Eshan Jayawardena is a guest lecturer at the Open University of Sri Lanka. He studied Sociology at Delhi University and holds a Masters in International Relations from Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. He can be reached at eshan.jayawardena@gmail.com.

Lahiru Pothmulla Courtesy The Daily Mirror

TNL Chairman Shan Wickremesinghe today said the move to shut down their Polgahawela transmission centre was not only unjust but also sudden and that he would take legal action against the TRCSL.

He said he was not informed of the court order which had been obtained by the TRCSL to search the transmission centre.

The TRC has obtained the warrant on false grounds. We have been paying for the transmission centre for 25 years up to December in 2016. Afterwards, the TRCSL informed us there is an issue with the frequencies. Therefore, I stopped making any further payments awaiting clarification from the TRCSL on the issue of new invoices. Though we gave them several reminders, the TRCSL failed to send us new invoices. The fault is at their end,” Mr.Wickremesinghe told Daily Mirror.

He said the TNL has nine transmission centres including the one at Polgahawela and that the TRCSL has informed him they would raid other centres as well.

They said they would inspect the transmission centres at Karagahathenna and Hanthana as well. Closing down of the Polgahawela centre had already affected the TNL transmission in many areas. I will sue the TRCSL demanding compensation for the obstruction it had caused and the equipment it had confiscated,” he said.

The Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) which comes directly under President Maithripala Sirisena has moved to seal transmission towers operated by TNL, the electronic media outfit owned by Shan Wickremesinghe, brother of PM Ranil Wickremasinghe.

The TRC’s sudden decision follows a programme on comments made by the President at a ceremony commemorating the late Ven Madoluwawe Sobitha Thero  referring to contradictions in various statements made by Sirisena with regard to the 100-days programme and also implied that he had a hand in the controversial deal to purchase a Russian ship which, TNL suggests was the reason for the Navy Commander’s tenure not being extended as well as the resignation of the then Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Karunasena Hettiarachchi.

A repeater transmission center belonging to the TNL media network in Polgahawela has reportedly been shut down and the broadcast equipment taken into police custody based on a court order.

This has disrupted the channel’s broadcasting services in Sabaragamuwa, North Western and Western provinces, according to TNL.

When inquired by Ada Derana regarding this, Police Spokesman SP Ruwan Gunasekara said that the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) had registered a complaint yesterday for allegedly maintaining an unauthorized transmission tower.

Based on that complaint, police presented the relevant information to the Polgahawela Magistrate’s Court today (5).

The court ordered the police to carry out investigations and also instructed to take the broadcast equipment at the center into police custody.

He further said that currently Polgahawela Police is conducting further investigations with the assistance of the TRC.

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, June 5 (newsin.asia) – Sri Lanka’s Health Ministry has issued a ‘red alert’ on the spread of rat fever in several districts across the island in the aftermath of heavy monsoonal rains which killed 24 people and displaced over 75,000, the local Sunday Times reported.

Health authorities said districts which were affected by floods, were at a risk of many diseases including rat fever and urged the public to take safety measures.

The Health Ministry said those identified in ‘high risk groups’, such as those working in paddy fields or in places where there is stagnant water, should obtain medicines prescribed by doctors to prevent the onset of rat fever.

The Ministry further said that those who suffered from wounds or even minor cuts on their feet, should refrain from working in paddy fields or standing in stagnant water.

Doctors explained that symptoms of rat fever include fever, headache and body ache. If left untreated, it can affect the kidneys and be fatal.

Following the recent monsoonal rains which lashed out across the country, districts such as Puttalam, Galle, Matara, Kalutara and Ratnapura were severely affected.

අනුරුද්ධ බණ්ඩාර රණවාරණ මාධ්‍ය ලේකම් ජාතික නිදහස් පෙරමුණ

ශික්‍ෂණයට වඩා සමීප මුළු රටේම ජනතාවගේ කැමැත්තෙන් ජනාධිපතිවරයකු තෝරා පත්කර ගැනීම ද? නැතහොත් පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් මිලට ගත හැකි අර්ජුන් ඇලෝසියස් වැනි පුද්ගලයකු ජනාධිපති ධුරයට පත් කර ගැනීම ද? යන ප්‍රශ්නයට ජනාධිපතිවරණය අහෝසිකර රටට ශික්‍ෂණය ගෙන ඒමට යෝජනා කරන ජවිපෙ නායකයා විසින් පිළිතුරු ලබා දිය යුතු බව ජාතික නිදහස් පෙරමුණේ නායක විමල් වීරවංශ මහතා පවසයි.

ඊයේ (03) ‘පරගැති ආණ්ඩුව, 20 වැනි සංශෝධනය හා ජාතියේ ඉරණම’ යන තේමාව යටතේ හලාවත ක්‍රවුන් ශාලාවේ දී විශේෂ දේශනයක් සිදු කරමින් ඒ මහතා මෙසේ පැවසීය.

එහිදී වැඩිදුරටත් අදහස් දැක් වූ විමල් වීරවංශ මහතා මෙසේ ද පැවසීය.

දින සීයෙන් අලුත් රටක්, කියන බේගලයට රැවටුණු 62 ලක්‍ෂයට දැන් බඩ කපාගෙන මැරෙන්න හිතෙන තත්වයක් රට තුළ උද්ගතව තිබෙනවා. තාවකාලිකව මේ රට භාරගත්තු මේ පාලකයන්ට එය සදාකාලිකව විපතකට ඇද දමන්න ඉඩ දී නිහඬව සිටීමට රටට ආදරේ කරන කිසිවකුටවත් බැහැ. අද මේ රට ආර්ථිකමය වශයෙන් පමණක් නොවෙයි, ජාතික ආරක්‍ෂාව අතිනුත්, දේශපාලනමය වශයෙනුත් බරපතළ අයුරින් අස්ථාවර වෙමින් තිබෙනවා. මේ සම්පූර්ණ චිත්‍රය අප පැහැදිලි කර ගත යුතුව තිබෙනවා. මේ විපතින් මේ රට ගලවාගත හැක්කේ රටට සිදු වෙමින් පවතින දෙය පැහැදිලිව තේරුම් ගතහොත් පමණයි.

අවුරුදු තුනක් තුළ මේ ආණ්ඩුව රටේ ආර්ථිකය ඇද වට්ටවා තිබෙන තැන දැනගැනීමට මා එක් උදාහරණයක් පවසන්නම්. ජාත්‍යන්තර මූල්‍ය අරමුදල අද ලෝකයේ පත්ලේම පවතින රටවල් තම සිතැඟි පරිදි නටවමින් සිටිනවා. මේ වන විට අපේ කලාපයේ එවැනි රටවල් දෙකක් පමණයි පවතින්නේ. එකක් මොංගෝලියාව, අනෙක තමයි අපේ මේ ශ්‍රී ලංකාව. ගෙවී ගිය වසර තුන පුරාම මේ ආණ්ඩුව ස්වදේශිකයාට බදු පෝරියල් එකක් දීලා විදේශිකයාට හැකි තරම් බදු සහන සහ වෙනත් සහන දුන්නා.

‘විනිමය පාලන පනත සංශෝධනය කිරීම’

අද ශ්‍රී ලංකාව කළු සල්ලි, සුදු සල්ලි බවට පත් කරන තිප්පොළක් බවට පත්ව තිබෙනවා. එසේ වූයේ විනිමය පාලන පනත සංශෝධනය කිරීම මගිනුයි. දැන් මහ බැකුවේ පාලනයකින් තොරව රට තුළට ඩොලර් ගෙන එන්නත්, ආපසු රැගෙන යන්නත් පුළුවන්. ඒ අනුව තමයි කොටි හිතවාදී ලයිකා මොබයිල් සමාගමට තමන්ගේ කළු සල්ලිවලින් ඊඒපී මාධ්‍ය ජාලය ඇතුළු සමූහ ව්‍යාපාරය මිලදී ගන්න හැකි වී ඇත්තේ. ඊඒපී මාධ්‍ය ජාලය මිලදී ගැනීමට දේශීය ව්‍යාපාරිකයකු වැඩි ලංසුවක් තබා තිබුණත් විශේෂ කැබිනට් අනුමැතියකින් එය ලයිකා මොබයිල් සමාගමට හිමිව තිබෙනවා. විදේශිකයන් කළු සල්ලි රැගෙන විත් ලංකාවේ ව්‍යාපාර මිලදී ගනිද්දි ඊඒපී සමූහ ව්‍යාපාරයට අයත් ඊටීඅයි සමාගමේ මුදල් තැන්පත් කළ ස්වදේශික ජනතාවට සිදුව ඇත්තේ කුමක්ද? ඒ අය හද්දා අනාථ වෙලා. ආණ්ඩුව කියන්නේ ජාත්‍යන්තර මූල්‍ය අරමුදලේ තීන්දුව අනුව, පෞද්ගලික සමාගමකින් සිදු වූ පාඩුව සඳහා මේ ජනතාවට රාජ්‍ය මුදලින් වන්දි ගෙවන්න බැහැ කියලයි. විදේශිකයාට කළු සල්ලි ගෙනවිත් ව්‍යාපාර මිලදී ගන්න පුළුවන් වුණාට මේ රටේ ජනතාවට තමන්ට සිදු වූ පාඩුව පියවා ගන්න ආණ්ඩුවෙන් කිසිදු පිළිසරණක් ලැබෙන්නේ නැහැ. ඒ වගේම මේ ආණ්ඩුව විදේශිකයන්ට තට්ටු නිවාස සංකීර්ණවල නිවාස මිලදී ගැනීමේදී පනවා තිබූ 100%ක බද්ද ඉවත් කිරීමටත් කටයුතු කර තිබෙනවා. 62 ලක්‍ෂය ජනවාරි 08 වැනිදා කතිරය ගැහුවේ ‘අපට බදු පෝරියල් එකක් දීලා, සුද්දන්ට බදු ගහන එක නවත්වන්න කියලා ද?’ කියා අපි අහනවා.

‘ගොවියාට සින්නක්කර ඔප්පු දීම පිටුපස කතාව’

දැන් මේ ආණ්ඩුවට ගොවියා පිළිබඳ මහා සත්ව කරුණාවක් පහළ වී තිබෙනවා. අවුරුදු තුනක් තිස්සේ පොහොර සහනාධාරය කපා දමලා, වී ටික සහතික මිලට මිල දී නොගෙන ගොවියා හද්දා අමාරුවේ දමපු මේ අය ගොවියාට සින්නක්කර ඔප්පු දීම පිටුපස තිබෙන කතාව කුමක්ද? මේ ගොවි ඉඩම් බොහෝ ඒවා බලපත්‍රලාභී ඉඩම්. ඒවා පවුලෙන් පිට විකුණාගන්න බැහැ. දැන් වැලේ වැල් නැතිව සිටින ගොවියාට සින්නක්කර ඔප්පුව ලැබුණාම එය විකුණාගත හැකියි. ඒ විකුණන ඉඩම් විදේශ සමාගම් අතට ගන්නත් වැඩක් මේ ආණ්ඩුව හදලා දීලා තිබෙනවා. ඒ තමයි කුඹුරුවල සෝලා පැනල් ගහන ව්‍යාපෘතියක් හඳුන්වා දීම. දැන් විදුලි බල මණ්ඩලය හා එක්ව කුඹුරුවල සෝලා පැනල් ගහන්න එන විදේශ සමාගම්වලට ගොවීන් තම කුඹුර විකුණන එක වළක්වන්න බැහැ. කුඹුරේ සෝලා පැනල් ගහන්න දුන්නාම අපට කන්න වී කොයින්ද? ඒකටත් මේ පරගැති ආණ්ඩුවට අපූරු උත්තරයක් තිබෙනවා. දැන් කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලයටත් කොලේ වහළා අත්සන් කරපු සිංගප්පූරු – ශ්‍රී ලංකා නිදහස් වෙළඳ ගිවිසුමේ තමයි ඒකට උත්තර තිබෙන්නේ. තායිලන්තයේ වී අතිරික්තයක් තිබෙන කාලයට සිංගප්පූරුව තායිලන්තයෙන් වී අරගෙන තමන්ට ඉහත ගිවිසුමෙන් ලබා දී තිබෙන බදු සහනය පාවිච්චි කරලා ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට වී ටික එවාවි. සිංගප්පූරු නිදහස් වෙළඳ ගිවිසුම අනුව භාණ්ඩවලට විතරක් නොවෙයි, වෘත්තිකයන් හා වෙනත් සේවා සපයන්නන්ට ද මේ රටට පැමිණ රැකියා කරන්න අවස්ථාව උදාකර දී තිබෙනවා. දැනටමත් අපේ කොල්ලො කෙල්ලො හූල්ලද්දි චීන්නු 12,000ක් සහ ඉන්දියානුවන් 10,000ක් මේ රටට පැමිණ රැකියා කරනවා. සිංගප්පූරු වෙළඳ ගිවිසුම අනුව සිංගප්පූරුවේ ලියාපදිංචි මෑන් පවර් සමාගම්වලට මේ රටට ඇවිත් සේවා සපයන්න පුළුවන්. ඒ අනුව ඒ මෑන් පවර් සමාගම් හරහා ඉන්දියානු වෘත්තිකයන් හා වෙනත් සේවා සපයන්නන් මේ රටට පැමිණ අඩු පඩියට වැඩ කරාවි. අපේ අනාගත පරපුරට රැකියා විරහිතව ඉන්න සිදුවේවි.

‘හොරකම නැමති ලිහිසි තෙල්’

විදේශිකයන්ට අපේ ආර්ථිකය තුළට රිංගන්න ඉඩ හදමින් යන මේ ආණ්ඩුව යටතේ රටේ ආර්ථිකය වර්ධන වේගය 3%ක අගයකට පහත වැටී තිබෙනවා. යුද්ධයකට සල්ලි පිච්චෙන කාලයේදීත් මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂ පාලනයට මේ රටේ ආර්ථික වර්ධන වේගය 7%ක පමණ අගයක පවත්වා ගන්න පුළුවන් වුණා. මේ පාලක ජෝඩුව දැක්කාම තියෙන වර්ධන වේගයත් බහිනවා. මේ අය පවත්වා ගෙන යන්නේ නව ලිබරල්වාදී ආර්ථිකයක්. එම ආර්ථිකය දුවවන්න නම් එහි එන්ජිමට ‘හොරකම’ නැමති ලිහිසි තෙල් දමන්න ඕනේ. ඒ කියන්නේ ලිබරල්වාදී ආර්ථිකයක් තුළ හොරකම නීත්‍යනුකූල කරන්න ඕනෙ, හොරකම ආයතනගත කරන්න ඕනෙ. ඒකනම් මේ ආණ්ඩුව අපූරුවට කරගෙන යනවා.

‘බැඳුම්කර හොරකම් නීත්‍යනුකූල කිරීම’

දැන් ලංකාවේ කුඩා දරුවකු පවා දන්නවා, රටේ අගමැතිවරයා මහ බැංකුව කඩා මුදල් හොරකම් කළ බව. බැඳුම්කර සොරකම කියන්නේ මේ රටේ සිදු වූ විශාලතම හොරකම. මේ හොරකම වහන්න නොකළ දෙයක් නැහැ. නමුත් දැන් බැඳුම්කර හොරකමේ මහ මොළකරු එළියේ හිටියාට ලොකු හොරු දෙන්නෙක් හිරේ ගිහින් තිබෙනවා. මේ හොරකම ගැන හොයන්න පත් කළ බැඳුම්කර කොමිසමේ වාර්තාවේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට නොදුන් පිටුවල අර්ජුන් ඇලෝසියස්ගෙන් මුදල් ගත් 118ක නම් තිබෙනවාලු. ඒ අතර පොතක් ලියපු කෙනෙකුට ලැබුණු ලොකුම කර්තෘභාගය වන මිලියන තුන, චෙක්පත් තුනකින් ලබා ගත්තු පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරයාත් ඉන්නවාලු. ගංවතුරට කෙසෙල් බෙදපු එයා ගැන දැන් කවුරුත් දන්නවා. මේ විදියට ඒ බැඳුම්කර හොරකම අහුවුණු හින්දා නීත්‍යනුකූලව බැඳුම්කර ගනුදෙනුවලින් හොරකම් කරන්න ‘සක්‍රීය බැරකම් කළමනාකරණය කිරීමේ පනතක්’ සම්මත කර ගත්තා. මේ මගින් ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සමස්ත ණය බර වන රුපියල් ටි්‍රලියන 10න් 10%ක ණයක් කැමති පොලියකට, කැමති හෙට්ටියකුගෙන් ලබා ලබාගන්න විෂය භාර ඇමතිවරයාට හැකි වෙනවා. මෙතෙක් රජය වෙනුවෙන් ණය ගත්තේ මහ බැංකුව විසිනුයි. දැන් මේ පනතින් රජය වෙනුවෙන් ණය ගන්න ඇමතිවරයකු පත්කර තිබෙනවා.

‘බදු හොරකම නීතිගත කිරීම’

යම් සමාගමක් හෝ පුද්ගලයකු බදු ගෙවීම පැහැර හැරියොත් හිරේ යන්න වෙනවා. නමුත් දැන් බලන්න, පාන්පිටි සමාගමට අවුරුද්දකට රුපියල් මිලියන 34,000ක බදු සහනයක් දෙනවා. සමාගම බදු ගෙවන්නේ නැහැ. මේ සහනය දුන්නට පාන්, බනිස් මිල අඩු වුණේ නැහැ. මෙය දුන්නාම මිලියන ගණනක් ඇමතිගේ සාක්කුවට යනවා. කිරි ගොවියා හූල්ලද්දි කිරිපිටි සමාගම්වලටත් අවුරුද්දකට රුපියල් මිලියන 18000ක බදු සහනයක් දෙනවා. කිරිපිටි මිල අඩු නොවී ඒකෙනුත් රුපියල් මිලියන ගණනක් ඇමතිගේ සාක්කුවට යනවා. මේ මහා පරිමාණ බහුජාතික සමාගම්වලට දැන් ප්‍රතිපත්තිමය තීරණයක් අරන් කැබිනට් අනුමැතිය ඇතිව බදු සහන දෙනවා. ඒ අනුව දැන් බදු හොරකම නීතිගත කර තිබෙනවා. ඒවා තමයි ආයතනගත හොරකම් කියා කියන්නේ. මේ ආණ්ඩුව එක පැත්තකින් හොරකම නීතිගත කරමින් අනෙක් පැත්තෙන් ආර්ථිකයේ සියලු අංග විදේශිකකරණය කරමින් යනවා. පසුගියදා ජනාධිපති මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන කියනවා, ‘මම නැත්නම් රාජ්‍ය බැංකු ටික ඉතිරි වන්නේ නැහැ’ කියලා. රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ අතේ තිබෙන න්‍යාය පත්‍රය සම්පූර්ණයෙන් ක්‍රියාත්මක වුවහොත් මේ රටේ ස්වදේශිකයා ආර්ථිකමය වශයෙන් අවතැන් වෙලා රටේ ආර්ථිකය සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම විදේශිකයන්ගේ ග්‍රහණයට නතු වීම වැළැක්වීමට බැහැ.

‘හිතක් පපුවක් නැතිව කළ ආර්ථික ඝාතනය’

ශ්‍රී ලංකාව පිහිටා ඇත්තේ සේද මාවතේ වැදගත් තැනක. නැවක් මලක්කා සමුද්‍ර්‍ර සන්ධිය පසුකරලා එනකොට හමුවන පළමු ගොඩබිම තමයි ශ්‍රී ලංකාව. පළමු වරාය තමයි හම්බන්තොට වරාය. චීනය, තායිලන්තය හරහා ක්‍රා ඇල කැපුවාට පසුව සේද මාවත කෙටි වුණ. තායිලන්තයේ සිට දින 12ක් ගත වුණු ගමනට දැන් නවයයි ගතවන්නේ. නැවකට තෙල් ගහන්නේ දින දහයකට සෑහෙන්න. ඒ නිසා හම්බන්තොට වරායට දහවැනි දවසේ ළඟා වන නැවකට තෙල් ගහන්න වෙන්නේ ශ්‍රී ලංකාවෙන්. ඒ අනුව නැව්වලට තෙල් හා වතුර සැපයීම පමණක් සිදු කළත් හම්බන්තොට වරාය ලාභ ලබන තැනක් බවට පත් වෙනවා. හම්බන්තොට වරාය හදන්න ගත්තු ණය ගෙව්වේ මහා භාණ්ඩාගාරයෙන් නොවෙයි, ශ්‍රී ලංකා වරාය අධිකාරියෙන්. එහෙම තිබියදීත් හිතක්, පපුවක් නැතිව මේ රන් බිජු දමන කිකිළිය තුට්ටු දෙකට චීනයට විකුණා දැම්මා. දැන් ණය අපේ – වරාය චීනයේ. එහෙමයි අද මේ රටේ ආර්ථිකය විජාතිකකරණය කෙරෙමින් තිබෙන්නේ.

ආරක්ෂක හමුදා දුර්මුඛකර දුර්වල කිරීම

ආර්ථිකය දුබල කරන වැඬේ මේ අය හොඳටම කරගෙන යනවා. එහෙම කරලා විතරක් මදි. රටක් ගිලගන්න නම් ජාතික ආරක්ෂාවත් දුර්වල කරන්න ඕනේ. ඒකට ආරක්ෂක හමුදාවන්හි මිලිටරි ශක්තිය හීන කිරීම හා බුද්ධි අංශවල ශක්තිය කඩා වැට්ටවීම සිදු කරන්න ඕනේ. එවිට රජයේ ආරක්ෂක හමුදා දුර්මුඛ වී දුර්වල වෙනවා. දැන් කෙරෙමින් ඇත්තේ එය නොවේද?

‘රණවිරු දඩයම’

රණවිරු දඩයමට අවශ්‍ය නීති එකිනෙක හැදුවා. මුලින් අතුරුදහන් වූවන් පිළිබඳ කාර්යාලය පිහිටුවීමේ පනත සම්මතකර ගත්තා. අතුරුදහන් වූවන් පිළිබඳ කාර්යාලය පිහිටුවා අවසන්. එය රණවිරුවන්ට එරෙහි චෝදනා පැක්ටරියක් ලෙස ක්‍රියාත්මක වෙනවා. ඒ වගේම මංගල සමරවීර ඇමැතිවරයා ‘අතුරුදහන් කිරීම්වලින් තැනැත්තන් ආරක්ෂා කිරීමේ ජාත්‍යන්තර ප්‍රඥප්තියට’ ජිනීවාවලදී අත්සන් තැබුවා. පසුව එම ජාත්‍යන්තර ප්‍රඥප්තිය ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ නීතියට ඇතුළත් කරමින් තවත් රණවිරු දඩයම් පනතක් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව තුළ සම්මත කර ගනු ලැබුවා. ඒ අනුව යුද අපරාධ අධිකරණයක් ලෙස ක්‍රියාකරන අතුරුදහන්වීම්වලට අදාළ නඩු අහන වෙනම මහාධිකරණයක් පිහිටුවීමට නෛතික ප්‍රතිපාදන ලැබී තිබෙනවා. අතුරුදහන් කිරීම් වැලැක්වීමේ ජාත්‍යන්තර ප්‍රඥප්තියට අත්සන් කළ රටක ජීවත්වන කොටි ත්‍රස්තවාදියෙකුගේ ඥාතියකුට දැන් ඒ රටේ අධිකරණයට පැමිණිලි කරන්න පුළුවන් තම ඥාතියා අතුරුදහන්වූ බවට. ඒ අනුව සැකකරුවන් හා සාක්ෂිකරුවන් ඒ රටට උදර්පණය කිරීමට ශ්‍රී ලංකා රජය බැඳී සිටිනවා. එසේ අපේ රණවිරුවන් උදර්පණය කරනු ලබන රට ජාත්‍යන්තර යුද අපරාධ අධිකරණය පිහිටුවීමේ ප්‍රඥප්තියට ද අත්සන් තබා තිබුනොත් ඔවුන්ව හේග් නුවර ජාත්‍යන්තර යුද අපරාධ අධිකරණය දක්වා ගෙනයාමට මෙමගින් ඉඩකඩ සලසා දී අවසන්. රණවිරු දඩයමට අදාළ තුන්වන පනත ද දැන් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කර තිබෙනවා. අන්‍යෝන්‍ය සහයෝගීතාව පළකිරීමේ නාමයෙන් ඕනෑම රටක් අපේ රණවිරුවකු, සාක්ෂිකරුවකු හෝ සැකකරුවකු ලෙස ඉල්ලා සිටින ඕනෑම මොහොතක ඔහු එම රට වෙත භාරදීමටයි මේ නීතිමය ප්‍රතිපාදනය සකස් කෙරෙන්නේ.

ගෝඨාභය කෙසේ හෝ හිරේ දමන්න හදනවා

කලින් සකසා ගත් නාම ලේඛනයක් අනුව රණවිරුවන් හිරේ දැමීමට දැන් සියල්ල සූදානම්. ආරක්ෂා හමුදාවන් දෙමළ ඩයස්පෝරාව සහ බටහිර බලවතුන්ගේ වුවමනාවන්ට අනුව පාවාදී ඉවරයි. දැන් ගෝඨාභය රාජපක්ෂ මැතිතුමා කෙසේ හෝ හිරේ දමන්න හදනවා. තමා අත්අඩංගුවට ගැනීම වළක්වන ලෙස ඉල්ලා ඔහු විසින් ඉදිරිපත් කරන ලද පෙත්සම විභාගයට ගැනීමේ නඩු කටයුත්තෙන් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ විනිසුරුවන් එකිනෙකා වරින් වර ඉවත් වන බව පෙනී යනවා. එහෙම වෙන්නේ නීතියට අනුකූලව තීන්දු ගැනීමට එතුමන්ලාට අපහසු තත්වයක් හදලා තිබෙන හින්දා නොවෙයි ද?

රාජ්‍ය ආරක්ෂාව දියකර හැරීම

දැන් යුද්ධය කාලයේ භාවිතයට ගත් යුද උපකරණ වෙනත් රටවල්ට විකුණා දැමීමට කැබිනට් අනුමැතිය ලබාගෙන තිබෙන බව පුවත්පත් මගින් වාර්තා කොට තිබෙනවා. යුද්ධයක් අවසන් වූවාට පසු රටකට යුද උපකරණ වුවමනා නැද්ද? පසුගිය කාලයේ බර අවි මූනිස්සම් මුහුදට දැමීමත් දැකගත හැකි වුණා. සාලාව අවි ගබඩාව පිපිරීම පිළිබඳ වාර්තාව තවමත් එළියට දමා නැහැ. අගමැති මාස තුනෙන් දෙනවා කියූ ඒ වාර්තාව තවමත් සඟවා ඇත්තේ ඇයි? ආර්ථිකය බෙලහීන කිරීම වගේම රාජ්‍යාරක්ෂාව දිය කර හැරීමත් මේ සැලසුමේම කොටසක්. එක පැත්තකින් ආර්ථිකය බෙලහීන කිරීමේ මෙහෙයුමත්, අනෙක් පැත්තෙන් රාජ්‍යාරක්ෂාව දියකර හැරීමේ මෙහෙයුමත් අපේ මේ මව් පොළොවට සතුරු බලවේග විසින් ක්‍රියාත්මක කරමින් සිටිනවා. ඔවුන්ගේ තුන්වන මෙහෙයුම තමයි ශ්‍රී ලංකා රාජ්‍යය දේශපාලනමය වශයෙන් බෙලහීන කිරීම.

ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනවලින් කරන වැඬේ

ශ්‍රී ලංකා රාජ්‍යය දේශපාලනය වශයෙන් බෙලහීන කිරීම සිදුකරන්නේ ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන මගිනුයි. ඒ සඳහා බලයට ආපු ගමන් රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ අගමැතිවරයා මුළු පාර්ලිමේන්තුවම ව්‍යවස්ථා සම්පාදක මණ්ඩලයක් බවට පත් කළා. කෙසේ වෙතත් එදා ජාතික නිදහස් පෙරමුණේ මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් පස්දෙනා ඉන් ඉවත් වූවා. ඊට පසු මෙම ව්‍යවස්ථා සම්පාදක මණ්ඩලය නියෝජනය වන දේශපාලන පක්ෂවල නියෝජිතයින්ගෙන් සමන්විත මෙහෙයුම් මණ්ඩලයක් ද අගමැතිවරයාගේ සභාපතිත්වයෙන් පත් කළා. අගමැතිවරයා දෙමළ ඩයස්පෝරාවට සහ බටහිර බලවතුන්ට පොරොන්දු වුණේ ඒ විදියට ඒ යාන්ත්‍රණය ඔස්සේ අලූත් ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් ගෙනැවිත් රට බෙදලා දෙන්න. 2018 පෙබරවාරි 10 වැනිදා රනිල් – මෛත්‍රී හවුල ලබපු බරපතල මැතිවරණ පරාජයෙන් පස්සේ මේ වැඬේ බකල් වෙන තත්ත්වයක් ආවා. ‘ඒක හරි අමාරුයි’ කියා රනිල්ලා තේරුම් ගත්තා.

සිරිකොත ගජමිතුරු රතු අලි පැටියා

පසුව රතු කමිසධාරී සිරිකොත ගජමිතුරු රතු අලි පැටවාට රනිල් කීවා, ‘විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය අහෝසි කිරීම නැමැති සුන්දර ලලනාව ඉදිරියේ තබාගෙන, මට දෙමළ ඩයස්පෝරාවට සහ බටහිර බලවතුන්ට මෙතෙක් ඉටු කර දීමට බැරි වී තිබෙන පොරොන්දුව ඉටු කරදීමට පාර කපා දෙනු මැනවි, අනුර මලනුවනි” කියලා. ඒක අහලා අනුරගේ හදවත උණු වුණා. අනුර කීවා, ‘ඔබ දුෂ්කරතාවට පත් වුවහොත් මාගේ හදවත පැලී මා මිය යනු ඇත. එබැවින් අගමැති අයියන්ඩි මා ඔබ වෙනුවෙන් ඕනෑම කුප්ප වැඩකට කර ගසන්නා සේ මේ කුප්ප වැඬේ ද ඉටු කර දෙන්නෙමි‘ කියා.

අනුරට ශික්ෂණය ගැන පාඩමක්

ඇන් අනුර දිසානායක පෞද්ගලික මන්ත්‍රී යෝජනාවක් ගෙනවිත් තිබෙනවා ‘විසි වැනි ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන පනත් කෙටුම්පත්‘ කියා. පෞද්ගලික මන්ත්‍රී යෝජනාවකින් ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාව සංශෝධනය කිරීමට පුළුවන් කියා වත්මන් ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ කිසි තැනක සඳහන්ව නැහැ. නමුත් ටික දවසක් යන විට මේක රජයේ යෝජනාවක් වේවි. රනිල් බලා ඉන්නවා මේ දරුවා තමන්ගේ දරුවෙක් වගේ වඩාගන්න. දැනට තාත්තාගේ නම තියෙනවා ‘අනුර’ කියලා. කොල්ලා ලොකු වන විට තාත්තාගේ නම වෙනස් වෙනවා ‘රනිල් ’ කියලා. කොල්ල ලොකු වෙනකම් අනුර කියනවා ‘විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය අහෝසි කිරීම නැමති දරු පැටියාගේ නහය මෙහෙමයි. කට මෙහෙමයි මේ දරු පැටියා රටට ශික්ෂණය ලබාදෙනු ඇත’ කියා.

එදා ලිබියාවට, ඉරාකයට ගියෙත් ශික්ෂණය, ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය ලබා දෙන්න. ඒකාධිපතිවාදය පරදවන්න. අන්තිමේදී ඒ රටවලට ශික්ෂණයත් නැහැ. ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදයක් නැහැ. ඒ රටවලූත් විනාශ වුණා. දැන් මෙයා අපට ශික්ෂණය විකුණන්න හදනවා. අපි අනුර දිසානායකට කියනවා ‘මේ මව් පොළොව ලෝකයේ ඉපැරණි දහමකින් ශික්ෂණය ලැබූ එකක්. නුඹලාගේ බටහිර ශික්ෂණය මෙතැන පැටව් ගස්සන්න වුවමනා නැහැ. ලෝකයේ මුල්ම රෝහල හදලා තමන්ගේ රටවැසියන්ට නොමිලේ බෙහෙත් ටික දුන්නේ, ලෝකයේ මුල්ම තට්ටු ගොඩනැගිල්ල වන ලෝවාමහාපාය හැදුවේ, තමාගේ සතුරාගේ සොහොනට පවා ගරු කරන්න ඉගැන්නුවේ බටහිරයන් ශික්ෂණය ලබන්න වසර දහස් ගණනකට පෙර මේ මව් පොළොව ශික්ෂණය ලබා තිබූ නිසයි. සුද්දන් කොළ අතු ඇඳගෙන ශික්ෂණය යන වචනයේ ‘ශි’ යන්නවත් නොදන්නා කාලේ අපේ මුතුන් මිත්තන් ශික්ෂණය ලබා සිටියා. දැන් ලැජ්ජා නැතිව, ජිප්සිස් නායකයා සමඟ එනවා අපට ශික්ෂණය ගැන කියා දෙන්න. ඔයා ශික්ෂණය කියන වචනය පෙරට දමා ගෙන එන්නේ මේ රටේ තිබෙන ශික්ෂණයටත් වැඬේ දෙන්න කියා අපි දන්නවා. ඒකට අපි ඉඩ තියන්නේ නැහැ’ කියා.

අනුරගේ ශික්ෂණයේ මාර්ගය

දැන් මේ 20 වැනි ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය පිළිබඳ පෞද්ගලික මන්ත්‍රී යෝජනාව මගින් විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය අහෝසි කිරීමට යෝජනා කර තිබෙනවා ද? නැහැ. එමගින් යෝජනා කරන්නේ විධායක ජනාධිපතිවරයා තෝරන ක්‍රමය වෙනස් කිරීමට පමණයි. එනම් දැනට පවතින ජනාධිපතිවරණය අහෝසි කිරීමට පමණයි. මේක රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ අගමැතිවරයාට ඇදෙන ස්විප් එකක්. රනිල් කීවානේ ‘ජනාධිපතිවරණය ළං වෙලා මම එජාප නායකත්වයෙන් ඉවත් වෙලා සුදුස්සාට ජනාධිපති ධුර අපේක්ෂකත්වය ලබා දෙනවා කියා. දැන් අනුරගේ යෝජනාව අනුව ජනාධිපතිවරණය අහෝසි වන නිසා රනිල්ට නායකත්වයෙන් ඉවත් වීමට සිදු වන්නේත් නැහැ. ශික්ෂණයට වඩා සමීප මුළු රටේම ජනතාවගේ කැමැත්තෙන් ජනාධිපතිවරයකු තෝරා පත් කර ගැනීම ද? පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් සල්ලිවලට ගත හැකි අර්ජුන් ඇලෝසියස් වැනි හොරෙකු ජනාධිපති ධුරයට පත්කර ගැනීම ද? ඔන්න අනුර කියන ශික්ෂණයේ මාර්ගය

අනුරගේ යෝජනාව අනුව ජනාධිපතිවරණය අහෝසියි. විධායක ජනාධිපති ධූරය පෙර පරිදිම තිබෙනවා, එයාට බලතල ටිකක් අඩු වී තිබෙනවා. නමුත් එයා තවමත් විධායකයේ ප්‍රධානියා සහ සන්නද්ධ හමුදාවන්හි සේනාධිනායකයා තමයි. අගමැතිවරයාෙ ආණ්ඩුවේ ප්‍රධානියා වෙනවා. මේකත් හොඳටම මඤ්ඤංනේ. දැන් අපට පෙනෙනවානේ එළ හරකා සහ මී හරකා එකට ගැටගහලා රටට සිදුවී තිබෙන විනාශය. මේ යෝජනාව අනුව අගමැතිවරයා තේරී පත් වන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ වැඩිම මන්ත්‍රී ‍ධුර සංඛ්‍යාවක් ලබාගෙන ඇති පක්ෂයෙන්. ජනාධිපතිවරයා තෝරන්නේ කොහොමද? දේශපාලන පක්ෂයක සාමාජිකයකු නොවන, බාහිර පුද්ගලයෙකු පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ සරල බහුතර ඡන්දයෙන්.

ජනාධිපති බෙලහීන වන විට පළාත් ආණ්ඩුකාරවරයා…

අපි හිතමුකෝ, ලලිත් කොතලාවල වැනි පුද්ගලයෙකුට ජනාධිපති වෙන්න හිතුනා කියා. එයා සල්ලි මලූ ටික බෙදලා 113 හදාගන්නවා. ඒ අනුව ලලිත් කොතලාවල ජනාධිපති වෙනවා .දැන් ඉන්න ජනාධිපතිට වඩා එයාට බලතල ටිකක් අඩුයි. ඒ නිසා එදාට පළාත් ආණ්ඩුකාරවරයා පත් කරන්නේ අදට වඩා බෙලහීන ජනාධිපතිවරයෙක් විසිනුයි. ජනාධිපති බෙලහීන වෙනකොට එයා පත්කරන පළාත් ආණ්ඩුකාරවරයාත් බෙලහීන වෙනවා. එදාට ඒ ආණ්ඩුකාරවරයාට ද ක්‍රියාත්මක වීමට සිදුවන්නේ බෙලහීන කරන ලද ප්‍රමාණයට මිස ඉන් එහාට නොවේ. වර්ධරාජා පෙරුමාල්ලා වගේ ගැලවිලා යන්න හදන විට, ගැටුමක් ඇති වන විට, ඒක පාලනය කරන්න පළාත් ආණ්ඩුකාරවරයාට තිබෙන බලය නැති වෙනවා. අවසානයේ ශ්‍රී ලංකා රාජ්‍යය අස්ථාවර වෙනවා.

‘ඊළම නිර්මාණයකර ගැනීමේ දෙවන මෙහෙයුම

බෙදුම්වාදීන් දෙමළ ඊළම නිර්මාණයකර ගැනීමේ දෙවන මෙහෙයුම ජයග්‍රහණය කිරීමට හදන්නේ යුද්ධ කරලා නොවෙයි. ඔවුන්ගේ උවමනාව ගැටුමක් හදලා ඒ හරහා තම මෙහෙයුම ජයග්‍රහණය කිරීමයි. මේ අය අපේ රජය ලවාම අපේ ආරක්ෂක හමුදාවන් යුද අපරාධ සිදු කළ බව ඔප්පු කිරීමට අවශ්‍ය යාන්ත්‍රණයක් හදවා ගත්තා. අනික් පැත්තෙන් උතුරු පළාත් සභාව නිල වශයෙන් ජන සංහාරක සතියක් සමරනවා. දකුණු ඉන්දියාවේ ජන සංහාරක සතිය සමරන්න ගිහින් 50ක පමණ පිරිසක් අත්අඩංගුවට ගනු ලැබුවා. නමුත් ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ජන සංහාරක සතිය නිල වශයෙන් සැමරීමට ඔවුන්ට ඉඩ ලැබී තිබෙනවා. අද රජයේ නිල ප්‍රකාශකවරයා වන කැබිනට් ප්‍රකාශකවරයා දළදා මාලිගාවට බෝම්බ ගහපු, ශ්‍රී මහා බෝ සමිඳුන් ලේවලින් නැහැවූ, අරන්තලාවේ භික්ෂු ඝාතනය සිදු කළ, ජනාධිපති රණසිංහ ප්‍රේමදාස, ඇමති ගාමිණි දිසානායක ඇතුළු දේශපාලනඥයන් මරා දැමූ, ම්ලේච්ඡ කොටි ත්‍රස්තවාදීන් තම දරුවන් යැයි කියා පවසනවා.

විග්නේෂ්වරන් ලෝකයාට කියපු දේ

එදා ජන සංහාරක සතිය අරඹමින් උතුරේ මහ ඇමති සී.වී. විග්නේශ්වරන් සිදුකළ කතාව දිහා බලන්න. එයා කතා කළේ ජත්‍යන්තර ප්‍රජාවටයි. ඔහු කීවේ ‘ශ්‍රී ලංකා රජයේ හමුදා යුද අපරාධ කරලා තිබෙනවා. ඒ යුද අපරාධවල වින්දිතයන් සැමරීමයි අප සිදු කරන්නේ. අපට අපේ නිදහස හා ස්වාධීනත්වයත්වය ලබාදිය යුතුයි’ කියලයි.

රට බෙදන මාර්ග සිතියම

මේ අය දැන් කුරුමානම් අල්ලන්නේ උතුරු නැගෙනහිර පළාත් සභා ඒකාබද්ධ කරන්නයි. එහෙම පිහිටුවන උතුරු – නැගෙනහිර පළාත් සභාව මධ්‍යම රජය සමඟ දිගටම ගැටුම් හදා ගනීවි. මේ ගැටුම් විසදීම ජාත්‍යන්තරය බාර ගනීවි. ජාත්‍යන්තර නීතිය අනුව නඩු අහලා සර්බියාවෙන් කොසෝවෝ වෙන් කළා වගේ ඉන්දුනීසියාවෙන් නැගෙනහිර ටිමෝරය වෙන් කළා වගේ අපේ ඉරණමත් විසඳේවි. ඒකයි මේ රට බෙදන මාර්ග සිතියම.

ඒ මාර්ග සිතියම ජයග්‍රහණයෙන් කෙළවර කරන්න නම් ශ්‍රී ලංකා රාජ්‍යය අස්ථාවර වෙන්න ඕනෙ. විධායකය දුර්වල වෙන්න ඕන, එය තීන්දු තීරණ ගන්න බැරි තත්ත්වයකට පත් කරන්න ඕනේ. අන්න ඒ තත්ත්වය තමයි විසිවැනි සංශෝධනයෙන් ඇතිකරන්න හදන්නෙ. 20වැනි සංශෝධනය කියන්නේ අනුර දිසානායක බාරදුන් කෙටුම්පතේ තිබෙන කරුණු පමණක් නොවෙයි, කාරක සභා අවස්ථාවේදී බෙදුම්වාදීන්ට අවශ්‍ය අනෙක් උප්පරවැට්ටි ටිකත් එයට එකතු කරාවි. මේ ආණ්ඩුව සිදු කරමින් ඉන්නේ දෙමළ බෙදුම්වාදය සහ බටහිර බලවතුන්ගේ උවමනාව අනුව අනාගතයේ බෙදී වෙන්වී යාමකට ඉඩකඩ ලබාදෙන ආකාරයට රාජ්‍යය බෙලහීන කිරීම, දුර්වල කිරීම.

‘මව් පොළොවට සතුරුකම් කරන්නන්ගේ සතුරකු වීම’

මේ දියත් වන්නේ මේ මව් පොළොව ඔබේ දරුවාට අහිමි කිරීමේ මෙහෙයුමක්. මේ ඇත්ත අනතුරුදායක මෙහෙයුම, අපි දිනපතා රූපවාහිනියෙන් දකින මේ යහපාලන ආණ්ඩුවේ මැති ඇමතිවරුන්ගේ නරුමකම් සහ අමනකම්වලට යටින් දිවෙනවා. ඒ ඇත්ත අනතුරුදායක මෙහෙයුම කල්තියා දැකලා ඊට එරෙහිව ජනතාව පෙළගැස්වීම නිසයි අපි මේ ආණ්ඩු වේ වෛරයට හා පළිගැනීම්වලට නිබඳවම ලක්වෙන්නේ. මේ මව් පොළොවට සතුරුකම් කරන අයගේ සතුරෙකු වීම අපේ සතුටට කාරණයක්. ධර්මය රැක්ක මේ රට, මානව ශිෂ්ටාචාරයේ අභිමානවත් නැවතුම්පොළක් බවට පත්වූ මේ රට සුරැකීම අපේ අනුල්ලංඝනීය වගකීමයි.

අනුරුද්ධ බණ්ඩාර රණවාරණ
මාධ්‍ය ලේකම්
ජාතික නිදහස් පෙරමුණ

කීර්ති තෙන්නකෝන් Executive Director/CaFFE

පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් අර්ජුන්-පලිසේන සමග පැවැත්වූ දුරකථන සංවාද පිළිබද සම්පූර්ණ වාර්තාව කථානායකවරයා විසින් කැදවිය යුතුයි – කීර්ති තෙන්නකෝන්

අප මාස 4 ½ ක් ඉල්ලා සිටි ලේඛන වලින් කොටසක් අද පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ලැබී තිබෙනවා.  වැඩි කොටස තවමත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ලැබී නෑ.  පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට අවශ්‍ය නම් මේ ලේඛන ලබා ගන්නට උසාවි නියෝගයක් ලබාගත හැකියි.  මේ ලේඛන සියල්ල නොමැතිව බැදුම්කර වංචාව ගැන කිසිදු විධිමත් හරවත් සංවාදයක් ඇති විය නොහැකි යැයි කිර්ති තෙන්නකෝන් මහතා අද රාජගිරියේ දී පැවසීය.

විවිධ පුද්ගලයින් ඇලෝසියස් හා පළිසේන සමග පැවැත්වූ සංවාද ඇතුළත් සී 350 ලේඛනයේ කොටස් දෙකක් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ලැබී තිබෙනවා. එකක් කෝප් කමිටුවේ සිටින අතර ඇලෝසියස්-පලිසේන සමග සාකච්ඡා පැවැත්වූ පුද්ගලයින් ගැනයි.  දෙවැන්න, රවී කරුණානායක ගේ පවුලේ සාමාජිකයින් පැවැත්වූ දුරකතන සංවාද ගැනයි.  නමුත්, කථානායකවරයාට දැන් අවශ්‍ය නම් පුළුවන්  පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ සියළුම මන්ත්‍රීවරු ඇලෝසියස්-පළිසේන සමග පැවැත්වූ සාකච්ඡා පිළිබද වාර්තාවක් කැදවන්න.  එවිට මේ සගවන්නට හදන අබිරහස හෙළිදරව්වේවි.

බැඳුම්කර ගනුදෙනුව පිළිබදව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ලබාදී ඇති සභාගත විය යුතුයි. එපමණක් නොවෙයි, මේ වාර්තා පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට සීමා නොකොට ඒ පිළිබඳ උනන්දුවන පාර්ශව වලට විමර්ශනය කිරීම සඳහා මහජන ප්‍රසිද්ධියට පත්කළ යුතුයයි ද ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍රයේ විධායක අධ්‍යක්ෂ කීර්ති තෙන්නකෝන් මහතා පැවසීය. අනිත් අතට පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ලබාදී ඇති වාර්තා තුළින් මෙම බැඳුම්කර වංචාවට අදාල සත්‍යය තත්වය අණාවරණය නොවන බවත් සමස්ථ වාර්තාව නොමැතිව තෝරාගත් කොටසකින් පමණක් නිගමනවලට එළැබිය නොහැකි බවත් ප්‍ර‍කාශ කළේය.

බැඳුම්කර ගණුදෙනුවට අදාලව සිදුකල  සම්පූර්ණ ජනාධිපති විමර්ශන වාර්තාව පාර්ලිමේන්තුව වෙත ලබාදෙන ලෙස තමන් ද ඉල්ලීම් කළ බව සඳහන් කළ තෙන්නකෝන් මහතා මා ඉල්ලූ කිසිවක් ලැබී නෑ.  ඒ ඇයි ද කියා මම දන්නේ නෑ. නමුත්, සගවන්නට බොහෝ දේ ඇති බව නම් අද දවත් පැහැදිලි වුණා යැයි ද ප්‍ර‍කාශ කළේය.

කෝප් කමිටු සාමජිකයිගෙන් මුදල් ලබා නොගත් බවට දිවුරුම් ප්‍ර‍කාශයක් අවශ්‍යයි

බැදුම්කර මුදල් තමන් ලබා නොගත් බව, මැතිවරණ වියදම් සදහා මේ සමාගම්වල මුදල් නොලැබුණු බවට කෝප් කමිටු සාමාජිකයින්ගෙන් දිවුරුම් පෙත්සමක් ලබා ගත යුතු යැයි අද අප කථානායකවරයාට යෝජනා කළා.  පසුගිය කෝප් කමිටු දෙකක සාමාජිකයෝ පර්පචුවල් සමාගමේ මුදල් ලබාගෙන ඇති බව මේ වන විට හෙළිවී තිබෙනවා.  ඔවුන් තමයි ෆුට් නෝට් දමමින්, පොත් ලියමින් බැදුම්කර වංචාවක් සිදු නොවූ බවට තර්ක ඉදිරිපත් කළේ.  දැන්වත් කෝප් සමාජිකයින් බැදුම්කර වංචාව සැගවීමට දරණ උත්සාහය වැලැක්විය යුතුය.  මුදල් ලබා නොගත් මන්ත්‍රීවරු පමණක් කෝප් කමිටුවට පැමිණීම තහවුරු කළ හැක්කේ කථානායකවරයාට පමණයි, යැයි ද පැවසීය.