COMMENCEMENT OF BROADCASTING IN SRI LANKA IT WAS ON 16TH DECEMBER 1925. 93 YEARS AGO.

December 13th, 2017

By- Dr.Sripali Vaiamon.Vice President SRI LANKA VETERAN BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION.

CONTRIBUTING AN ARTICLE TO THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY COPY OF BROADCASTING IN SRI LANKA BY THE LATE MR.H.M.GUNASEKARA,THE PRESIDENT OF The VETERAN BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION IN SRI LANKA,CATAGORICALLY SAID,  BRITAIN INAUGRATED REGULAR BROADCASTING SERVICE IN NOVEMBER 1922,-ON THE SAME YEAR THE CEYLON WIRELESS CLUB WAS FORMED BY A FEW OF  OUR RADIO ENTHUSISASTS IN CEYLON…

In 1923, The Ceylon Telegraph department commenced experiments in broadcasting with a small transmitter built from parts recovered from a captured German submarine and some spares belonging to the Colombo ship-to-shore telegraphy transmitter The team was headed by Mr.Edward Harper ,the Chief Engineer of the Colombo Telegraph who came to island in 1921. Music was put over to the transmitter by placing a microphone in front of an ordinary gramophone with a horn on experimental basis.  The studio amplifier and transmitter were all housed in one small room in the central telegraph building.

Mr.T.Jaimon, News Editor, Radio Ceylon, contributing an article to the SRI LANKA” of the dept. of Information, published on 15th October 1952,referred to the inaugural broadcast thus:(Heard by some one.)  I was one of an eager crowed that awaited in tense anticipation for the Governor’s words to come through, and come they did, but in such volume and tone that most of the speech was unintelligible. The effect was not dissimilar to the first moving picture, in which people were seeing jerkily articulating their limbs. The speaker if I remember right was Sir Hugh Clifford who did not have what we would today describe as a good microphone voice, which probably partly accounted for the poor reception. However, everybody was satisfied that broadcasting had arrived in Ceylon and a new era had begun.

Mr.Jaimon comments in his article that the progress of broadcasting was slow because it was long remained an incidental responsibility of the telegraph Dept. and those in authority were not alive to the value of the new medium of public address and entertainment that had been evolved. To mention a single significant fact, it was not until 1930 that a separate transmitter was built for broadcasting. (This I extracted to note how the progress had been taken place in comparison to today’s standard.)

As the Vice President of the Association when I came out with  this article there was a bit of a controversy with regard to the commencement of official opening of broadcasting in Ceylon and I quoted our PATRON Livy Wijemanna who responded to a query raised by the then Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of State ,where he had quoted Vaithianathan Commission Report which was the first review of broadcasting in this country issued in 1941, where it states quite categorically that DECEMBER 16TH 1925, ON WHICH DATE THIS SERVICE WAS INAUGURATED, MARKED THE BIRTHDAY OF BROADCASTING IN CEYLON.-a very early date in the history of broadcasting in the WORLD.

The News, weather reports, road reports and share prices were b/c in addition to music programmes from the inception. Most of these details I have quoted in my booklet, Land Marks of Broadcasting in Sri Lanka which I issued when I was the Director Audience Research.

A copy of it I appended to the end of 75th year Anniversary issue for easy reference. Perhaps if you are interested you would be able to obtain a free copy of the booklet if it is available at the Station.

However, a remarkable progress of development of Broadcasting in the country had been visible after the appointment of Superintendent of broadcasting, Shirly da Silva in 1937.  In 1942 the premises in Torrington had been moved to BOWER, COTTA ROAD, BORELLA. The Dept of Broadcasting came into being on 1st of October 1949 and named RADIO CEYLON. The first DIRECTOR GENERAL WAS MR.JOHN N .LAMPSON AND AFTER HIM THE CEYLONESE DIRECTOR GENERAL WAS MR.M.J.PERERA.A well recognized Civil Servant.

However I like to quote Professor K.N.O.Dhrmadasa writing a FOREWORD to one of my books published in America on 02/05/2012 PRE-HISTORIC LANKA TO END OF TERRORISM,(A book on Sociology ). ,where he had briefed the standard that were prevailing at the time that I associated.—SRIPALI VAIAMON was several years ago, a very well known figure in Sri Lanka media scene. He served with distinction the then Radio Ceylon, whose name was later changed into Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation. He joined the institution early in the 1950’s. It was a government institution and all the rules and regulations pertaining to government service were operant there. In some of the chapters in this book he gives us a glimpse of the trails and tribulations a government servant serving a media institution (one and only such in the country at the time) had to undergo. What is more significant is the fact that, as will appear in his narration, Whether it was music, dramas ,discussions or special features, great care was taken to present to listeners the best in quality. This fact has to be mentioned today, some sixty years hence when we hear from all quarters the fall of standards, in aesthetic quality, in taste as well as in language……

It must have been the position in several years back and now I presume the standard must have been rejuvenated and uplifted with the assumptions of several educated experts who are aware with art and technique.

Now let us continue the broadcastingwise historical aspects little further without getting into minor details.

IN 1927-                Broadcast of News and Sport News

The first production of drama (English) Wireless Drama” by J.S.M.Paterson

Live b/c of Sinhala Music by M.G .Perera  &party

21.04. 1928             First Sinhala Talk by Rev.Palane Sri Vajiragnana

May 1931                Commencement of Education Broadcast by the Dept: of Education

1935                          First Broadcast of Race Commentaries

1936                          Sinhala Childrens’ Programme-Presented by Catherine Hapugoda

2nd Aug. 1937           Appointment of Superintendent of Broadcasting Mr.Shirley da Silva

1938                           Under an agreement with Reuter, the Station obtained the right to b/cNews

Bulletins  twice daily

Relayed Kandy Perahera with studio sound effects

1939                           News b/c relayed four times daily

Formation of a Sinhala Orchestra-Leader,H.Don Vincent

23rd Nov.  [sv1]                  special b/c from Anuradhapura pinnacle laying ceremony ofRuwanveli Seya

1942 3rd Sept.           The premises in Torrington Square were commandeered for the Armed Services

And Studios and Control Room were moved to the -BOWER-Cotta Road, Borella

1948                         Relays of  Easter race meeting from Nuwara Eliya and  Ceylon tennis Champion

Ship  for the first time.

Coverage of the ceremonies connected with the Independence celebrations & the

Visit of Duke of Gloucester

1949                        Prof.Ratnajankar of Bhathkande University conducted an Audition for Sinhala

vocalists

Radio Seac was taken over for Radio Ceylon

Namo Namo  Matha was selected as the National Anthem and played at 11.00 am

On 4th of February

1950 . 30th Sept.  Inauguration of the Commercial Service by Clifford R.Dodd

Special progs. Were b/c to commemorate SILVER JUBILEE OF Radio Ceylon on 16.12.50

 

31st March 1951    First b/c of the SHOW OF THE MONTH  from 8-00 to 9-00 pm

Sept.             Inauguration of the School Service as a separate service of RADIO CEYLON

1953 – April             THARANGANI was issued

1956                              A listener Research Unit was formed

1959 Oct                        News Division became under Director General

1962                               Introduction of FM to Sri Lanka

1967                                Radio Ceylon became a Corporation

5t June                School Service became Education Service

1969 20th July                 Simultaneous coverage of the moon landing  over all services

1970                                 Radio Ceylon Training School was established-Director Stewart Wavell of BBC

1972                                  The Ceylon Broadcasting Corporation re-named Sri Lanka

Broadcasting Corporation-SLBC

1978-2nd Oct-                    Inauguration of Sports Service -Channel 3

2nd N0v.                   Opening of the Middle East and East Africa Services

1979-12th April                  Opening of RAJA RATA SEVAYA-ANURADHAPURA

14th April                  Introduction of TELIVISION to SRI LANKA

1980 3rd Feb.                     Opening of RUHUNU SEVAYA-MATARA

1981 March                       Inauguration of mahaveli Community Radio

1983 13th April                  Opening of MAHANUWARA SEVAYA-KANDY

1985                                   Commentaries on the Commissioning of VICTORIA DAM

1986 11th April                  Inauguration of Community  Broadcasting -GIRANDURUKOTTE

1989 12th Feb.                   Inauguration of Community Broadcasting- Kothmale

189 3rd Nov.                        CITY-FM   Service was inaugurated

1993                                     NEW STUDIO COMPLEX

1997 17TH July                     First stage of Island-wide  FM  -from KARAGAHATENNA

1998 12TH April                    PULATHISIRAVAYA- Opened up at ARALAGANVILA-POLONNARUWA

1999 30th April                     Community Broadcasting Network project-KOTMALE

( Balance up to date will be published by somebody at the STATION )

INAUGUARATION OF COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING IN SRI LANKA

By late Mr. Livy Wijemanna-,Director of Commercial Broadcasting-Chairman-Patron Adaptation by Dr.Sripali Vaiamon-Vice President of the Sri Lanka Veteran Broadcasters Association

THE VETERAN BROADCASTERS IN SRI LANKA FORMED AN ASSOCIATION SOMETIMES BACK AND RELEASED A COMMEMORATIVE ISSUE on 16th of December  2000 WHERE the Patron of the Association, late Mr. LIVY WIJEMANNA CONTRIBUTED AN ARTICLE ELABORATING THE COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING  IN SRI LANKA.WAR OFFICE IN BRITAIN INVOLVED FOR THIS FROM THE VERY INCEPTION. WAR OFFICE IN BRITAIN.IN 1941 PURCHASED OUTRIGHT A 78 ACRE ESTATE AT EKALA, J a-ela , CLOSER TO COLOMBO FOR THE ERACTION OF A TRANSMITTING STATION FOR… -Full Story- (LankaWeb – 07/12/17)

2 Comments »

Plastic bottles and food containers-What does the evidence show about plastic and cancer?

December 13th, 2017

cancer research uk.org

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cancer-controversies/plastic-bottles-and-cling-film

What does the evidence show about plastic and cancer?

People have claimed chemicals inside plastics leach into food or drink causing cancer. In particular there have been concerns about Bisphenol A (BPA) and dioxins in plastic bottles or plastic containers.

But there is no convincing evidence to show using plastic bottles or plastic containers increases the risk of cancer.

What research has been done?

Most of the concerns about plastic bottles and containers focus on whether chemicals inside the plastic can move out into food or drink. And if the levels of these chemicals could do us any harm.

Can chemicals in plastic move into food and drink?

Plastic bottle

Some studies have shown that small amounts of chemicals from plastic containers can end up in the food or drinks that are kept inside them. But the levels of these are very low.

The level of chemicals in food or drink can depend on things like how the container is treated. For example plastic water bottles in experiments have often been heated to high temperatures, sometimes for a long time. And even in experiments where plastic bottles are heated to temperatures as high as 60⁰C for many hours, levels of chemicals that move into food are drink are usually far under levels that are considered unsafe.

These experiments are very different from everyday use, so it is likely that levels of chemicals in food or drink would be far below the levels that could be harmful.

Some of these chemicals have been referred to as ‘endocrine disrupting’ chemicals. This means they can affect how hormones work. Some people have suggested that chemicals in plastic can affect our hormone levels, and that this can cause cancer. But there is no good evidence that this is true.

What chemicals are allowed in plastics?

In the UK there is very strict regulation about plastics and other materials that are used for food or drink. This is to make sure that chemicals can’t move out of plastics and into food and drink at high levels that could be harmful.

There are strict safety limits set in the UK that manufacturers have to stick to. And products are tested to make sure they are in line with regulations.

You can read more about this on the Food Standards Agency’s website(link is external).

Can I microwave food in plastic containers or covered in cling film?

There is no good scientific evidence that microwaving food in plastic containers or wrapped in cling film can affect the risk of cancer.

You can use most cling film and plastics in the microwave, just make sure you use them as the instructions say.

If you’d like more information about cooking safely in the microwave, look at Johns Hopkins University recommendations(link is external) or the US Food Safety Inspection Service website(link is external).

Hoax emails and myths

There are many hoax emails and unreliable internet articles warning about the so-called dangers of plastic bottles, containers and films. The emails generally warn people about reusing plastic bottles, freezing water in them or leaving them in hot cars. Some of them also talk about microwaving food in plastic containers or covered with plastic films.

However, there is no convincing scientific evidence to back up these claims or to suggest that any of these products could cause cancer.

Bisphenol A (BPA)

There have been lots of articles talking about the safety of BPA in plastics. But there is no good evidence that BPA can cause cancer in people. The European Food Safety Authority also did a full scientific review of BPA and concluded there was no health risk. You can read more here(link is external).

Dioxins

Some hoax emails have circulated claiming that reusing, heating or freezing water bottles releases cancer-causing chemicals called dioxins. Some also mention a chemical called DEHA, a chemical found in plastics that the emails claim could potentially cause cancer.

Some of these emails credit the warnings about plastics to Johns Hopkins University in America, but the university denies any involvement(link is external). On their website, they say:

The Internet is flooded with messages warning against freezing water in plastic bottles or cooking with plastics in the microwave oven. These messages, frequently titled Johns Hopkins Cancer News” or Johns Hopkins Cancer Update,” are falsely attributed to Johns Hopkins and we do not endorse their content.”

Professor Rolf Halden of Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health has said that freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Halden stressed that people should not be afraid of drinking water because of miniscule amounts of chemical contaminants present in [their] water supply.”

Other versions of the emails say that the claims are endorsed by the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Again, this is not true.

No Comments »

Royal Asiatic Society Monthly Public Lecture – “Machines in early Sri Lanka: A survey based on Buddhist Commentaries”

December 13th, 2017

Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka (RASSL)

Public Lecture

 Machines in early Sri Lanka: A survey based on Buddhist Commentaries”

by

 Mr. Chandana Jayawardana

 On

 Monday 18th December 2017 at 5.00 p.m.

at the

Gamini Dissanayake Auditorium

No. 96, Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07

 

ALL ARE WELCOME

No Comments »

ව්‍යාජ පංදිචිය සහ හැඳුනුම්පත් අංක ඇතුළත් කොට පොහොට්ටුවේ නාමයෝජනා ප්‍රතිකේෂප කිරිමේ කුමන්ත්‍රණයක්.. මෙන්න විසඳුම සියලු විස්තර මැතිවරණ වෙබ් අඩවියෙන්..

December 13th, 2017

lanka C news

මේ වනවිට දිවයින පුරා මැතිවරණ උණුසුම ඉහළ යද්දි ආණ්ඩුවේ සියලු උපායමාර්ග වී ඇත්තේ කෙසේ හෝ මහින්දගේ ශ්‍රීලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුණ නාමයෝජනා ලැයිස්තු ප්‍රතිකේෂ්ප කිරිමට උපායමාර්ග සැලසුම් කිරිමයි.

මේ බැව් හෙලිවෙන්නේ කන්ද උඩරට පලාතක ආණ්ඩුවේ සිටින අමාත්‍යවරයෙකුගේ ආධාරකරුවෙකුගෙනි.

එබැවින් දිවයිනේ සෑම ඡන්දදායයකුගේම අනන්‍යතාවය තහවුරු කර ගැනීමට අවශ්‍ය සියලු දත්ත සිංහල,දෙමළ සහ ඉංග්‍රීසි භාෂා ත්‍රිත්වයන් ලබාගැනීමට අවශ්‍ය පහසුකම් මේ වනවිට ස්වාධීන මැතිවරණ කොමිසමේ වෙබ් අඩවියට පිවිසීමෙන් තහවුරු කර ගත හැකිය.

ඒ අනුව පහත සඳහන් උපදෙස් අනුව දිවයිනේ ඕනම ප්‍රදේශය වෙසෙන ඡන්දදායකුගේ අනන්‍යතාවය තහවුරු කර ගත හැකිය. මේ සඳහා ඕනම පරිඝණකයක් හෝ ස්මාර්ට් ෆෝන් එකක් පාවිච්චි කොට ගූගල් පිටුවට ඇතුල් වී,

  1. ස්වාධීන මැතිවරණ කොමිසමේ වෙබ් අඩවියය පිවිසීම link
    2. අවශ්‍ය භාෂාව තෝරා ගැනිම සඳහා, සිංහල,දෙමළ, ඉංග්‍රීසි මත ක්ලික් කරන්න.
    3. එම පිටුවේ වම්පස 3 වෙනුවට සඳහන් කොට ඇති ඡන්දහිමි නාම ලේඛනය 2017″ මත ක්ලික් කරන්න.
    4. එහිදි මැතිවරණ e සේවා පිටුව දිස්වේ.
    5. එම පිටුවේ ” පලාත් පාලන ඡන්ද හිමි ලියාපදිංචි විස්තරය” ප්‍රතිශොධන 2017 සඳහන් අවශ්‍ය තොරතුරු කොටු පුරවන්න,
    අ) ශ්‍රි.ල.හැ.අ./ ජා.හැ.අ: උදා. **********v
    ආ) පරිපාලන දිස්ත්‍රික්කය: උදා, කොළඹ
    ඇ) ඉන් පසුව පහලින් ඇති කොටුවේ ” පහතින් දැක්වෙන කේතය ඇතුලත් කරන්න” ලෙස අංකයක් ලබාදි ඇති අතර එය නිසි පරිදි එම කොටුව තුලට ඇතුලත් කරන්න.
    ඉ) ඉන් පසුව ඊට පහලින් ඇති කොටුවේ ” පෙන්වන්න” ක්ලික් කිරීමෙන් ඔබගේ පහත සඳහන් සියලුම විස්තර ලබාගැනීමට හැකිය.

1.සම්පූර්ණ නම වාසගම සහිතව, 2. ශ්‍රීලංකා හැදුනුම්පත් අංකය සහ ජාතික හැඳුනුම්පත් අංකය, 3.පරිපාලන දිස්ත්‍රික්ය 4.පලාත් පාලන ආයතනය, කොට්ඨාස අංකය හා නම 5.ඡන්ද කොට්ඨාස අංකය හා අක්ෂරය,6. අනුක්‍රමික අංකය, 7. ග්‍රාම නිලධාරි කොට්ඨාසය, 8. ගම/වීදිය. 9.ගෘහ අංකය

ඒ අනුව මෙම විස්තර ලබාගැනිමට නොහැකි නම් මැතිවරණ කොමිසම එහි සඳහන් අංක අනුව අමතන්න, මෙහි නම සහ විස්තර සඳහන් නොමැති කිසිවකුට එලබෙන පලාත් පාලන මැතිවරණයේ දි ඡන්දය ඉල්ලිමට හෝ ප්‍රකාශ කිරිමට නොහැකිය.

No Comments »

360 with Nissanka Senadhipathi ( 27-11-2017 )

December 13th, 2017

Avant Guard – How it was destroyed by Yahapalanaya Must listen

No Comments »

PROTECT WILPATTU – වරෙවු වරෙවු විල්පත්තුව බේරා ගනිවු

December 13th, 2017

වරෙවු වරෙවු විල්පත්තුව බේරා ගනිවු !! බේරගන්න විල්පත්තුව ලංකාවේ විල්පත්තුව වෙනුවෙන් පෙළ ගැහුනාවේ

වරෙවු වරෙවු විල්පත්තුව බේරා ගනිවු !!

බේරගන්න විල්පත්තුව ලංකාවේ

විල්පත්තුව වෙනුවෙන් පෙළ ගැහුනාවේ

අනුරපුරය, මන්නාරම, පුත්තලමත් යා කෙරේ

උතුර, වයඹ, දකුණු වෙරලබඩ සීමා අනතුරේ

මස් වැද්දා කුරුළු සතුන් මැරුවානේ

සංරක්ෂිත විල්ලු වනය කැපුවානේ

ලක්බිමේ, උරුමයේ, අපෙ.. තුන් හෙළේ, පින් බිමේ….. ඉරත් හඳත් උහුලන්නැති,

විනාශයට එරෙහිව අපි බදුර්දීන් පාහරකම් පිටුදකිමු

ලොක්කො සොක්කො කුට්ටි අරං,

විල්පත්තුව කන්න අරං හුස්ම ගන්න විල්පත්තුව රැක ගනිමු

බේරගන්න විල්පත්තුව¬¬¬¬¬ ලංකාවේ

විල්පත්තුව වෙනුවෙන් පෙළ ගැහුනාවේ

එකා වගේ…. රැක ගනිවු, අරගලේ….. කරපියවු, අප්පච්චිගෙ කාලෙ පටං දේශපාලු ලොක්කො හිටං බය නැති අගමැති ඇමතිලා පන්නාගමු

ගාම්භීර අතීතයක නටබුන් වල ගැම්ම අරන් කූඹියො මෙන් එක් රොක් වී යුධ කරමු බේරගන්න විල්පත්තුව¬¬¬¬¬

ලංකාවේ විල්පත්තුව වෙනුවෙන් පෙළ ගැහුනාවේ

වන ජීවී සංරක්ෂණ අඥා පනත් ගිනි තැබූ කලුවර, පලු, වීර, බුරුත ජෛව ශාක නැති කෙරූ අවජාතක පරයන් පන්නා දමමු

විල්පත්තුවෙ හුස්ම පොදත් රැක ගනිමු

කාලකන්නි උන් හිටියට ලොකු පුටුවේ උන්ට මේවා ගානක් නෑ පර ගැතිනේ

වරෙවු වරෙවු විල්පත්තුව රැක ගනියවු

ජාති පක්ෂ භේද නැතුව එරෙහි වෙයවු යමවු යමවු විරෝධයට එකතු වෙයවු

වරෙවු වරෙවු විල්පත්තුව බේරා ගනිවු !!

2 Comments »

Truly tragic story How a celebrated officer ended up at Welikada

December 13th, 2017

By Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

December 12, 2017, 8:25 pm

Sri Lanka Navy celebrated its 67th anniversary last Friday (Dec 9) with Vice Admiral Sirimevan Ranasinghe at the helm. Ranasinghe succeeded Vice Admiral Travis Sinniah last October amidst simmering controversy over Sri Lanka’s decision to acquire a frigate from Russia, nine years after the successful conclusion of the war.

The government defended the acquisition, both in and outside parliament, with State Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena likening acquisition of expensive vessel to the purchase of a BMW at the price of a Toyota.

Sinniah, who had duly retired in July 2011, two years after the successful conclusion of the war, was brought back with the change of government, in January 2015 and commanded the Navy for just three months. The number of months, Sinniah, had served the Navy as its commander should be examined against the backdrop of the number of LTTE ships, the Navy task force, under his command, successfully hunted down on the high seas. Certainly, under the then Captain Sinniah’s leadership, the Navy had destroyed more LTTE ships than the number of months he served as the commander.

article_image

Sinniah is certainly a hero who had made a name for himself in the 80s in northern waters. The capture of an LTTE vessel, carrying a group of hardcore terrorists, by this junior officer, triggered an unprecedented crisis in Oct 1987, leading to a bloody war between the Indian Army and the LTTE. Had that not happened Sri Lanka’s fate would have been different.

Unfortunately, the decision to promote Sinniah as the Commander of the Navy triggered a battle with various parties exploiting the situation to their advantage. Whatever the accusations, no one could have challenged Sinniah’s suitability to command the Navy though his return to active service, after retirement, is certainly a contentious matter. Then US Ambassador Patricia Butenis intervened on behalf of Sinniah, to secure Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s consent to have him released from the Navy at a time the Rajapaksas were firmly in control. Having secured a second term, beating war-winning Army Chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka, in 2010 January, President Rajapaksa obviously didn’t foresee a political challenge at that time. The rest is history.

Sri Lanka’s most successful Navy chief, Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, wouldn’t have entrusted Sinniah with the challenging task of operations on the high seas during a crucial stage of the war if the officer’s professionalism and capabilities weren’t recognized. It would be pertinent to reiterate that it was Karannagoda, who had the wherewithal to secure the required intelligence from the US to go after the LTTE fleet.

But, at the end, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) recorded then Rear Admiral Sinniah’s statement, too, in respect of a spate of abductions that had been allegedly carried out by the Navy during the Rajapaksa administration. Karannagoda has challenged Sinniah’s statement on the basis it brought him as well as the Navy as an institute into disrepute.

In a strange and shocking twist of events, Karannagoda, who had officially brought the alleged involvement of Navy personnel in clandestine activities to the notice of the police, on May 28, 2009, during the Rajapaksa administration, ended up being treated as a ‘suspect,’ much to the surprise of post-war Sri Lanka.

UN on navy abductions

UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, Ben Emmerson, at the conclusion of his official visit to Sri Lanka, on July 14, 2017 made reference to what is now dubbed as the Navy abductions case. The writer was among those invited to cover Emmerson’s briefing at the UN compound in Colombo.

Let me reproduce the relevant paragraph verbatim: “During the Special Rapporteur’s visit, the Chief of the Army, Mahesh Senanayake, made a public commitment to ensure that members of the armed forces who had committed crimes would be brought to justice; a senior Naval Commander was arrested for his alleged involvement in the disappearance of 11 people during the closing stages of the conflict, and the Special Rapporteur was assured by the Attorney General that if and when criminal allegations against the military finally reach his office, they will be prosecuted with the full force of the law. The Attorney General recognized that if Sri Lanka was to achieve lasting peace, then its law enforcement institutions must gain the confidence of all sectors of society, including the Tamil and Muslim minorities.

But these indications fall far short of Sri Lanka’s international commitment to achieve a lasting and just solution to its underlying problems, for the benefit of all of its communities, to establish a meaningful system of transitional justice that is governed by the principles of equality and accountability, and to put in place essential and urgently needed reform of the security sector.”

Police hq. on Navy abductions

Close on the heels of Emmerson’s statement, police spokesperson attorney-at-law SP Ruwan Gunasekera, briefed the media, at the Government Information Department, as regards the Navy abductions case.

Having cleared 11 persons, allegedly abducted by the Navy, of involvement with the LTTE, SP Gunasekera acknowledged that the police received a complaint from Karannagoda, way back in May, 2009, within two weeks after the conclusion of the war on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon. The CID launched an inquiry on June 10, 2009.

Ben Emmerson’s statement, as well as SP Gunasekera’s were made in the wake of Commodore D.K.P. Dassanayake’s arrest, just before the former’s arrival in Sri Lanka, on a 10-day mission.

Karannagoda’s complaint dealt with his chief security officer Lt. Commander Sampath Munasinghe. The then Navy Chief sought police intervention following the recovery of four national identity cards, one passport bearing the name of one of those whose national identity cards were found, one mobile phone, promissory notes worth over one million rupees and approximately 450 rounds of ammunition from Munasinghe’s cabin. Karannagoda wanted to have Munasinghe investigated as regards the officer’s possible involvement with terrorists, primarily due to him being in possession of ammunition not issued to him by the Navy.

SP Gunasekera is on record as having told the media that a Britisher, an eyewitness to one of the abductions, identified the hand phone, recovered from Munasinghe’s cabin, as the one seized from him by Navy personnel at the time of the abduction. The official said that the Britisher had provided vital evidence and investigators were in the process of examining available data.

The lawyer said that the four national identity cards that had been found were issued to the missing footballer, his father and two other residents of Kotahena and Trincomalee.

Following Admiral Karannagoda’s complaint, the CID had received information from the Navy that led to the arrest of Lt. Commander Hettiarachchi.

Navy Captain’s killer squads

The then Captain Dassanayake had been named as the officer in charge of two special teams headed by Lt. Commander Hettiarachchi and Lt. Commander Ranasinghe, responsible for the disappearances.

At the time of Dassanayake’s arrest he was attached to the Office of the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). The senior most officer, taken into custody, over alleged atrocities committed during the war, Dassanayake is well known as the Navy spokesman. Dassanayake’s rank is equivalent to that of a Brigadier and Air Commodore in the Army and the Air Force, respectively. Besides, Dassanayake functioned as Acting Director, Maritime Special Forces.

Of those seven officers and men arrested by the CID, Lt. Commander Munasinghe, who had been arrested at the beginning of the investigation, received bail.

In spite of police claims, Dassanayake, neither functioned as Director Naval Operations (DNO) nor supervised special teams, commanded by two Lt. Commanders, R. P. S Ranasinghe (since then promoted Commander) and H. M. P. C. K Hettiarachchi, according to Navy headquarters records as well as statements given by senior retired and serving Navy officers to the police.

Ranasinghe has been the senior officer in charge of naval intelligence in the East whereas Hettiarachchi was attached to reconnaissance team assigned to Karannagoda.

Gunasekera alleged that then Captain Dassanayake had been navika hamuda meheyum adyaksha (Director Naval Operations) and in charge of two special teams responsible for abductions and disappearances. SP Gunasekera named those who had been abducted allegedly by them while claiming relatives of some of the victims had met Dassanayake to plead on behalf of their loved ones.

At that time (period under investigation) present Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Admiral Ravi Wijegunaratne and incumbent Navy Chief Vice Admiral SS Ranasinghe held the post of DNO. Dassanayake had been the Deputy Director.

Karannagoda acts on May 2009 complaint

Among those who had been questioned in connection with the disappearance was Rear Admiral J.J. Ranasinghe, Vice Chancellor of the Kotelawela Defence University (KDU), who brought the disappearance of 21-year-old Rajiv Naganathan of Kotahena, one of the missing 11 to the notice of Karannagoda, in May 2009. J.J. Ranasinghe, who had functioned as Navy spokesman, before Dassanayake, sought Karannagoda’s assistance on behalf of a UK-based close relative of the missing youth. As the youth had contacted his family from Trincomalee, using a phone provided by Navy personnel, his family knew of the name of the commanding officer of the base where he was held, hence Karannagoda calling for an explanation from Lt. Commander Ranasinghe. When Lt. Commander Ranasinghe denied the allegation that secret prisoners were being kept, the Navy Chief sent the then Eastern Commander Rear Admiral Thusitha Weerasekera to check the junior officer’s claim. Rear Admiral Weerasekera, too, confirmed that there were no secret prisoners. Sinniah had been Weerasekera’s No 2.

The police also recorded a statement from Rear Admiral Weerasekera (now retired). Admiral Karannagoda, Rear Admiral KJCS Fernando and several Navy intelligence personnel were among about 50 persons so far questioned by the police. Dassanayake’s statement was recorded in late Feb. 2015 though he was arrested ahead of UN Special Rapporteur Emmerson’s, visit.

Of the 11 persons, five persons were allegedly taken in on Sept. 17, 2008, by Navy personnel, along with a black coloured Tata Indica. Police have identified them as Rajiv Naganathan (21 years/Colombo 13), Pradeep Vishvanathan (18 years/Wasala Rd, Colombo 13), Mohammed Sajith (21 years/Dematagoda), Thilakeswaram Ramalingam (17 years/Bloemendhal housing complex, Colombo 13) and Jamaldeen Dilan (Maradana). Those involved in the operation were believed to have been accompanied by a Navy informant Mohammed Ali Anwar alias Hadjjiar of Karagampitiya, Dehiwela. Subsequently, the 28-year-old informant, too, had disappeared; he has been listed among those 11 missing.

The remaining five persons are Kasthuriarachchilage John Reid (21 years/Kotahena/8-9-2008)), Amalan Leon (50 years/Arippu, north/25-8-2008)) and his son Roshan Leon (21 years/Arippu north/25-8-2008), Anthony Kasthuriarachchi (48 years/Kotahena/10-10-2008) and Kanagaraja Jegan (32 years, Trincomalee)

Due to Karannagoda’s intervention, Munasinghe surrendered to the police, in June 2009, after having accused CoN of planning to assassinate Army Chief Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka. Lt. Commander Munasinghe and Lt. Commander Hettiarachchi received bail while five persons, including Commander Ranasinghe, are in remand, pending further investigations.

Although Navy headquarters lodged a complaint, in May 2009, with the police, the progress of the investigations had been slow. When Vice Admiral Jayanath Colomabge became Commander of the Navy, in late 2012, he appointed Lt Commander Ranasinghe as his PSO.

Three Navy personnel, including Lt. Commander K.C. Welagedera, who had been Ranasinghe’s deputy in Trincomalee, implicated Dassanayake in the disappearances. Following their statements, particularly the one given by Welagedara, who had been investigated by the Office of the Provost Marshal, for his alleged involvement in human smuggling operations, Provost Marshal Dassanayake faced difficulty in taking part in a prestigious US military course. Welagedara accused four officers, including Dassanayake, of threatening him. Although Dassanayake was allowed to proceed to the US in Sept. 2014, the then Navy Commander Vice Admiral Jayantha Perera requested him to return in mid- Feb 2015. The police recorded Dassanayake statement two weeks later.

Lt. Commander Welagedara is currently in Australia on overseas leave.

The travel ban imposed on Dassanayake, by court, on a request made by the police, in Feb. 2015, remains in force.

The allegations in respect of disappearances deprived Dassanayake of due promotion to the rank of Commodore.

The intervention made by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) on Dassanayake’s behalf subsequently led to him receiving the appointment as temporary Commodore with seniority backdated to June 1, 2015. The police arrested Dassanayake before the HRCSL received representations by retired Admirals, Karannagoda and Thisara Samarasinghe on behalf of Dassanayake.

Meanwhile, investigations conducted by the Navy, during the war, implicated at least four of the missing persons (not among those abducted on Sept 17, 2008) and the informant in LTTE operations. Those residents of Arippu North had been involved in the running of a fleet of boats between northern Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. Those allegedly taken in on Sept 17, 2008, were believed to have been involved in a credit card racket with the knowledge of the LTTE.

The previous government owed an explanation to the country why it failed to investigate Karannagoda’s complaint until the change of government. Sri Lanka is certainly paying a very heavy price for the lapses on the part of the previous government.

Glory days

The writer had an opportunity to visit Chalai in late April 2009 as the LTTE was waging a desperate struggle to thwart the Army on the Vanni east front. Dassanayake was there as the senior officer responsible for an unprecedented naval blockade meant to prevent a possible attempt to evacuate LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, his family and senior most cadres, such as Pottu Amman and Soosai, heads of Intelligence Wing and Sea Tigers respectively. Then Commanding Officer of the Trincomalee-based Fast Attack Craft (FACs) Captain Noel Kalubowila, too, joined journalists from Colombo, taken to Chalai seas, where dozens of heavily armed SLN craft maintained watch. The writer was among the group that returned to Chalai again in the night to observe what was going on. Dassanayake was not among us. Dassanayake was with his units engaged in the blockade. Having vowed not to allow Prabhakaran to escape by sea, Karannagoda placed dogged Dassanayake in charge of the blockade. Those who had been deployed there operated under extremely difficult conditions. They faced the unenviable task of rescuing civilians, fleeing the war zone in boats, apprehending terrorists trying to escape along with civilians, and thwarting terrorists and their families escaping through the naval cordon. Dassanayake’s men performed their task admirably. Among those who had been apprehended by the Navy were Sea Tiger leader Soosai’s wife and children, though at the time of their arrest the Navy wasn’t aware of their identity.

The writer worked closely with Dassanayake during the war, and after, and considered the seizure of an LTTE vessel by the Navy overseas in early Dec 2009 a significant and unprecedented achievement. The writer was certainly privileged to go on-board the captured LTTE vessel ‘Princess Christina’ aka Feng Shun 7 on the afternoon of Dec 21, 2009 when it was brought to the Colombo port. Karannagoda’s successor, then Vice Admiral Thisara Samarasinghe had been there to welcome the Navy team that brought the vessel. Dassanayake had led the six-member team, comprising four officers and two men who flew in to a South East Asian country, separately and surreptitiously infiltrated the harbour situated at a remote island before taking control of the asset in an operation details of which cannot be disclosed.

Interrogation of Prabhakaran’s successor in Colombo after having captured him in Malaysia, in early August 2009, led to the seizure of the vessel. The Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) played a significant role in both the Malaysia operation and the subsequent seizure of the vessel. But, it was Dassanayake’s team that had to seize the vessel that was to be used in a possible rescue mission. A smiling Dassanayake told the writer how their achievement could be the basis for a movie or a book (Navy brings in captured LTTE vessel involved in bid to evacuate P’karan with strap line A light chopper was to be used to remove P’karan to the ship – The Island, Dec 22, 2009)

The vessel had been among a fleet of five ships that was legitimately acquired by the LTTE, bought through various front companies. Unlike the LTTE-operated eight vessels, hunted down during Sept 2006-Oct 2007 during Karannagoda’s tenure, the five vessels had never been used to smuggle in arms, ammunition or equipment to the LTTE. The vessel hat had been captured was the one to be used for rescue operation.

Dassanayake played a central role in government media project. Dassanayake and the writer ‘handled’ the Kanyakumari massacre, in early 2007, subsequent to the sinking of Indian trawler Sri Krishna commandeered by the LTTE in Maldivian waters, and detection of explosives belonging to the LTTE in Indian waters and other events whereas the Media Center for National Security (MCNS) addressed day to day issues. The MCNS never focused on the big picture.

Who would have thought Dassanayake would have to be at the maximum security Welikada prison, as an accused, on a day the Navy celebrated its anniversary?

With the Colombo High Court, on Dec 7, 2017, further remanding six Navy personnel, including Dassanayake, till January 11, 2018, they will be spending the dawning of New Year, too, at Welikada.

Ranasinghe, too, had been responsible for dismantling the LTTE networks and won admiration for apprehending and driving an explosives packed LTTE vehicle meant to mount an attack in Colombo at the height of the war.

Had they committed atrocities they should certainly be subject to the normal law of the land. They should face the consequences for their actions. Uniforms do not give license for those who wear them to put innocents to death.

Had the previous Government ensured proper and speedy investigations, at least after the UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE), released its damning report on Sri Lanka, in March 2011, Navy abduction case could have been addressed much earlier. Unfortunately, those who had been in power lacked political courage to do so. Having plunged the post-war Sri Lanka into crisis, those who had been in power, and the present government, refuse at least to review their actions. What a pity!

(To be continued Dec 20)

4 Comments »

පළාත් පාලන ඡන්දය කල් දමා ගැනීමට ක්ෂේත්‍ර නිලධාරීන් හරහා  විපක්ෂ කණ්ඩායමක උත්සාහයක්

December 13th, 2017

මාධ්‍ය නිවේදනය මාධ්‍ය ඒකකය කැෆේ සංවිධානය

පළාත් පාලන ඡන්ද විමසීම  කල් දමා ගැනීම සඳහා ක්ෂේත්‍ර නිලධාරීන් කිහිප දෙනෙකු මගින්   ප්‍රබල විපක්ෂ කණ්ඩායමක් මේ වනවිට උත්සහ දරමින් සිටියි.  සමෘද්ධි නිලධාරීන් සහ ක්ෂේත්‍ර නිලධාරීන්ට සේවයේ නිරතව සිටින අතරතුරදීම ඡන්ද විමසීම සඳහා ඉදිරිපත් වීමට නොහැකි බව පවසමින් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය හමුවට ඉදිරිපත් කර ඇති මෙම නඩු තුන  පසුපස පළාත් පාලන ඡන්ද විමිසීම කල්දමා ගැනීමේ උත්සහයක් ක්‍රියාත්මක බව  කැෆේ සංවිධානයේ අදහසයි.

තමන් ක්ෂේත්‍ර නිලධාරින් ලෙස කටයුතු කරන බැවින්  ඉදිරි පළාත් පාලන ඡන්ද විමසීම  සඳහා තරඟ කිරීමට ඇති අයිතිය අහිමි වී ඇති බව සඳහන් කරමින්  ඉදිරිපත් කර ඇති මානව හිමිකම් නඩුවේ  එක් පෙත්සම් කරුවෙකු මේ වනවිටත් සේවයෙන් ඉල්ලා අස්වී ඇති අතර තවත් පෙත්සම් කරුවෙකු මේ වනවිට විශ්‍රාම ලබා ඇත. තව ද  රිට් ආඥාවක් ඉල්ලා ඇති පෙත්සම් වල ද පෙත්සම්කරුවන්ගෙන් කීහිප දෙනෙකු මෙලෙසම ඉල්ලා අස්වී හෝ විශ්‍රාම ලබා ඇති බව කැෆේ සංවිධානයේ නිරීක්ෂණයයි. (එම නම් ගම් සහ විස්තර පහත දක්වා ඇත)

  1. ප්‍රියන්ත වඩුගේ(ගාල්ල ) – සේවයෙන් ඉල්ලා අස්වී ඇත
  2. එස් පී ජනක නලීන් කුමාර (පොලොන්නරුව ) – විශ්‍රාම ගෙන ඇත
  3. කේ. පී කුමාරසිරි (පොලොන්නරුව) -විශ්‍රාම ගෙන ඇත
  4. එච්. කේ. එන්. එන් ජයසේකර (ගම්පහ ) – සේවයෙන් ඉල්ලා අස්වී ඇත
  5. එස්. ඒ . එම්. ඒ අතුල කුමාර (ගම්පහ) – සේවයෙන් ඉල්ලා අස්වී ඇත
  6. රණසිංහ බණ්ඩා (නුවරඑළිය) – සේවයෙන් ඉල්ලා අස්වී ඇත

මේ නම් අතර අද සහ හෙට විභාගයට ගැනීමට නියමිත නඩු වල පෙත්සම් කරුවන් ද සිටිති.

(අදාල පෙත්සම් වල ඡායාරූප මේ සමඟ අමුණා ඇත)

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ලියාපදිංචි දේශපාලන පක්ෂ 70 න් එක් පක්ෂයක ලේකම් වරයෙකු හෝ ස්වාධීන කණ්ඩායමක නායකයෙකු මෙම පෙත්සම් කරුවන් තම පක්ෂයෙන් හෝ ස්වාධින කණ්ඩායමෙන් ඉදිරිපත් කිරීම සඳහා කැමැත්ත හෝ ලැදියාව ප්‍රකාශ කිරීමක් සිදුව නොමැත.

පළාත් පාලන ඡන්ද විමසීම කල් දමා ගැනීම සඳහා මෙවර විපක්ෂයේ ප්‍රබලතම කණ්ඩායමක් දරණ උත්සාහය කැෆේ සංවිධානය දැඩි ලෙස හෙලා දකින අතර  මෙය  ඡනතාවගේ ඡන්ද අයිතිය  අහෝසි කිරීම සඳහා බංකොලොත් දරන උත්හයක් ලෙසද කැෆේ සංවිධානය හදුන්වයි .

 

මාධ්‍ය ඒකකය

කැෆේ සංවිධානය

2017 දෙසැම්බර් 13

No Comments »

Electric car plant, lithium battery factory in Lanka soon – Dr Yaddehige

December 13th, 2017

Courtesy The Daily News

Richard Pieris & Company PLC plans to invest between Rs 15 to 20 billion in several unique projects in the next three years that will see electric cars, lithium batteries and Oud perfume manufactured in Sri Lanka.
Dr. Sena Yaddehige, Chairman of Richard Pieris & Company PLC, said the group profit that stood at Rs 180 million in 2002, today, before even finishing the year has increased to Rs 4,100 million, a 28 times increase. He further said the business that commenced manufacturing rubber erasers has developed to such a extent that there was not a single house that had no Arpico product in Sri Lanka today.

Dr. Yaddehige owns 10 patents has over 20 million cars all over the world running with his chips.

The Chairman said he would embark on enormous important projects and one of them is building a lithium battery factory. This was required to complement his other major project which is to build electric cars in Sri Lanka.

For this, an 80 acre plot of land has already been purchased for Rs 730 million,” he said addressing a gathering in Colombo on Wednesday. Dr Yaddehige said he plans to introduce the four-door electric car for a very competitive price of Rs 1.5 million.

Dr. Sena Yaddehige, Chairman of Richard Pieris & Company PLC. Picture by Saliya Rupasinghe
Dr. Sena Yaddehige, Chairman of Richard Pieris & Company PLC. Picture by Saliya Rupasinghe

He said his next project is to manufacture the world’s most expensive Oud perfume in Sri Lanka which is made from the resin of the wallapatta tree. He said they would convert 68% of their plantation to grow wallapatta. The wood of a 9 to 10 year wallapatta tree has a value of Rs 225,000. If 400,000 such trees are grown, the value of those trees would be in excess of Rs 100 billion in 8 to 10 years time, he said. But the trick is we have to inoculate a certain fungus into it and we are working on it.

Richard Pieris & Company has another project involving tea, to extract its flavour and essence and market it as green tea. Last year it was launched in Las Vegas,” he said. An extract of the plant will be set up in Maskeliya for this purpose.

Dr Yaddehige said they have also decided to replace the soil of their plantations and a team of five top scientists of the country was on the job. He said they plan to take 180 tons of special kind of enriched and enhanced compost every three months to the plantations to enhance the quality of soil in the plantations.

He said they plan to set up an electronic division with a target of Rs 25 billion turnover in the next five years and a retail sector with a target of Rs 40 billion turnover in the next five years.

The asset base of their finance company has grown to Rs 11 billion with Rs 4 billion in deposits within five years. The Group’s plantation sector is expected to record a Rs 1.5 billion turnover.

He said they own the fastest growing life insurance company with a hundred percent growth. The Group employs 32,000 and in addition provides indirect employment to a further 200,000.

The 25th Arpico Supercentre has been also opened at Talawatugada and the three storeyed, 60,000 sqft biggest Supercentre will be opened in Kegalle in February and the Kandy Supercentre is being expanded at the moment with the addition of another 25,000 sqft and will be opened by the end of this month. Arpico Supercentres will also be opened in Katugastota, Kundasale, Moratuwa and Wattala.

No Comments »

පළාත් පාලන මැතිවරණය ජනතාවගේ ප්‍රයෝජනය සඳහා විය යුතුයි

December 13th, 2017

සම ලේකම් නිදහස් වෙළඳ කලාප සහ පොදු සේවා සේවක සංගමය

2017 දෙසැම්බර් මස 11 වන දින පවත්වන ලද සංගමයේ විධායක කාරක සභාවේ සාකච්ඡා කොට නිකුත් කරන ලද පළාත් පාලන මැතිවරණ ප්‍රකාශය

අවුරුදු 03 ට ආසන්න කාලයක් මේ ආණ්ඩුව විසින් ඔවුන්ගේ පක්ෂ අභ්‍යන්තරයේ දිග හැරුණු බල අරගල වෙනුවෙන් කල් තැබූ පළාත් පාලන මැතිවරණය ලබන වසරේ පෙබරවාරියේ දී පැවැත්වීමට සූදානම් කෙරෙන්නේ යැයි මැතිවරණ කොමසාරිස් මාධ්‍යයට පවසා තිබිණ. එහෙත් ඒ අතරතුර දේශපාලන වුවමනාවන් මත මැතිවරණය නැවත කල් තැබීමට අධිකරණ නියෝග ලබා ගැනීමේ උත්සාහයන් නොතිබිය හැකි යැයි සහතිකයක් ද නැත. සීමා නිර්ණ වාර්තා සම්පූර්ණ නැතැයි මෙතරම් කාලයක් ආණ්ඩුවේ වුවමනාවන් වෙනුවෙන් මේ මැතිවරණය කල් තැබීමට ජාතික මැතිවරණ කොමිසම හා කොමිසමේ සභාපතිද හවුල් වූ බැව් අපගේ විශ්වාසය ය. එබැවින් ඉදිරි මැතිවරණය කෙතරම් නිදහස් හා ස්වාධීන මැතිවරණයක් වන්නේ ද යන්න පිළිබඳව ජනතාව විමසුම් ඇසින් සිටිය යුතු වේ.

ඒ අතරතුර එළැඹි පළාත් සභා 03 ක මැතිවරණ කල් තැබීම සඳහා ආණ්ඩුව ඉතාම නින්දිත ආකාරයෙන් තෙවන වර කියැවීමට තිබූ පනත් සංශෝධනයකට අවසන් මොහොතේ සංශෝධන වැලක් එකතු කරමින් සියලූ මැතිවරණ එකම දිනයේ පැවැත්වීමට යැයි මැතිවරණ ක්‍රමයත් කාන්තා නියෝජනයත් සංශෝධනය කෙරෙන යෝජනා ඉදිරිපත් කර සම්මත කර ගත්තේය. එබැවින් මේ පළාත් පාලන මැතිවරණය පෙබරවාරියේ පැවතුනහොත් පවතින්නේ අලූත් ඡන්ද ක්‍රමයට අනුව, කොට්ඨාශ සඳහා පුද්ගල නියෝජනයකුත් පළාත් පාලන බල ප්‍රදේශය සඳහා අනුපාත ක්‍රමයට නියෝජනයකුත් සමගය. ඒ සමග සියයට 30 ක කාන්තා නියෝජනයක් ද තිබිය යුතුය. එයම ඡන්දදායකයාට සැළකිය යුතු අවුලක් විය හැක.

එය එසේ වූවත් ආණ්ඩු මාරු නොකෙරෙන මැතිවරණයකින් අලූත් මැතිවරණ ක්‍රමය ආරම්භ කිරීම වඩා වැදගත්ය. එහෙත් පළාත් පාලන ආයතන සතු ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී වැදගත්කම හා අගය ඉන් හෑල්ලූ නොවිය යුතුය. යටත් විජිත යුගයේ දී 1865 මහ නගර සභා ආඥාවෙන් ආරම්භ වූ සහ 1920 පළාත් පාලන ආඥාවෙන් සම්පූර්ණ වූ මෙම පළාත් පාලන ආයතන ව්‍යුහය සතු සැබෑ වැදගත්කම හා ප්‍රයෝජනය එනමුත් මේ සමාජය මෙතෙක් තේරුම් ගෙන නැත.

අවුරුදු 03 ට ආසන්න කාලයක් තමන් තෝරා පත් කරන නියෝජිතයින්ගෙන් සමන්විත ප්‍රාදේශීය, නගර හා මහ නගර සභා නොමැති නිලධාරී පාලනයක් ලෙස ඒවා පැවතීම ඡන්දදායකයින්ගෙන් ප්‍රශ්න නොවුනේ පළාත් පාලන ආයතන සතු වගකීම් ගැන අවබෝධයක් හා උනන්දුවක් මේ සමාජයේ නොමැති හෙයින්ය. පළාත් පාලනය ආණ්ඩු පාලනයේ පහළම නියෝජිත ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී ආයතන වූවත් ඒවාට තිබිය යුතු පිළිගැනුම මේ සමාජයේ නැත. ප්‍රාදේශීය, නගර හා මහ නගර සභා සඳහා නියෝජිතයින් පත් කරන්නේත් ඔවුන් මහජන මුදලින් නඩත්තු කරන්නේත් පළාත් පාලන බල ප්‍රදේශයේ පොදු සේවා යහපත් හා කාර්යක්ෂමව පවත්වා ගැනීමට අමතරව, ප්‍රදේශයේ කාර්මික හා වාණිජ කටයුතු සමග මහජන පදිංචිය මනාව සැළසුම් කරමින් වරිපනම් බදු ගෙවන ජනතාවට වඩා යහපත් පරිසරයක් සහිත පහසුකම් සැපයීමට ය. දියුණු පළාත් පාලනයක් ඇති රටවල, ළදරු ධාරකාගාර හා පෙර පාසල් පමණක් නොව ජාතික අධ්‍යාපනයට අයත් ප්‍රාථමික හා ද්විතියික පාසල් පවත්වා ගෙන යන්නේ ද පළාත් පාලන ආයතන විසින් ය.

එවැනි කාර්්‍යයන් ඉටු කළ හැකි පළාත් පාලන ආයතන සඳහා සැළසුම් හැදිය හැකි දක්ෂතා ඇති නියෝජිතයින් පත් කිරීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවයක් හා සම්ප්‍රදායක් අපි ගොඩ නගාගෙන නැත්තෙමු. ඒ වෙනුවට දේශපාලන පක්ෂ විසින් ඔවුන්ගේ මැතිවරණ කටයුතු සඳහා ප්‍රදේශයේ බල කේන්ද්‍ර හදා ගැනීම සඳහා මේ පළාත් පාලන මැතිවරණ යොදා ගැනීමටත් ඡන්දදායකයින් තමන්ගේ පෞද්ගලික දුක්ගැනවිලි සඳහා දේශපාලන සම්බන්ධතා හදා ගැනීමටත් පළාත් පාලන ආයතන සඳහා නියෝජිතයින් තෝරා පත්කර ගැනීම ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී නියෝජිත ආයතන ලෙස පැවතිය යුතු පළාත් පාලන ආයතන පිරිහීමට මූලික හා ප්‍රධාන හේතුවක්ව ඇත.

අවුරුදු කිහිපයකට පසු ලබන පෙරවාරියේ දී පැවැත්වීමට යෝජිත පළාත් පාලන මැතිවරණය පක්ෂ අභ්‍යන්තර බල අරගල වෙනුවෙන් කල් තැබුණු අයුරුම, ඔවුන්ගේ ඒ බල අරගල වෙනුවෙන් තරග වදින මැතිවරණයක් බවට මෙය පෙරළාගෙන ඇති බව දැනටමත් දකින්නට ඇති කාරණාවකි. ජනාධිපති මෛතී්‍රපාල සිරිසේන ඔහුගේ අධිකාරයට ශී්‍ර.ල.නි.ප යටත් කර ගැනීමටත් යු.ඇන්.පී විරෝධී බල මධ්‍යස්ථානය ලෙස ජනාධිපතිට ඉහළින් ශී්‍ර.ල.නි.ප ඡන්ද තමන් වෙත ගොනු කර ගැනීමට පොදු විපක්ෂයත් මැතිවරණය යොදා ගැනීමට උනන්දුවන අතර, ඒ ඛෙදීම් මත එ.ජා.පය තමන් වැඩිම ඡන්ද බලයක් සහිත පක්ෂය ලෙස මේ ආණ්ඩුව ඔවුන්ගේ ආධිපත්‍යයට නතු කර ගැනීමටත් මැතිවරණ කටයුතු සංවිධානය කරනු දැකිය හැක.

පළාත් පාලන ආයතන සඳහා නියෝජිතයින් පත් කරගත යුත්තේ පක්ෂ නායකයින්ගේ ඒ බල අරගලය වෙනුවෙන් නොවේ. ජනතාවගේ මුදලින් නඩත්තු කෙරෙන ප්‍රාදේශීය, නගර හා මහ නගර සභා පත්කර ගත යුත්තේ ජනතාවගේ යහපත වෙනුවෙනි. එබැවින් මේ මැතිවරණය යොදා ගත යුත්තේ වඩා යහපත් වෙනසක් වෙනුවෙන් පළාත් පාලන ආයතන පිහිටුවා ගැනීම සඳහා යැයි අපි විශ්වාස කරමු. එබැවින් මැතිවරණ සඳහා නාම යෝජනා කැඳවීමට ප්‍රථමයෙන්ම මේ සමාජය අවධාරණය කළ යුත්තේ ප්‍රාදේශීය, නගර හා මහ නගර සභා බල ප්‍රදේශ දියුණු කිරීමේ සැළසුම් සමගින් ඉදිරිපත් වන අපේක්ෂකයින් මැතිවරණයට අවශ්‍ය බවය. මැතිවරණයේ ස්වභාවය පක්ෂ නායකයින්ගේ අභිමතය මත නොව, ඡන්දදායකයාගේ අභිමතය මත තීන්දු කිරීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවය වහා ඉදිරියට ගත යුතු වන්නේය. ඒ වෙනුවෙන් අපි මෙසේ යෝජනා කරමු.

1. නාම යෝජනා කැඳවීමට පෙර සියලූ පක්ෂ විසින් ඔවුන්ගේ යෝජිත අපේක්ෂක නාමාවලිය ප්‍රසිද්ධ කළ යුතුය.
2. එක් එක් දිස්ති්‍රක්කය සඳහා මැතිවරණ ප්‍රචාරය වෙනුවෙන් වැය කරන මුදල් ප්‍රමාණය ප්‍රසිද්ධ කළ යුතුය.
3. අපේක්ෂක කණ්ඩායම් විසින් ඔවුන් ඉදිරිපත්වන පළාත් පාලන බල ප්‍රදේශය සඳහා ඉදිරි දළ සංවර්ධන සැළසුම ප්‍රකාශයට පත් කළ යුතුය.

එවැනි සමාජ මතයක් තහවුරු කිරීම වෙනුවෙන් ඉදිරිපත් වන ලෙස අපි සියලූ ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී සංවිධාන සහ කණ්ඩායම්වලට ඇරයුම් කරමු.

ස්තූතියි

මෙයට විශ්වාසී

ඇන්ටන් මාකස්
සම ලේකම්
නිදහස් වෙළඳ කලාප සහ
පොදු සේවා සේවක සංගමය

No Comments »

LORD NASEBY AND THE PRESIDENT’S LETTER

December 12th, 2017

by SANJA DE SILVA JAYATILLEKA Courtesy The Island

December 12, 2017, 11:06 pm

The Island has to be congratulated on its ‘scoop’ of a statement by Lord Naseby in response to the summary dismissal by the British High Commission in Colombo of his views on the infamous UNHRC Resolution 30/1 of 2015 and the increasingly untenable figure of 40,000 civilian casualties.

According to the statement “Lord Naseby makes it quite clear that he shall pursue every organisation and the persons involved to ensure that the Darusman Report figure on civilian casualties is publicly amended to reflect that the truth about an estimated 6,500 Tamil civilians who died at the end of the Sri Lanka conflict. Truth must and will win out however inconvenient that may be to the authorities.”

Bravo! We should be sincerely grateful to Lord Naseby for taking such a principled position on behalf of Sri Lanka. And sincerely grateful is exactly what President Sririsena was, when he wrote a letter to thank Lord Naseby for his efforts.

article_image

The President’s letter was dated 2nd November 2017. It was addressed to Lord Naseby. Four working days later, on the 8th of November, the Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote a letter to the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London, H.E. Mrs. Amari Wijewardene, requesting her to personally hand over the letter to Lord Naseby.

A photograph of this letter was reproduced in LankaCnews, revealing a curious instruction from the Secretary/Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that the contents of the President’s letter “are not shared with the media either in the UK or in Sri Lanka”. Why? It was a decent gesture on the part of the President to thank someone who had done Sri Lanka an enormous favour at considerable effort and continued to engage in clarifying matters to do with the serious allegation of war crimes against this country, its armed forces and the entire system. Wouldn’t it have been to the President’s benefit if the contents had been released to the media, both in the UK and Sri Lanka, and indeed worldwide?

There is another curious fact that is revealed by the photographic image of the letter written by Foreign Secretary Kariyawasam. When communications are received by an overseas mission, they are date-stamped by an official indicating the date of receipt. The date-stamp on that letter shows the 17th of November.That is 9 full days or 7 working days after it was written by the Head of State! It isn’t exactly illegal to use a carrier pigeon, but the diplomatic bag is usually sent by airplane.

By then, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vasantha Senanayake had already tabled the President’s letter dated 2nd November in Parliament, as well as his own letter to Lord Naseby, thanking him for his efforts. He did this on the 14th of November, 4 days before the President’s letter reached our High Commission in London. Minister Vasantha Senanayake also indicated that Lord Naseby was aware of the President’s letter but hadn’t yet received it. Of course he hadn’t. It seems to have been somehow stuck in the Foreign Ministry, together with the Foreign Secretary’s covering note dated 8th November!

By the time the President’s letter reached London on the 17th of November, the Foreign Secretary’s curious instructions as to its confidentiality had become superfluous. Once tabled in Parliament on the 14th of November, the contents were effectively in the public domain.

It is not clear when exactly Lord Naseby received the President’s letter, but it would seem that he is in possession of it now. It is just as well that Lord Naseby is determined to do the work that is needed to defend Sri Lanka, since the performance by Sri Lanka’s officials in getting a letter by the Head of State delivered to a member of the House of Lords in the UK on such a serious a matter as massive war crime sallegations, hardly inspires confidence in their capacity to do the work themselves.

Lord Naseby says in his statement to The Island that he has sent the relevant documents to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Al Hussein, and all nine Special Procedure Mandate Holders who have visited Sri Lanka. This is in the context in which none of Sri Lanka’s own reports, such as the LLRC report and the Paranagama Commission Report which challenge the allegations of war crimes, has been presented to the UN Human Rights Council by the Government of Sri Lanka.

The Island has been relentless in its pursuit of this story. Due to its efforts we now know that we are not the only ones bemused at the stand taken by Britain on this matter. Lord Naseby says “It is therefore disappointing that the British High Commission fails to acknowledge the importance of the despatches of its own former defence attaché and the insight that is provided by his communications with the British Government.”

More importantly, Lord Naseby confirms the most significant attribute of UNHRC Resolution 30/1 which Sri Lanka co-sponsored: that it was based on allegations of war crimes which relied upon the unsubstantiatedand ‘genocidal’figure of 40,000:

“While not expressly stated so in the resolution, those who have closely followed events in Sri Lanka after the end of the conflict would agree that the basis for the successive resolutions on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council stemmed from the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity (and in some quarters ‘genocide’) said to have been committed by the Sri Lankan armed forces and the LTTE. Especially, the Report of the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, commonly known as the ‘Darusman Report’, alleged that ‘a number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths’”.

Lord Naseby argues that Britain’s motives in encouraging UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka seeking to establish the truth, “whilst at the same time effectively prohibiting its own relevant information from being considered by the Human Rights Commission, may need to be called into question.”

It seems only fair that Sri Lanka’s own government’s motivations are questioned, in co-sponsoring the resolutions alleging war crimes, the reluctance to submit or the suppression of evidence which challenge those allegations, and tardiness in conveying messages of gratitude to those others who do that work for us.

Lord Naseby took “issue with those in authority be they the UK government or any other Government” for ignoring the “context behind the resolution”. He says Col. Anton Gash’s evidence corroborates “a large number of other sources that confirm a casualty figure of around 7,000-8,000 (of which about 20% were LTTE cadres who are said to have thrown away their uniforms resulting in Tamil civilian casualties of about 6,500).”

“Any other Government” obviously includes Sri Lanka’s, and we should take issue with it too. Our government had access to the “large number of other sources” even if they didn’t include Col. Anton Gash’s, when it co-signed the 2015 Resolution.

The Sri Lankan government has a duty of care towards its armed forces. This demands that the government defends them to the best of their ability from false allegations. It requires that they undertake line by line examination of any UN resolution alleging war crimes.

When a UNHRC resolution is proposed, the usual practice is to engage in negotiations. These negotiations take weeks, before the final draft is presented to the Council. The drafts go back and forth many times, where a single word or phrase can make a significant difference. Even when it is formally presented, further amendments can be proposed. Since the current government assumed office in 2015, it has not bothered with this most normal of procedures. Instead,its representatives co-signed a resolution which it is increasingly becoming obvious, was based on utterly dubious testimony.

Lord Naseby is not advocating that human rights violations are ignored. He advises the conducting of “credible investigations” and that “appropriate due processes of justice should follow”. This is also what the LLRC recommends. The emerging evidence from the British Foreign Office, and the studies already undertaken by the Legal Advisory Council to the Paranagama Commission leave little doubt that “credible” has to be negotiated back in to the UN resolutions on Sri Lanka. With Lord Naseby valiantly supportive of that cause, it would be in Sri Lanka’s interest to do so without further delay at the upcoming March 2018 session of the Human Rights Council.

In Parliament, Hon. Dinesh Gunawardene was in the process of canvassing multi-party support from those willing to sign a motion calling for the renegotiation of UNHRC resolution 30/1. It seems that the delay is due to the preoccupation with elections. The President should step in to support this effort, as he did Lord Naseby’s.

No Comments »

UN urged to visit SLN officers held at Welikada Detection of suspects-Weerasekera alleged that the government had been harassing some selected military personnel in a bid to appease the UN

December 12th, 2017

Courtesy The Island

Former Navy Chief of Staff Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera yesterday told The Island that a three-member UN delegation now on a visit here should visit military personnel, including Commodore D. K. P. Dassanayake and Commander Sumith Ranasinghe remanded at the maximum security Welikada Prison over their alleged involvement in wartime abductions.

Weerasekera said so after having visited Dassanayake and Ranasinghe, who had been denied bail several times and were recently re-remanded again till January 11, 2018.

Weerasekera alleged that the government had been harassing some selected military personnel in a bid to appease the UN. Dassanayake was taken in just before Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson had arrived in the country in early July this year.

A three-member delegation from the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention arrived in Colombo on Dec 4 on a 10 day mission to assess the situation.

José Antonio Guevara Bermúdez, Leigh Toomey and Elina Steinerte are in the process of visiting prisons, police stations and institutions for juveniles, migrants and people with psychosocial disabilities, to gather first-hand information which will form part of their overall assessment.

Office of the UN Working Group in response to a query by The Island said: “The delegation will visit Colombo as well as western, north-central, northern, eastern, southern and central provinces, where they will meet Government officials, civil society groups and other relevant stakeholders.”

The experts will share their preliminary observations at a press conference on Friday (15) at 2:00 pm at the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall (BMICH), Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07.

The Working Group will present its final report on the visit to the UN Human Rights Council in September 2018.” (SF)

1 Comment »

AG calls upon govt . to address international concerns immediately US anti-corruption advisor to be based here

December 12th, 2017

By Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

December 12, 2017, 11:22 pm

Auditor General Gamini Wijesinghe yesterday alleged that the failure on the part of successive governments to take tangible measures to tackle state sector waste, corruption and irregularities had contributed to US decision to propose a Colombo-based Resident Legal Advisor.

Had those who had been at the helm and the government of the day followed basic laws and brought in required new legislation, Sri Lanka wouldn’t have ended up among group of nations categorized as corrupt, Wijesinhe told The Island, in response to a query. Sri Lanka has been categorised along with Nigeria, Ukraine and Tunisia though those countries weren’t offered a Resident Legal Advisor.

The State Department announcement coincided with the inaugural Global Forum on Asset Recovery (GFAR) launched to mark International Anti-corruption Day in Washington last week. Sri Lanka was represented at the GFAR by the Attorney General’s Department.

article_image

Wijesinghe stressed that Parliament should inquire into the circumstances leading to the degrading State Department statement. The AG said Sri Lanka shouldn’t find fault with the international community but take meaningful measures to tackle corruption without further delay. “We should inquire into circumstances leading to State Department intervention,” Wijesinghe said, adding that the US would have had a plethora of reasons to categorize Colombo with other countries perceived corrupt.

According to the State Department, since 2016, the US has provided foreign assistance for anti-corruption efforts in Sri Lanka to improve the functioning of Sri Lanka’s legal system and civil society, and to enhance good governance. Programmes included the provision of a Resident Legal Advisor to provide anti-corruption and asset recovery training, and support to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC).

Wijesinghe pointed out that Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee Lasantha Alagiyawanna revealed last Friday (Dec. 8) Parliament had not cared to examine AG’s reports that dealt with state institutions. MP Alagiyawanna’s disclosure in parliament that none of the five reports submitted to parliament had been scrutinised and debated this year, underscored the gravity of the problem.

Pointing out that MP Alagiyawanna had declared that the Speaker, the Leader of the House and party leaders should ensure there should be debates on those reports, Wijesinghe said that urgent remedial measures were called for. “Of course, the parliament and the Finance Ministry should accept responsibility for the current crisis,” Wijesinghe said, adding that MP Alagiyawanna’s admission was nothing but a positive sign.

Wijesinghe said the national economy certainly had paid an extremely heavy price for the previous administration’s refusal to enact the National Audit Bill. Unfortunately, those who had repeatedly assured the country that the National Audit Bill would be enacted during President Maithripala Sirisena’s 100 day programme in early 2015 were yet purposely delaying it.

Wijesinghe said their efforts to convince the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration of the urgent necessity to enact the National Audit Bill had failed, though at one point a consensus was seemed likely.

The AG asserted that those who had categorised Sri Lanka among four countries worst affected by corruption would have probably taken the absence of required legislation into consideration when deciding on the tag. Wijesinghe said that the National Audit Bill was to be enacted in accordance with the much touted 19th Amendment to the Constitution to enable the Auditor General to excise unhindered authority over state institutions as well as joint ventures in which the state held 50 per cent investment.

Asked whether he felt the government had undermined 19th Amendment, Wijesinghe said there couldn’t be any other explanation.

Having had enjoyed 70 years of parliamentary democracy, Sri Lanka should be ashamed to have been called one of the four countries unable to govern, Wijesinghe said, admitting that the State Department announcement had flabbergasted everyone other than the rulers.

Wijesinghe called the US tag a slur on every honest Sri Lankan.

The Attorney General said the parliament should take up this matter early next year. Political parties should engage in a serious dialogue as to how Sri Lanka reputation could be restored.

Members of parliament on holiday till January 23, 2018.

The outspoken official said successive governments hadn’t been interested in bringing in required amendments as well as introduce new laws. Could there be anything as shocking as an MP being imposed a measly fine of Rs 1,000 for not declaring his assets? Wijesinghe asked.

The Auditor General was referring to former UPFA MP Sajin de Vas Gunawardena recently being imposed Rs 1,000 fine. The AG pointed out that the Galle District MP wasn’t the first former member of parliament to receive similar low fine.

“I’m not here to advise parliament as the Auditor General of Sri Lanka, I perform my duties to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, the Auditor General’s Department doesn’t receive the much expected political backing,” Wijesinghe said.

Parliament should have been jolted by the State Department announcement, Wijesinghe said, adding that the government’s response obviously indicated that the humiliating tag was acceptable.

1 Comment »

“OBATA PUTHE MAGAK NATHE” STORY OF A FAILED SOCIETY

December 12th, 2017

By Gomin Dayasri Courtesy The Daily Mirror

People – blame themselves in back peddling a lost leadership back to power. Think before you act stupidly – realize the folly in creating a situation of having no foreseeable future for the country you truly love: to whatever denomination you may belong – desire a future for your siblings in living in this land of yours? Are you at home blaming yourself. Be positive: the country needs you in this hour of peril, more than at most other times. Awake Countrymen!

Blame yourselves, as elders, if you failed to propel your kids to find their way into honest politics to usher a clean administration rather than permit the kith and kin of lost politicians to push their loved ones to the forefront in the absence of others. Sure security was a concern, on which deadwood politicians capitalized. Doors are indeed closed since the next generation found comfort in the jobs on offer that were clean and well-paid. Last generation, consisting of patriotic Sinhalese, Muslims. Malays, Tamil (servicemen in the Forces) and remaining Burghers fought valiantly and defeated terrorism. They served the nation well enabling many to live in a secure zone. It is now your opportunity to serve the nation? Take it with both hands, my friends.

Back in power Ranil’s days are numbered with his ‘Mr.Clean’ image muddied while an overcautious Gota sits in the wings

Who has to undergo the present suffering but you, collectively and singularly? Yet many of you, can take pride, as you are so different to the despicable diaspora that sits abroad, unrecognised in their private counting houses counting pennies they earn which the locals in foreign lands would die of shame in doing assignments for cheap wages. Lamenting as a lost generation, they try to search for away-from- home comforts, by making life miserable for their countrymen in Sri Lanka by showering a fistful of trivial dollars via the black market to their poorer relatives back home to do evil that satisfies the hidden agenda of the diaspora.

Regret, my good friend, great Gunadasa Amarsekera – a hero to me of the past – joined the company of low quality hangers – on of unsavoury politicians –notwithstanding my urgings against. He could have done such an immense service in bringing about genuine reconciliation, the prime need of the hour, after terrorism was eradicated, a cause he served to perfection. A good man misled by those around him with small minds.

Is it lack of options or do you fear throwing dirty linen to a garbage bin with a direct hit? Are you a man or mouse! Options are there for the asking but none prepared to exercise it-so great is the desire to fling the present ruling junta out of reckoning for cheating them of good governance leading to a situation of no virtual governance – only to bring back the other set they flung out less strenuously a few months earlier? Have they cleansed themselves of the filth gathered?

In Sri Lanka losers are often the winners with time; most hate to write off any fearing a come back in a land of swift returns – where overnight complexions change colour. My batch mate Prof. G.L. Pieris would have been the Foreign Minister in a Sirisena administration if not for Ranil’s and Chandrika’s urgings to President Sirisena at a time their words counted. The story goes on – now GL has ousted more qualified/competent/experienced men for the holder of the second fiddle like Dinesh Gunawardane in the joint opposition in a Mahinda Rajapakse administration. If so, where do ordinary people stand with a leadership so fickle that will carry any servile rubbish that will bend and bow to a vacillating leader? None dares to speak out in a chamber of silence: a stare and a glare from the leadership is sufficient to tame the vocal.

It is the same old story with the same unhappy ending that brings weird results that are terrible to bear.

It takes stupid people, a while longer, to realize plundering continues unabated. People will look to change horses – no longer possible midstream – due to failure to exercise the franchise for 4 and1/2 years from the last election, again due to the Supreme Courts unacceptable stoic silence on the 19th amendment case of Dayasri vs. State on a non-ruling made by a bench that included Chief Justice Siripavan; while the country ends in a plight worse for it. Leaders are interested in safeguarding favourites as the bond commission illustrates; than implementing honest policies promised at election time.

People ruled out Ranil, many moons ago, by making him a serial loser; rode to power from a back street, since MR, after defeating terrorism lost his footings by encouraging corruption beyond limits of tolerance benefiting mostly his kinsmen and sycophants. It’s the people that spoilt him – where a simple-minded:ill read man not of great intellectual proportions – carrying brilliant political instincts, became unbalanced by the people raising him to a level of an unaccustomed monarch who would do no wrong.

He lost his head and allowed wrong to go unheeded as he took his countrymen on their words of misplaced wisdom, after heroically saving the country: People with short memories threw him out as they forgot the good he did before the bad overtook the good.They will sure do it again as the bad done is worse by a ruler.

Back in power Ranil’s days are numbered with his ‘Mr.Clean’ image muddied while a overcautious Gota sits in the wings [without stripping himself of US citizenship that makes him disqualify for presidency after the ruling in the Geetha Kumarsinghe case – disqualifies a candidate in being elected to office after contesting an election, which is permissible] with some of MR’s dirty bunch in his home ranch as prime advisors on being a jumbo size tamer by stripping Sirisena of his right to contest for the post of president because of Sirisena’s unacceptability in being a two timer on the political front!

Is Sirisena watching the law to make the two disqualifications of the Rajapakse brothers come in his favour? Are people enthusiastic to vote for a candidate ineligible? President Sirisena will have no option but to face a humiliating defeat – as the gossip-mongers predict – a sure defeat awaits in all his own home district constituencies with/without the UNP assistance or will he honourably pull out of the contest in favour of Gota and wait to watch him get disqualified to hold fresh elections?

Will he hold the Presidential elections first to outdo MR or bide his time to watch the results to make a comeback that never will materialize as a winning candidate or will he do a back room deal with Gota that another candidate other than his disliked MR will be the common SLFP nominee for PM or would he rather watch a contest develop between MR and RW and roll on the carpet giggling making voters look stupid, in finding a short liked winner that will lose his credibility speedily or is the brotherly love too great among the Rajapake family to overcome slights and slurs Gota had suffered since becoming the front runner if deemed eligible? Ironically the man least able to collect votes at a presidential election can manipulate the vote for or against the winner and is good for reckoning as the most credible non – candidate. He is stronger in that role at the election time as the manipulative onlooker.

Note: Much of the minority votes will float into Ranil’s column which compels MR to woo the Sinhala Buddhist vote furiously in the absence of sizeable vote from the minority communities. Can Abraham Sumanthiran with a strong UNP complexion bring votes from the North to the UNP? Will UNP pull the Christian, Catholic and Islamic votes to regain the religious belts?

Will Ranil exit politics on the poor showings at the end of the local government election results, much to MR’s despair? Will Ranil hand the local government stewardship of the UNP to another to overcome a likely defeat? After the local government elections, will the UNP try to regain its foothold with the Sinhala Buddhist voters and persuade Ranil to step aside as at 2015, in 2020 too? Who will be the candidate the UNP will look to within its fold? Are there any for reckoning among the outsiders?

Either proposition will send shivers down MR’s spine? Will the rank and file of the SLFP rise for Gota, knowing well much of the UNP and floating voter is in his pocket? Will it make the North throw its weight with the UNP strongly notwithstanding Sumanthiran’s persuasion?

Will UNP pull the Christian, Catholic and Islamic votes to regain the religious belts? Will Ranil exit politics on the poor showings at the end of the local government election results, much to MR’s despair?

Many middle floating voters and the good governance kids will stay at home at the next elections rather than walk to vote: would rather spoil their votes than cast the ballot in a low poll affair where they were taken for a ride previously? What will the prize MR supporters of the past like Lalith Weeratunga, Mohan Pieris, Ranjit Malcolm and the BJB stalwarts that contributed to his downfall, do at the next elections?

Politics is a game that changes overnight with many glorious uncertainties. There is much time to ponder before the big boys enter the fray but the best indicator presently is the local government elections – if they take place at all. It is a litmus test for Ranil and what impact Gota makes, is worth a watch.

6 Comments »

Marapana as compromise Prime Minister

December 12th, 2017

By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha Courtesy Ceylon Today

While there is much uncertainty now about what will happen to the country, certain certainties are assured. Chief amongst them is the headlong destruction of his reputation that Ranil has precipitated in the last three years. I do not refer only to his unashamed capers with regard to the bond scam, the continuing defence and harbouring of Mahendran and now Ravi, the snide attacks on the Auditor General and Nivard Cabraal without substantiating them, the blithe disregard for the massive loss the country suffered not once but thrice. What is also clear is his complete ignorance of economics, even though he used to masquerade as an expert, in the field.

Indeed, way back in 2003, when I begged him to stop the collapse of the English medium experiment that had begun in 2001, he said he could not work on that now as he had to concentrate on putting the economy right. He claimed then that no one else had the capacity to institute reforms, a position he seems to have moved on from now, with his recognition of the capabilities of the boy genius Akila Viraj.

But economics he thinks must continue as his preserve, and he has such confidence in the brilliance of his geriatric pet shop boys (plus Mahendran and Ravi) that he has not even bothered to find a permanent secretary for the Ministry he heads, in Basil style, to assert his control over everything and everybody.

Now, however he has had to grant there is a crisis, which he claims is because of adverse weather. He fails to admit that, before the weather too turned on him, employment dropped between 2014 and 2016 (8.5 to 8 million), the surplus on Balance of Payments became a massive deficit (plus $1, 369 million to minus $500 million), the trade deficit rose (from $8,287 million to $9,090 million), Foreign Direct Investment dropped by nearly a third (from $1,635 million to $1,079 million), and our international credit ratings plummeted. We have sunk in indices with regard to the Ease of Doing Business and Global Competitiveness and Corruption Perception as well as the Rule of Law.

I do not suppose the President has any illusions about Ranil’s shelf life being over, but obviously he is frightened to act, in case he finds himself without a parliamentary majority. Sadly he brought this on himself by changing horses in mid-stream in 2015, breaking his word about ensuring electoral reform before dissolving Parliament, and then undermining the campaign of his own party by refusing to appear on platforms. He thus played into the hands of those in the Opposition who are still thirsting for revenge on him, which is silly of them for it led to his disastrous dismissal of party secretaries on the eve of the election.

That he must make up for his blunder must be clear to him given too, the evidence that has emerged about Chandrika’s pet Duminda costing the country so much, while agriculture collapses. But it would be foolish of the opposition to demand the earth, as they did in mid-2015, which is why the President panicked. While they should refrain from supporting him while the present dispensation continues, they should grant that a Prime Minister not in the Ranil-Mangala mould could be acceptable, if he worked on the President’s manifesto, rather than bankrupting the country.

Some time back, I thought they should settle on Thalatha Athukorale, who is much loved by the UNP but will not pursue the politics of revenge. But recently another figure has shown himself willing to dissociate himself from the prevailing dispensation. I refer to Tilak Marapana, who cut those determined to punish our troops down to size, in being positive about the work of Lord Naseby.

Maithripala Sirisena, who thanked Lord Naseby, but then found his appreciation suppressed by the Foreign Ministry, should take advantage of the fact that Ranil cannot object to Marapana, who is indebted to him for his political career. He will ensure that those in the UNP who cannot stand Ranil will hold their fire, but he can work to a national agenda, not current perversities.

 

2 Comments »

Security Sector reforms in Sri Lanka Reduction of troops and rural economy

December 12th, 2017

By Rathindra Kuruwita Courtesy Ceylon Today

Ever since the end of the civil war in 2009, there has been a debate on the need for security sector reforms in Sri Lanka. With the defeat of the Rajapaksa administration and with the United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG) promising such reforms, the debate has rekindled.

The need for security sector reforms is recognized by different actors across the spectrum, from people who want a complete demilitarization of the North and the East to people like me who have insisted that the nation can’t reduce defence expenditure.

With such diverging stakeholders and with politicians affiliated with Former President and Kurunegala District MP Mahinda Rajapaksa attempting to equate reforms with weakening of the military, the situation is obviously complex.

On the other hand, no one has attempted to explain to the general public about what security sector reforms are and to obtain their ideas. Surely, if the general public is qualified to give their opinions on the proposed Constitution of the nation, they are able to comment on security sector reforms.

Security sector reform under MR

After the end of the war, Sri Lanka was left with a powerful defence establishment. It had over 200, 000 military personnel and in 2009 the defence budget was Rs 175 billion. However, it was also the focus of controversy, allegations of human rights violations and there was a feeling that there were too many soldiers for a peacetime Army.

The popular view among analysts regarding the military from 2009 to 2015 is that no reforms have taken place. I have come across many academics who insisted that Rajapaksa held into an oversized Army which drained Sri Lanka’s public funds and that steps should have been taken to minimize the defence budget from 2009 itself.

My opinion regarding this differs, I believe that Rajapaksa in fact did carryout security sector reforms. He reoriented the Security Forces towards development and the Army Engineering Corps played a significant role in the massive construction projects under Rajapaksa. The military was also encouraged to do business, from farming to managing hotels.

The military did exceptionally well, when it came to construction and maintenance. The Engineering Corps of the Sri Lanka Army carried out a number of major construction works, efficiently and adhering to deadlines, which is not what we usually see from Sri Lankan construction companies. In addition one cannot doubt that the Ministry of Defence controlled Urban Development Authority (UDA) did an exceptional job in making Sri Lanka’s major cities much more attractive spaces.

So, it is absurd for Wimal Weerawansa or for Udaya Gammanpila to equate any military sector reform to weakening of the Army because guess what, his boss also carried out military reforms.

Reforming without firing

The 2018 budgetary allocation for the Defence Ministry is around Rs 290 billion; out of capital expenditure is only Rs 30 billion. Rs 260 B has been spent of recurrent expenses, which can’t be reduced. This is why reducing the defence budget is not an easy task, the military employs a large number of people and the income generated by these young men and women is an important source of income for Sri Lankan families. Especially in some rural areas, the village economy would collapse if soldiers are let go.

What is interesting to note is that during the three decades from 1980, successive governments allowed agriculture and manufacturing sectors, which used to be the backbone of rural economy, to stagnate. The contribution of these two sectors has continuously declined and most of the jobs left in these sectors, especially in agriculture are low-productive jobs. (Forgive me if you think I am diverting, but it is important for you to realize how these are interlinked).

Given the degradation of the rural economy most of the youth took a rational decision that the best way to escape rural poverty was by joining the military. Thus the steady stream of recruits from rural agricultural and semi-urban areas where there used to be manufacturing jobs. Despite what the liberal narrative would tell you most of the recruits were not ‘misled’ by the Rajapaksa’s propaganda machine into joining the Army, the young men and women who joined the Army were only taking a very well-thought-out and rational decision.

Stagnant job growth

As I mentioned the only way to reduce the defence budget in a significant way is to let soldiers go and letting these young men and women (with weapons skills and angry about getting rid of them after putting their lives on the line) go into an economy where job growth has been stagnant for many years would be disastrous socially and economically. Mahinda Rajapaksa realized this dilemma and thus had no option but to reorient the Army towards development activities. The current Government will also have to look at options to redirect troops for different sectors so that we ensure jobs and development.

Rathindra holds an MSc in Strategic Studies from S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU, Singapore, and can be reached via rathindra984@gmail.com

2 Comments »

I work only to achieve the objectives of the Joint Opposition – Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa

December 12th, 2017

By Sanchith Karunaratna Courtesy Adaderana

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa stated that he will work only to fulfill the requirements of the Joint Opposition.

He further stated that his brother and former Minister Basil Rajapaksa has not and will not make political decisions on behalf of him.

The former President expressed these sentiments after visiting the Dalada Maligawa in Kandy earlier today (12).

3 Comments »

Saw Namal carrying money filled bags on his shoulders to deposit in a Dubai Bank.  A boy wearing a Short and killing Thajudeen is in CCTV cameras.  To be arrested tomorrow

December 12th, 2017

Translated by : A.A.M.NIZAM – MATARA

Given below is the translation of a speech made by the member of Parliament for Hambantota District Mr. Namal Rajapaksa at a meeting of the Central Committee of the Minuwangoda  electorate of the Joint Opposition held at the Reggie Ranatunge Commemoration Hall in Udugampola.  The meeting was convened by the Gampaha District MP and convenor of the Joint Opposition Mr. Prasanna Ranatunga and a large crowd of several thousand from the Minuwangoda electorate attended. This meeting was held to affirm the victory of the Joint Opposition in the forthcoming local government elections. Participants came in motorcades from all parts of Minuwangoda to attend the meeting.

The members of the Joint Opposition oppose the unity talks because they cannot agree to SLFP’s double games.  What is being attempted by the SLFP is while remaining in the government with the United National Party they want to be with the Joint Opposition in the Local Government Institutions.  It is not possible for us to allow for such double games

Within hundred days of this government coming to power those who voted for searching various things that were reported to be missing and hidden came to understand the lies and started calling for an election.  As it was not possible to market the 100 days promissory note a 60 months promissory note was introduced.  Even before 10 months of introducing that promissory note there came another one with  dateline to be before 2025.

The whole government cannot understand what to do now.  It told the lies of 100 days, when it backfired told about 60 months and when that also backfired they are talking now about 2025.  These people carried out election campaigns with lies and mud slinging.  It was full of mud slinging that was visible in the stages of the Swan Front.  They hurled mud on the dress people were wearing up to what they were eating.

They said there are Lamboginis. They searched for helicopters in the courtyard of the ancestral residence Medamulana”.  They searched for Gold horses.  Minister Rajitha Senaratne said that he saw by his own eyes Namal with some others carrying money filled bags on their shoulders for depositing in a Dubai Bank.  It was said that a boy wearing Shorts and killing Thajudeen is in CCTV cameras and arrests will be made on the next day.

They fooled the people by telling these lies.   Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe came to power by promising one million jobs.  By promising so he laid the foundation stone for a  Valksvagen factory in Kuliyapitiya and before he returned to Colombo from Kuliyapitiya the original Volkswagen factory announced it was not factory of theirs.  It may not be a matter of much importance to the President because he comes to know things through the newspapers only.

Now cases have been filed against all of us.  They attempt to frighten us by filing cases against us.  They are attempting to frighten the opposition, sell the state assets and establish a dictatorial regime.  We would like to tell the government that they cannot frighten us by putting us in jails. I saw yesterday that Mr. Wickremaasinghe who said in the past that Hambantota is a swimming pool holding a cheque for 200  odd million dollars.

The Prime Minister who claimed he will get 1 ½ Billion US$ received only 200  odd million dollars.  If Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa could come from Medamulana and make the Ports Authority to the status of a profit earning institution why can’t the tie-coat wearing Prime Minister cannot do it?  He cannot do things.  There is no work and there is no result also. The Policy of this government is selling of state assets.

It is the policy of this government to sell the state assets to cover day to day expenses and then come for elections and win them by bribing and making pay offs.   It is how the UNP had won elections from the very beginning.  It was why the father of Mr. Prasanna Ranatunga the late Mr. Reggie Rnatunga fought with the UNP and dedicated himself to form a government of the commoners.

The late leaders such as Mr. S.W.R.D..Bandaranaike and Mr. D.A.Rajapaaksa left the UNP because they could not accept the policies of the UNP. No person who is policy minded and hold on to principles cannot get on to a stage of the UNP.  Today the SLFP has entered into an agreement with the UNP to run this government.  In the meantime they are asking us also to come for an agreement.

It is just like bringing another wife when there is a wife at home.  How can we go for an agreement with a group that has entered into an agreement with the UNP? It will be similar to entering into an agreement with the UNP.  Our grandfathers left the UNP because they could not agree with UNP policies.  In this village all of you did politics against the UNP.

Although it is possible for the JVP we cannot enter into agreements with the UNP.  The JVP has also become a partner of the government.  Now they say that two three persons in the joint opposition are against uniting with the government.  We are not afraid of saying that and we are not indebted also.  All the JO MPs here are against joining with the government.

If they want to join with us let them quit the government and come to us. Let them discard the Minister posts and come out.  There cannot be double games of staying with the UNP in the government and staying with us in the LG institutions.  No possibility for hoppers theory.   If the are coming let them come straight.  If ready to come as such so let us jointly fight with the UNP. It is useless thundering in the stages saying that we are opposed to the sale of Hambantota while holding the ministerial posts and remaining in the government..

The gazette for making railways an essential service was brought through the wrong route.  It should have been done through parliament.  What was done was a suppression of the trade union rights.  The President and the Minister of Transport Mr. Nimal Siripala de Silva represent the SLFP.  Mr. Maithripala should hold responsibility for the chaos being faced by this country.

The Treasury Bond Scam report was postponed by another one month.  The President also should hold responsibility similar to the Prime Minister for this fraud.  It was the President who made Arjun Mahendran the governor of the Central Bank and made the Central Bank to come under the Prime Minister.  Today the King is from the Rajarata, but rice is being brought from overseas. Those days Ranil came out to the streets saying that rice for sixty and the country forward.  Today rice is one hundred and twenty.

Now steps are underway to bring rice and coconut from overseas.  Now we have to eat coconut spending dollars.  The sister who went to buy small cars travels home by bus without even having a bicycle.  Mangala speaks about concessions and impose taxes.  Mr. Duminda Dissanayake spends Rs. 25 million a month as rent for an unoccupied Ministry building for more than two years now. There is no point of participating in the budget debate.  It will be the same budget that will be brought next year as well.

Today people have to pay 40% of their earnings to the government as taxes.  No harm of paying taxes even if a road at least is being built.  That also does not happen. It was a country that had been the fastest developing country in Asia that has fallen into this status today.    It was such a country that has been destroyed in this manner saying initiative was taken for a change.  It is the responsibility of all of us to rescue this country.(end)

Courtesy : LankaCNews.

3 Comments »

GANGODAWILA SOMA THERA: AN ILLUSTRIOUS AND INSPIRATIONAL LIFE 

December 12th, 2017

Dr. Daya Hewapathirane  

Venerable Gangodawila Soma Thera’s untimely death occurred 14 years ago, on December 12, 2003. He was 55 years of age.  It was one of the greatest losses of the nation. The   spontaneous outpouring of grief especially among our people was unprecedented in the living memory of our motherland. Millions of Sinhala Buddhists, including those living overseas, were shocked and grieved at the loss of an outstanding monk. The crowds that flocked to Colombo from all parts of the country to pay their last respects have been unparalleled in living memory. This is reflective of the overwhelming reverence and adoration that people had for this exemplary Bhikkhu whose selfless service rendered to the nation will always be remembered with an overflowing sense of gratitude.

At the time of his death, Soma Thera was 55 years of age. He was ordained as a bhikkhu when he was 26 years of age. Before ordination he had his education at the Isipathana College, Colombo. As a Bhikkhu, he received training at the Bhikkhu Training Centre in Maharagama, under the tutelage of the highly reputed Venerable Madihe Pannasiha Maha Nayake Thera and Venerable Ampitiye Rahula Maha Thera. After obtaining his higher ordination in 1976, Soma Thera was deeply involved in research on the dhamma, and became a keen student of Buddhist meditation. He practiced meditation in distant, isolated locations in Sri Lanka.

In the late 1980’s, on invitation, he visited Australia and established Buddhist Viharas in Victoria and Melbourne. After spending seven years in Australia, in 1996, he returned to Sri Lanka and began a countrywide programme of promoting the Dhamma, Buddhist culture and values. He soon became a dhamma preacher par excellence and traveled widely across Sri Lanka, throughout the whole year and many thousands flocked to listen to his sermons wherever they were held. He was exceedingly popular and was highly venerated by Buddhists in general. His role as a leading Buddhist communicator, a social reformer cum defender of the Sinhala-Buddhist identity, came into prominence with his extensive involvement in the electronic media and public discussions, debates, and sermons. He was listened to and watched by many, on television and radio, and read by many via the news media where he was a highly popular and respected dignitary.  He spearheaded the cause of reviving Buddhism and Sinhala culture, and restoring a sense of nationalism and pride among the Sinhala-Buddhists. Highlighting the plight of Sinhala Buddhists and promoting their welfare were among the prime objectives of his campaigns.

INTERACTING WITH SOMA THERA

It was in the summer of year 2002, or about one and half years before his untimely death, that I met Venerable Soma when he visited Toronto, Canada. It was the Nayaka Thera of the Toronto Mahavihara who requested me to organize a programme of activities for Venerable Gangodawila Soma, in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. This enabled me to renew my relationship with Soma Thera I had met before in Sri Lanka, and whom I held in great esteem. I had the privilege and honour to take Venerable Soma Thera to several places in Ontario and Quebec provinces. In these long driving trips, spanning over several days, to the venues of his speaking assignments and other places of interest in Canada, I had many opportunities to interact freely with this outstanding person, on various issues and subjects that were of common interest to us.

I have been fortunate to have had many opportunities to closely associate and interact with Buddhist bhikkhus belonging to all major Buddhist traditions. This was possible owing to my academic-professional activities and involvements in a wide range of countries in North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia. I should state with all honesty, that Venerable Soma Thera is among the few Sri Lankan Bhikkhus for whom I have the greatest respect. He was an exceptional Bhikkhu, endowed with a very sharp and clear mind and a highly developed power of reasoning and verbal expression. He was not only well versed in the Dhamma, but had a tremendous capacity to share it with others, with utmost clarity and simplicity. Having known him closely I can say that Soma Thera was an exceptional bhikkhu who lived a calm, serene and disciplined life. Piety, wisdom, and erudition were conspicuous elements of his impeccable character. He was an embodiment of Buddhist morality with unmatchable virtue, of cheerful equanimity and a serene face and smile that reflected his inner composure. One of the noblest examples he left for us was his preference for simplicity in all his activities. He led a simple life with the minimum of possessions. He was in every sense a practicing Buddhist bhikkhu with well-developed skills in Buddhist meditation. His publications bear testimony to the depth of his knowledge of the dhamma and meditation practices.

Our close association continued even after his return to Sri Lanka, where I met him on several occasions. Interacting with him was a breath of fresh air for me. He spoke freely and eagerly on many serious issues and trends pertaining to Buddhism, Buddhists, Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka. We also spoke on the increased interest in Buddhism and Buddhist practices in the West, and the strong influence of the Dalai Lama in bringing about this trend. I found Venerable Soma to be well versed in Tibetan Buddhism and places where this tradition is prevalent. I clearly recall his mentioning a region in Russia having a large indigenous Russian Buddhist community, observing the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. He spoke of the problems faced by this community in the past, and on unethical conversions to Christianity that is affecting this community at present. Also, he mentioned that the oldest Buddhist temple in Europe is in St. Petersburg. It was shocking and most distressing to me to hear that he died in St Petersburg.

HIS SERVICE

As far as Sri Lankan Buddhists are concerned, Soma Thera will be best remembered as the one and only Dhamma preacher par excellence of contemporary times. He visited many remote areas to spread the message of the Buddha. He explained in most straightforward terms how to lead simple and meaningful lives based on the Five Buddhist Precepts. In some instances, authorities had to stop traffic when thousands began to flock to listen to him in temples and other public places where he conducted sermons. His sermons were delivered most effectively in simple Sinhala language. He used the simplest possible language in clarifying and explaining the intricacies of the Dhamma in a manner that was lucid, understandable, and most convincing. His simple explanations on difficult and varying Buddhist perspectives and concepts enlightened the public en- masse and were fascinating. His role as the leading Buddhist communicator of modern times, social reformer cum defender of the Sinhala-Buddhist identity and its rights, came into prominence with his extensive involvement in the electronic media and public discussions, debates, and sermons. In his popular television programmes “Anduren Eliyata” and “Nena Pahana”, watched by millions, he never trimmed words to express what he frankly meant on a subject, nor did he at any time abstain from submitting a positive and viable alternative that could help one get out of an impasse or any problem that plagues someone. His sermons and television discussions drew the undivided attention of the young and the old, the Buddhists and the non-Buddhists alike.

HIS IMPACT

He became a beacon of hope for the common masses since his ocean of knowledge on Buddhist canons, scriptures and literature remained unchallenged, well respected, and thoroughly logical. His erudition, enriched with scientific psychoanalytical perspectives, his clarity in perceptions, pitch and intonation in his verbalizations, no doubt prompted his audience to be glued to their television sets. He possessed the capacity to be unbiased, conscientious, and upright before all national and religious problems. The masses felt that they found expression for their worldly, social, and political problems through Soma Haamuduruvoo. His followers admired him for his courage in propagating a pure, superstition-free Buddhism. He spoke about the relevance of Buddhism and Buddhist principles for the contemporary world. He took up day-to-day problems and pointed out how these could be solved by following the pristine Buddhist precepts. His practical approach to the teachings of the Buddha influenced many to change their lifestyles. In his discourses he often opened a dialogue for us to inquire from ourselves whether we are honestly Buddhists and what are the characteristics of a Buddhist and by what are we to measure ourselves. One reason for Soma Thera’s immense popularity was that in his sermons he spoke on contemporary secular, social, economic, and political problems. He did not hesitate to express, in the strongest terms, the frustrations of the common man vis-à-vis the governments of the day. His sermons reached the hearts and minds of not only Buddhists but non-Buddhists as well. He had a very good knowledge of other religions.

He challenged the worship of gods and avatars by Sri Lankan Buddhists. He pointed out that such worship was contrary to the teachings of the Buddha. His simple advocacy was to encourage the inquirer to seek refuge purely in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, and not in mystic powers appealing for mere worldly gains. Buddhism tells its followers to be self-reliant, and not to depend on Gods and other supernatural forces. Also, the Buddha does not grant boons. Self-confidence taught in Buddhism was the only god for him. In pursuit of his noble ideals, Soma Thera’s unswerving efforts revolutionized Buddhist psyche and disposition to such an extent that some Buddhist temples discontinued patronizing deity worship. Also, Soma Thera was very troubled by the Satya Sai Baba cult, which had swept Sri Lanka. The elite of Sinhala-Buddhist society had become ardent devotees of Sai Baba. He thought it was sacrilegious for Buddhists to get swayed by such gibberish.

Soma Thera was in the forefront in campaigning against “unethical conversion” to Christianity and Islam, and the encroachments by Muslims of archeologically significant Buddhist sites and the destruction caused by Muslims to monuments found in these historic sites. He was not against any religion but was against poaching of this sort. Conversion to Christianity became a major issue in Sri Lanka when Christian sects, with heavy funding from western countries and South Korea, entered the scene to exploit the poverty, lack of economic development, and the displacement and deprivation brought about by the racist Tamil LTTE menace that plagued the country at the time. Those involved in unethical religious conversion activities promised people instant cures and solutions to problems with all types of enticements being offered to the poor.

NATIONAL-CULTURE

Venerable Soma cherished Sri Lanka’s national Sinhala Buddhist culture and heritage. He spearheaded the cause of reviving Buddhism and Sinhala culture, and restoring a sense of nationalism and pride among the Sinhala-Buddhists. He fought relentlessly for the survival of the Sinhala people and their culture, which were being threatened by Westernization and a striking lack of nationalism. He mentioned that Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism was getting eroded by a perceived inability to face up to the challenge posed by minority Tamil militancy and a tendency to give in easily to influences from the West. Theravada Buddhism, the core of the Sinhala identity, was being subjected to an unmitigated and multi-dimensional onslaught from alien forces. The people were aware of these, but they did not, and could not, articulate them, because power was firmly in the hands of a Westernized, comprador bourgeoisie. It was through Soma Thera that the suppressed feelings of the people found utterance. He personified Sinhala-Buddhism, becoming a “totemic figure”, an “icon”. He courageously defended the rights of the Sinhala community and Buddhists at a time, much like today, when identification with either of them was considered racism and bigotry. With his sermons and interviews on television, he lifted the spirit and morale of the Sinhala people.

“JANA-VIJAYA”

He spearheaded an inexorable effort combined with the sustained campaign to introduce “clean politics” by establishing the “Jana Vijaya Foundation”. The objective was to mobilize the well-mannered citizens of the country to have a positive influence on political decision-making. He wanted all patriotic men to resist and make decision-makers drop foul practices for the benefit of the masses in the country. Soma Thera, the socio-cultural reformer of the times, to his credit, was explicit in his criticism leveled against corrupt politicians. Through Jana Vijaya, he assembled thousands and thousands of youth in the island who were yearning for a morally rich Buddhist leadership. Through publication of a popular newspaper on Dhamma and Buddhist way of life, he took his message to grassroots level. National and religious issues, in his view are interwoven and could not be isolated from the body politic of the country since it was finally the bounden duty of the state to give pride of place to Buddhism, as enshrined in the constitution. Morality was the key to any righteous society, he argued. Stimulus he gave in this direction was overwhelming and result-oriented. His outright assertions, meant to help create a statehood ruled in accordance with Buddhist principles of righteous living, were food for thought and some politicians.  He awakened the nation with his forthright views on national issues. He opened people’s eyes to the dangers that lie around and ahead of us. Citing clearly and rationally, the socio-economic trends in Sri Lanka, he warned the Sinhala Buddhists of the imminent danger of decimation of the Sinhala race and the adulteration of Buddhism by worship of gods, and moving away from practice to ritual.

Non-alcoholism was a key word in him. He spoke strongly against smoking and drug abuse. Undoubtedly, the ‘Mathatha Thitha” programme of the last government was inspired by Soma Thera. This itself was a remarkable achievement at national level by this great monk.  I recall the great interest with which he gathered many latest research publications on harmful impact of alcohol use, drug abuse and smoking, while he was in Canada. I later understood that he got them translated to Sinhala and used the information in his televised sermons and disseminated them for the benefit of youth involved in programs that he personally organized and promoted. One of his most outstanding missions was to mould the younger generation to live according to the Dhamma. He had the right approach in handling youth problems and soon they rallied round him in an organization called ‘Tharuna Saviya’ or Strength of the Youth. From every corner of the island, youths dedicated to the unfailing observance of five precepts taught in Buddhism, flocked, and rallied round him in veneration and began to follow his teachings.

RELEVANCE OF SOMA THERA

Given the drastic social changes taking place today and the threats and challenges faced by Sinhala Buddhists, the future of Buddhism and its continued relevance to our society depends much on how successfully our Buddhist leaders, especially our Bhikkhus can bring back to our people and reinforce the essential core of Buddhist values. Our Buddhist Bhikkhus provide a beacon and an anchor to Buddhism in our country, a living connection to the wealth and insight of thousands of years of Buddhist tradition. Their enormous humanitarian and social welfare service during the tsunami crisis in our country is reflective of the power of compassion ingrained in them by Buddhism and their inherently benevolent and ethical lifestyle as Bhikkhus. In the light of today’s challenges faced by Sinhala Buddhists, the influence and connection of Bhikkhus can be quite effective if they learn and become skilled, like Soma Thera, at how to present the Buddha Dhamma in a format that is effective to contemporary society. Like Soma Thera, they should spearhead the cause of reviving Sinhala Buddhist culture, and restoring a sense of nationalism and pride among the Sinhala-Buddhists. Venerable Soma Thera has become an enduring legacy of our nation, because he lived up to these expectations.

Today, there is a great need for the caring and sensible Buddhists within and outside Sri Lanka to organize themselves to avert the erosion of Buddhist values occasioned by the lack of enlightened Buddhist leadership, both ordained and lay. A realistic strategy and approach need to be developed, to directly address the glaring problems facing contemporary Buddhists and ways of helping to reform and re-invigorate the Sangha need to be identified in a pragmatic manner. In contemporary times, in Sri Lanka, with its cluster of occasional bafflement, discord, and uncertainties, mostly because of devious and unethical actions of some non-Buddhist elements mostly Christians and Muslims, backed by foreign funding, the relevance of propagating the Buddha’s teachings, cannot be overemphasized. Buddhists need not be doormats” to these divisive forces with hidden agendas that aim at undermining Buddhist norms and values that form the foundation of our Buddhist nation, for over two thousand two hundred years. We must be protective of our culture which appears to be threatened by various strong forces both local and foreign. It is time that we made a determined effort to counter this trend, and reclaim our cultural heritage. We know that it is in our own culture where we instinctively feel most comfortable and where we are ourselves. It is by sharing our cultural norms with the younger generation, and helping them to incorporate its values to shape their lives that this great cultural inheritance can be sustained for succeeding generations. Soma Thera’s life and teachings inspired many of our nation’s contemporary Buddhist leaders – lay and ordained, and movements. Our present day Bhikkhus and Buddhist leaders should be happy and grateful that destiny bestowed us with such an enlightened contemporary, a role model for generations to come.

Although his life was rather short, Soma Thera’s impact has become legendary. He left a lasting imprint on both the Sri Lankan and the international social and religious scene. His death is admittedly an irreparable loss to Sri Lanka at a time his services were most relevant and required. The influence of his mission is still felt in the Sri Lankan social scene and is bound to continue for many more years to come. The impact he has had on the lives of all those who encountered him directly and indirectly has been remarkable. Memories of his life, rich with experience, wisdom and dedication will continue to resonate for many years. His name will be honoured with undying gratitude by many generations to come. What his departure reminds us is the fact that time is ripe for Sri Lankan Buddhists to re-evaluate and re-think of their collective stand on national and religious issues of their motherland.

Dr. Daya Hewapathirane                                                                    daya.hewapathirane@gmail.com    

3 Comments »

The SLFP’s crisis

December 12th, 2017

By Dr. DAYAN JAYATILLEKA Courtesy The Island

December 11, 2017, 10:45 pm

The SLFP’s crisis is a crisis of ideological identity. It is also an existential crisis. The SLFP is divided into two tendencies, a Minority (‘Menshevik’) faction with 44 seats in Parliament, led by President Sirisena, not all of them elected, and a Majority (‘Bolshevik’) faction with over 50 seats, led by former President Rajapaksa.

The ‘official’ SLFP (Minority) is a junior partner of its traditional foe the UNP, and therefore has an ideological vacuum within it. It does not know what it stands for and what it is.

article_image

The unofficial SLFP (Majority) aka SLPP or Pohottuwa, has a definite ideology which is not quite that of the mainstream center-left SLFP tradition, but increasingly that of the various ultra-nationalist pressure groups that operated alongside the party since 1955 (Eksath Bhikshu Peramuna), through 1970 (Nath Amarakone-VW Kularatne pushed through Standardization which created the Tamil youth insurgency), into the late 1980s (JVP-DJV).

In the case of the ‘unofficial’ SLFP (Majority), the tail has begun to wag the dog. In the case of the ‘official’ SLFP (Minority), it no longer knows whether it is dog, cat, fish, fowl or elephant’s tail.

SWRD Bandaranaike was a liberal, a pluralist and a populist-nationalist. His was a national liberalism and a liberal nationalism. More correctly, it was the former at certain times and the latter at certain others. It was not his populist nationalism that was the problem. It was when that nationalism was provisionally subsumed under a monolingual, mono-ethnic, mono-religious program.

Bandaranaike’s nationalism was neither that of DS Senanayake nor that of the admirable Ceylon National Congress. That was evident with his formation of the Sinhala Maha Sabha. But it was not the nationalism that he would adopt in 1955-1956 either. If not for his nationalism, he would have gone the way of the elitist Ceylon National Congress, into irrelevance as a mass democratic force.

I hardly ever agree with Prof Nalin de Silva, and we’ve always regarded each other with cordial detestation and been rightly regarded by others as bitter ideological foes, but he was quite right in his periodization of SWRD Bandaranaike’s evolution. He classifies SWRD –dismissively, as I do not–as a Westernized liberal and social democrat right up to 1955, when at the time of the Buddha Jayanthi, the Sinhala Buddhist civil society organizations, including the Buddhist monks pushed through the agenda of Sinhala Only.

Nalin de Silva identifies that as the moment of SWRD’s pivot towards and embrace of the Dharmapala movement; a pivotand re-set which resulted in 1956 taking the shape it did. For my part I regard that as precisely the moment he took a great leap backwards, and an unnecessary one because the back of the UNP had been broken by the Hartal of August 1953, the Galle Face kick-off meeting of which SWRD had chaired. However I agree with Nalin de Silva that until that point SWRD and the SLFP were well within the parameters of liberalism and social democracy, rather than Sinhala Buddhist nationalism.

Bandaranaike’s nationalism and his liberalism were perfectly compatible with his definition of the SLFP, both at its founding and in his 1957 speech at Peradeniya, as “social democratic”, as with his chairing of the Hartal rally which heralded an unarmed popular uprising (in which the SLFP did not participate) against the UNP.

SWRD’s nationalism and liberalism were also compatible with his first election manifesto which called for “the national languages” (plural) to be “state languages”, just as they were compatible with the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact and its agenda of Tamil autonomy within the quintessentially unitary state bequeathed by the Soulbury Constitution.

Today’s ‘official’ SLFP, starting with his daughter CBK, have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The bathwater being Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism, they’ve thrown out the baby of nationalism. Having done so, they’ve allowed the baby of nationalism to be adopted by the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists whom they detest.

Ironically, both Chandika’s brother Anura and her husband Vijaya were truer to SWRD’s political ideology than she has become. Anura was a liberal and moderate nationalist (as he proved in July 1987 and 2004), unlike CBK who has abandoned any kind of nationalism for the embrace of Ranil’s cosmopolitanism. Vijaya was a populist and a social democrat, while CBK has abandoned any kind of populism and/or social democracy in favor of Ranil and Mangala’s neoliberal globalism and free market fundamentalism.

The failure of Lankan liberalism is the failure to build back SWRD’s nationalism while junking the ethno-religious chauvinist deviation of 1955-1956. That is not what the spirit of 1956 was all about. 1956 was neither an unmixed blessing nor an unmixed curse. It had a progressive aspect and a reactionary aspect. Of the two the progressive aspect was the primary and the reactionary aspect was secondary. The ethno-religious chauvinist deviation was the secondary, reactionary aspect of 1956.

It is typical of Chandrika that the UNP leader she was always the most hostile to, Premadasa, was precisely the one who was most sympathetic to her father and closest to his ideology (indeed my father, who knew them both, wrote of Premadasa as “the SLFP within the UNP”) while the UNP leader she is allied to always positioned himself on the pro-US/UK, free market far right of the center-right party. Ranil Wickremesinghe (who as a young politician was utterly unmoved by the April 1971 youth insurrection) formally integrated the UNP, as no previous leader did, with the US Republicans and UK Conservatives, joining and becoming a Vice-President of the global organization founded by George W Bush, the International Democratic Union.

The Budget presented by CBK’s chief ally Mangala Samaraweera envisages the dismantling of three pieces of progressive agrarian legislation (the Paddy Lands Act of 1958 and the Land Reforms of 1972 and 1975), the removal of the land ceilings, and the opening up to large-scale holdings by multinationals, all of which would bury the most progressive laws of her father’s and mother’s governments of 1956 and 1970, which CBK herself identified so closely with as the Director, Land Reform Commission and Chairperson, Janavasa Commission.

The chief economic advisor and ideologue of the Ranil-Mangala duo is Prof Razeen Sally, a member of the ultra-right Mont Pelerin Society founded by and dedicated to the ideals of FW Hayek! One wonders what CBK’s old professor and intellectual hero Charles Bettelheim would have said about all this!

Under Chandrika’s tutelage, the official SLFP has returned to the B-C Pact and gone beyond it,back to SWRD’s exploratory 1925 articles as a young returnee from the UK, on federalism, but having junked the larger progressive paradigm of SWRD, the SLFP and 1956: national independence and sovereignty, populism, social welfare, a strong state sector, and the Spirit of Bandung i.e. Third Worldism with a tilt to Russia and China.

This is a pity because President Sirisena would have been a natural legatee of the 1956+1957 (B-C Pact) heritage of SWRD.He has been forced to turn away from 1951-1956 because Chandrika has pushed the party away from the Middle Path into a role of tailing behind the UNP on the pro-Western Right Path, i.e. the wrong path, the path of the UNP which her father SWRD broke away from and won his greatest victory over in 1956,which her mother repeated in 1970.

In the growing Oppositional space, Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Rajapaksa family, and Prof GL Peiris would naturally have been a strong, organic center-left or liberal-nationalist moderate center, but they have been pulled to or pushed by the neo-nationalist populist Right, due to the ideological gravitational effect or osmosis of the Buddhist clergy and civil society as well as Diaspora pressure groups. Thanks to Yahapalana’s Geneva 2015 accountability, appeasement as reconciliation and the drive for a new non-unitary Constitution, there is a second edition unfolding of ‘The Revolt in the Temple’ that DC Wijewardena wrote of in the 1950s.

The B-C Pact of 1957 was the corrective of the negative aspect of 1956, but 1956 is greater and more progressive than its negative aspect. Bandaranaike can neither be reduced to the Sinhala only aspect of 1956 nor to the B-C Pact of 1957 (still less to the federalist episode of 1925-6).

Instead of tracing a path back to the wrong turning of 1955 and taking the correct one back to the founding document of the SLFP in 1951, the party’s first election manifesto of 1952, and SWRD’s attempt to return to it in 1957-58 with the B-CPact and the Kurunegala sessions, Chandrika and the Lankan liberals have tried to put the clock back to pre-1951, before SWRD’s rupture with the UNP, and bring the SLFP back under the dominance of the UNP—and that too a UNP far to the right of UNP tradition and closest to the disastrous UNP profile of 1956.

The official SLFP stands for ‘1957 without 1956’. Under the influence of CBK, who has betrayed both the ‘B’ and the ‘K’ of her dual surnames; the political ideals of her father, mother, husband and brother; the heritages of Bandaranaike and Kumaratunga, the ‘official’ SLFP has capitulated to the supinely pro-western foreign policy and economic neoliberalism of the comprador UNP. CBK has become the Countess of Compradorefication of the SLFP.

Meanwhile, in an inside-out, upside-downmirror image, the anti-government SLPP as well as the ‘outrider’ Eliyaand Viyath Magaformations, stand for ‘1956 without 1957’. They have deviated from the Middle Path of moderate nationalism and social democracy and succumbed to a discourse of nativistneo-conservatism, fighting shy of defending President Rajapaksa’s heavily documented stand on devolution, and criticizing devolution/power-sharing (“balaya bedeema”) as such, not only beyond 13A or in its federalist form. An Eliya spokesperson recently resurrected the antiquarian ‘Sinhala/Tamil place-names’ discourse of extreme Sinhala nationalism. The dominant ideological undercurrent is a return to pre-1987, a latent rejection of the Indo-Lanka Accord and the 13th amendment, and a lurch away from pragmatism in the dangerous direction of nativism, Sinhala exceptionalism, unilateralism and neo-isolationism.

In the current global situation and given regional geopolitical realities, a ‘1956 without a 1957’ built-in or attached, would be unsustainable and disastrously self-destructive, while in the present post-war, post victory national context, a ‘1957 without a larger 1956’ would be no less unsustainable and violently self-destructive.

Who then will stand for ‘1956 plus 1957’, the true policy and legacy of SWRD and the SLFP, and the authentic project of a Sri Lankan social democracy inspired by a liberal nationalism,a nationalist liberalism?

What Sri Lanka needs is a return to this vision of SWRD Bandaranaike and the founding ideology and program of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, which was an anti-UNP eclectic fusion of the ‘Five Great Forces’ (‘Pancha Maha Balavegaya’) of ideas and ideologies: liberalism, nationalism, pluralism, populism and social democracy. There lies the New Middle Path.

3 Comments »

ගම is ok: දෙන්න දෙයක් නැහැ, තිබුනත් දෙන්නෙත් නැහැ

December 11th, 2017

BY MALINDA SENEVIRATNE

 “දෙපැත්තෙන්ම කෑව ඇති.  ජවිපෙට ගම දීල බලමු.”  ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණේ මැතිවරණ පෝස්ටරය මෙයයි.  මීට අවුරුදු විස්සකට විතර පෙර ඒ වගේම පෝස්ටරයක් ගැහුවා. ‘උනුත් එකයි, මුනුත් එකයි, මෙදා පාර අපි ජවිපෙට.’ ඊට පස්සේ ජවිපෙ විරෝධීන් මෙහම කිව්වා: ‘උනුත් එකයි, මුනුත් එකයි, තොපිත් එකයි.’ 
මැතිවරණ කාලේ ඔහොම තමයි.  මැතිවරණයක් කියන්නේ ‘මමයි පොර’ කියල කියාගන්න සමයක්.  සමයමක්.  ‘ජවිපෙට ගම දීල බලමු’ කියන්නේ කොහේ හරි ඉන්න අපක්ෂපාතී නිරීක්ෂකයෙක් වත් ගම වත් නෙවෙයි, ජවිපෙ මයි.  ‘අපට දෙන්නකෝ’ කියල කියන කොට ටිකක් මදි වගේ කියල හිතෙන්න ඇති. 

කොහොම වුනත් ‘අපි වෙනස්’ කියන කතාව පරණයි.  ඒ විතරක් නෙවෙයි ඒක අර්ධ සත්‍යයක්.  ජවිපෙ මේ රට පාලනය කරපු කාලයක් තිබුන, හරියටම එල්ටීටීඊ සංවිධානය රට පාලනය කළා වගේ.  යටින්.  ඒ කාලේ ජවිපෙ තමන්ව හැඳින්වූවේ ‘පුංචි ආණ්ඩුව’ කියල.  ඒ පුංචි ආණ්ඩුව මහා ආණ්ඩුව කරන වඩාත් කෙරුව, විශේෂයෙන්ම ‘මර්දනය’ කියන විෂයට අදාලව. 

ඒවා ‘විප්ලවයේ වාස්තවික තත්ත්වයන්’ කියන එකට බැර කරමු.  එත් ජවිපෙ ඍජුව හෝ වක්‍රව මේ ‘දෙපැත්තට’ ම උදව් කලේ දේශපාලන කපටිකමටද අඥානකමට ද නැත්තම් කරකියාගන්න දෙයක් තිබුනේ නැති නිසා ද?  විප්ලවයක් කර ගන්න බැරි නිසා (වාස්තවික තත්ත්වයන් අවශ්‍ය තරම ට මෝරලා නැති නිසා කියමුකෝ) නිර්මාල් රන්ජිත් දේවසිරි කියන විදිහට ‘අඩු තීව්‍රතා විප්ලවයක්’ කරන තැනට පසු බසින්න වුනාද?  ඒ සඳහා ‘හොරුත් සමග හෙළුවෙන්’ ඉන්න වුන එක විප්ලවයේ ජීව ගුණය කියා පානවා කියල ජවිපෙ හිතනවද? 

ජවිපෙ ‘දෙපැත්ත’ කියල කියන්නේ කාටද?  ශ්‍රී ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂය සහ එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය ට ද?  පොහොට්ටු කාරයෝ  ‘කෑවේ නෑ’ කියලද ජවිපෙ කියන්නේ?  නැත්තම් එයාලත් ‘ශ්‍රීලංනිපය’ තුලට දාල ද මේ ‘දෙපැත්තක්’ ගැන කතා කරන්නේ?  කෙසේ වෙතත් ඔය කියන දේශපාලන පක්ෂ හෝ සන්ධාන හෝ බලවේග සියල්ලටම ‘කන්න’ කෑම මේසය ලැස්ති කරන්න ජවිපෙ දායක වුනේ නැද්ද? 

ජවිපෙ කියන්න හදන දේ ටිකක් අපැහැදිලියි.  ජවිපෙ ද දෙපැත්තෙන් ම කෑවේ?  මොනවාද කෑවේ?  නැත්තම් කියන්න හදන්නේ ජනතාව (නැත්තම් ‘ගම’) දෙපැත්තෙන් ම කෑව කියලද? කෑවේ මොනවාද?  ජරාවද ගුටි ද? 

ජවිපෙ පණිවුඩය අපැහැදිලියි.  ඒකෙ ලොකු අවුලක් නැහැ, මන්ද ජවිපෙ පරණ නිසා. එන්නේ මොකාටද, යන්නේ කොහෙටද කියන එක අමුතුවෙන් විභාග කල යුතු නැති නිසා.  ඒ කියන්නේ 88-89 ට පසුව ජවිපෙ අළුත් වුනා නම් ඒ ‘අළුත් ජවිපෙ’ දැන් පරණ වෙලා.  ශ්‍රීලංනිපයට, එජාපයට, ඉපැරණි වමට වගේම පොහොට්ටු කාරයින් ට වඩා තරුණ වුනාට ජවිපෙ කියන්නේ මොකද්ද කරන්නේ මොකද්ද යනාදිය හිතාගන්න පුළුවන් තරමට ජවිපෙ මහළු වෙලා.  පෝස්ටරයක මොන දේ කිව්වත්, මොන තරම් නිර්මාණශීලී වුනත්, ජවිපෙ කව්ද කියන එක මිනිස්සු දන්නවා (එජාපය ගැනත්, ශ්‍රීලංනිපය ගැනත්, පොහොට්ටු කාරයෝ ගැනත් එච්චරයි).  

ඒ වුනාට අපැහැදිලි විදිහට හරි ඉදිරිපත් කරලා තියෙන පෝස්ටරය පවතින දේශපාලනය තේරුම් ගන්න ඉවහල් වෙනවා. 

‘අපට ඡන්දේ දෙන්න’ කියන හැම පොස්ටරයකම දේශපාලන සංවිධාන කරන්නේ තමන් විසින් තමන් සමග තමන් සඳහා ‘ගම’ ගසාකන එක. ගමේ හඬ නෙවෙයි ඇහෙන්නේ ගම විකුණන් කන්න සෙට් වෙන අයගේ හඬ.  මෙය ගමටත් රටටත් පොදු තත්ත්වයක්.  ගමෙත් රටෙත් ඉරණම මෙම දේශපාලන මොහොතේ තීන්දු කෙරෙන විදිහ විස්තර කරන ක්‍රියාවලියක්.

මේ විදිහට හිතමු.

ප්‍රාදේශීය සභාව තිබිය යුත්තේ ගම තුලයි.  ඒත් ගම තියෙන්නේ ප්‍රාදේශීය සභාව තුලයි. ප්‍රාදේශීය සභාව තියෙන්නේ (අදාළ) දේශපාලන පක්ෂය තුලයි.  පක්ෂ තියෙන්නේ නායකයින්ගේ සාක්කුවේ (දේශපාලන නායකයෝ ඉන්න ඕනේ පක්ෂයේ සාක්කුවේ, ඒත් එහෙම වෙන්නේ නැහැ).  නායකයෝ ඉන්නේ සමස්ථ දේශපාලනය තුල තම තමන් ස්ථානගත වෙන්නේ කොහොමද කියන ප්‍රශ්නය තුල යි. 

ජවිපෙට වගේම අනෙකුත් දේශපාලන පක්ෂවලට ගමත් දීල රටත් දීල ගම කාගත්ත හැටිත් රට කාගත්ත හැටිත් ජවිපෙ වත් අනෙකුත් දේශපාලන පක්ෂ කතා කරන්නේ නැහැ. 

අපේ රටේ ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය නැති කලේ පක්ෂ දේශපාලනය.  මේ එකෙකුට වත් ගමවත් රට වත් දීල ආයෙත් කෙලවගන්නේ මොකටද කියන ප්‍රශ්නේ විතරයි ඉතුරු වෙලා තියෙන්නේ.  ගම ඉතුරු කරගන්න නම්, රට ඉතුරු කරගන්න නම්, ගමෙනුත් රටෙනුත් මේ දේශපාලන තක්කඩි එලව ගන්න ඕන. 

ඡන්දේ හිඟා කන්න එන ඕනෑම එකෙකුට කියන්න තියෙන්නේ මෙච්චරයි: ‘සොරි සහෝ, උදව් එපා, වදත් එපා, වද නොදී යන්න, ඕකේ?’

2 Comments »

නේස්බි සාමිවරයාට ජනපති මෛත‍්‍රී රහසේ ස්තූති කරයි.. දේව රහසක් සේ රැකගත් ලිපිය මෙන්න..

December 11th, 2017

lanka C news

පිවිතුරු හෙළ උරුමයේ නායක පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත‍්‍රී උදය ගම්මන්පිල මහතා එම පක්‍ෂ මූලස්ථානයේ පැවති මාධ්‍ය හමුවකදී මෙසේ අදහස් පල කලේය

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ යුද අපරාධ සිදු වුණු බවට එක්සත් ජාතින්ගේ සමුළු ඉදිරියේ එන යෝජනාවට ලෝක ඉතිහාසය වෙනස් කරමින් අපේ රටේම විදේශ ඇමති සමඅනුග්‍රාහකයත්වය දැක්වූවා. එවැනි පසුබිමක ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සමීප මිතුරෙකු වන එක්සත් රාජධානියේ නේස්බි සාමිවරයා පසුගිය ඔක්තෝම්බර් 11 දින ලංකාවේ යුද අපරාධ සිදු නොවුණු බවට කරුණු දක්වමින් බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ සාමිමණ්ඩලයේදී කතාවක් කළා.

ලංකාව වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටීම පිළිබඳ ස්තූති කරලා ජනාධිපතිතුමා නේස්බි සාමිවරයාට ලිපියක් යවනවා. ඒක අපි අගය කළ යුතු දෙයක්. නමුත් නේස්බි සාමිවරයාව සමස්ත ශ්‍රී ලංකාව වෙනුවෙන් ජනපති ස්තූති කළ බව එංගලන්තය දන්නෙත් නෑ. ලංකාව දන්නෙත් නෑ. එ් ඇයි?

නේස්බි සාමිවරයාට ජනපති මෛත‍්‍රී රහසේ ස්තූති කරයි.. දේව රහසක් සේ රැකගත් ලිපිය මෙන්න..

ස්තූතිය රහසිගත සිදුවීමක් බවට පත් කරන්නේ විදේශ කටයුතු අමාත්‍යාංශයේ ලේකම්වරයා. ජනපතිගේ ලිපිය සමග විදේශ අමාත්‍යාංශ ලේකම්ගේ ලිපියක් ද එක්සත් රාජධානියේ සිටින ශ්‍රී ලංකා තානාපතිවරියට යවනවා. මේ තිබෙන්නේ 2017.11.08 දින දරණ ඒ ලිපිය. ඒ ලිපියේ ඉතා වැදගත් උපදෙස් දෙකක් දෙනවා. පළමු දේ තමයි ඔබතුමියම මේ ලිපිය පෞද්ගලිකව ගිහින් භාර දෙන්න. දෙවන උපදෙස තමයි මේ ලිපිය ලංකාවේ වත් එක්සත් රාජධානියේ වත් මාධ්‍ය වලට දෙන්න එපා. මේක දේව රහසක් වගේ රැක ගන්න.

නේස්බි සාමිවරයාට ලංකාව ස්තූති කළ බව ලෝකයෙන් වසං කරන්නේ ඇයි? කාට බයෙන් ද? ඇමතිවරයෙකු ජනපතිට බයෙන් ලිපියක් සඟවන්න පුළුවන්. ජනපතිගේ මතය, රටේ මතය ප්‍රකාශ කරන්න බය වෙන්න ඕනේ කාටද? මෙරටේ රාජ්‍ය නායකයා මෙරට වෙනුවෙන් හඩ නැගු නේස්බි සාමිවරයාට තමන්ගේත් තම ජාතියේත් ප්‍රණාමය පුදකරන ලිපිය සගවා තබන්නේ කාට බයෙන්ද? පිළිතුර දෙමළ බෙදුම්වාදින්ට. දෙමළ බෙදුම්වාදින්ගේ බලපෑමට තමයි යුද සමයේ 40,000ක් සාමාන්‍ය ජනතාව මරා දැමුවා කියන එක ලංකාවේ ආණ්ඩුව පිලි ගත්තේ. එහෙම වුණේ නෑ කියලා ලංකාව වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටින නේස්බි සාමිවරයාට ප්‍රසිද්ධියේ ස්තූති කරන්න බයයි කොටියා තරහා වේවි කියලා.

බෙදුම්වාදින්ගේ සහයෙන් බලයට පැමිණි ආණ්ඩුවකට මෙහෙම නිවටව හැසිරෙන්න සිදු වෙනවා. කුම්බලාවෝ කෑවා නම් විඳවාපන් බළලෝ කියන්නේ මෙන්න මේකට තමයි.

අපට තිබෙන්නේ සරල ප්‍රශ්නයක්. ජනපතිතුමන් නේස්බි සාමිවරයාට යැවු එම ස්තූතිය රහසිගත ලියැවිල්ලක් වුණේ එතුමන් දැනුම්වත්වද? මේ කාරණය ලෙහෙසියෙන් අත්හැරිය යුතු නෑ. මේ රට පාලනය කරන්නේ කොටි සංවිධානයයි කියන එකට මීටත් වඩා ලිඛිත සාක්ෂියක් අවශ්‍ය නෑ.

– අරවින්ද අතුකෝරල

4,791 Viewers

No Comments »

Statement from Lord Naseby Sends detailed evidence to United Nations including Gash Despatches

December 11th, 2017

Courtesy The Daily Mirror

  • The UK Government was one of the initiators and a co-sponsor of the resolution.
  • disappointing that the British High Commission fails to acknowledge the importance of the despatches of its own former Defence Attaché
  • hugely misleading figure in the Darusman Report of 40,000 Tamil civilians killed whereas the truth is about 6,500 and seeking a correction.
  • …publicly amended to reflect that the truth about an estimated 6,500 Tamil civilians who died …

Lord Naseby wishes to state the following with regard to the response attributed to the British High Commission in Colombo following a query raised by the Sri Lankan newspaper ‘The Island’, published on 6 December 2017 under the headline ‘Naseby’s call doesn’t reflect UK’s stand- HC’.

The resolution 30/1 entitled ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ emphasised the need for truth-seeking, among others, as an important element in the overall quest to promote reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.

The UK Government was one of the initiators and a co-sponsor of the resolution. The despatches by Col. Anton Gash, the former Defence Attaché of the British High Commission, constitutes an important element in the process of truth-seeking and should be of interest to all those who genuinely seek a clear picture of what happened during the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka.

It is therefore disappointing that the British High Commission fails to acknowledge the importance of the despatches of its own former Defence Attaché and the insight that is provided by his communications with the British Government.

While not expressly stated so in the resolution, those who have closely followed events in Sri Lanka after the end of the conflict would agree that the basis for the successive resolutions on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council stemmed from the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity (And in some quarters ‘genocide’) said to have been committed by the Sri Lankan armed forces and the LTTE.

Especially, the Report of the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, commonly known as the ‘Darusman Report’, alleged that ‘a number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths’ (Para 137), mostly as a result of indiscriminate shelling by the Sri Lankan military. Therefore, the number of civilians killed forms a very important element in truth-seeking, especially when the difference is over 30,000.
While Lord Naseby does not take issue with those advocating reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka including the need to investigate any allegations of human rights violations, Lord Naseby does take issue with those in authority be they the UK Government or any other Government as well as the UN and, particularly the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council in Geneva, if they appear to be ignoring the above context behind the resolution as well as circumvent the significance of the insight provided by Col. Anton Gash, which corroborates a large number of other sources that confirm a casualty figure of around 7,000-8,000 (Of whom about 20% were LTTE cadres, who are said to have thrown away their uniforms resulting in Tamil civilian casualties of about 6,500).

Lord Naseby is concerned that the principles of natural justice are possibly being disregarded as the Gash Despatches reveal that British authorities knew that the estimates propagated by the Darusman Report were based on flawed information.

The FCO had this information at their disposal to disprove some of the Darusman Report’s contentions, especially to counter that the estimated casualty figures could not have been as high as 40,000.

Lord Naseby is concerned that the principles of natural justice are possibly being disregarded as the Gash Despatches reveal that British authorities knew that the estimates propagated by the Darusman Report were based on flawed information.

Almost every Western media report to this day, continues to quote this high estimate of 40,000 for war casualties, without questioning its reliability, whilst failing to mention the numerous other independent assessments, from sources that were present on the ground in Sri Lanka during 2009, that consistently point to an estimated death toll in the region of 7,000 – 8,000.

In its search for the truth, it would seem morally improper that UK should have allowed the Darusman Report to have been used without contention and facilitated subsequent resolutions on Sri Lanka to have been formulated using estimates that starkly contradicted Britain’s own evidence.

After not disclosing its own military attaché’s evidence to the Human Rights Commission, the FCO then took the unhelpful step of attempting to suppress this information when Lord Naseby sought a Freedom of Information request.

Britain’s motives in playing a prominent role in seeking and encouraging UNHRC Resolutions on Sri Lanka since 2009 that sought to establish the truth regarding allegations of Human Rights violations, whilst at the same time effectively prohibiting its own relevant information from being considered by the Human Rights Commission, may need to be called into question.

Lord Naseby fought for the full disclosure of the Gash Despatches, yet this was not finally granted as the Information Commission Tribunal sided with the FCO, which insisted on heavy redactions being maintained.

Nevertheless the redacted Gash Despatches do provide an invaluable insight.Lord Naseby acknowledges that the death of any civilians is deeply regrettable. However, it is noted that this was an armed conflict between a democratically elected Government and a terrorist outfit, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who were proscribed by leading nations, including most of those supporting the resolution.
It is inevitable that armed conflicts create casualties, made worse in this case by 300,000 Tamil civilians being herded into a war zone against their will by the LTTE.
In effect, this was a mass hostage situation and the Sri Lankan armed forces took action to release the Tamil civilians. Despite this evidence, the casualties remained remarkably low.

Moreover, there is nothing from the UK’s own defence specialist, who was allowed access to the theatres of the conflict in 2009, which indicates that Sri Lanka’s security forces were directed by their Government to break the principles of conducting operations in a way that was beyond the bounds of military necessity, nor that Sri Lanka’s armed forces did not take due diligence to avoid civilian casualties by conducting their operations with regard for distinction and proportionality.
The British Government should acknowledge the evidence of their own Military Attaché whilst continuing to wholeheartedly support the UN Resolution in collaboration with Sri Lanka to secure a long term sustainable peace for all communities on the island.

Therefore, Lord Naseby wishes to reiterate that the context is vital to any possible war crime prosecution that may arise and 40,000 or more civilian deaths could be tantamount to genocide and/or crimes against humanity if proven that it was part of Government policy to do so.

However, a casualty figure of 6,500 is a totally different scale beyond the scope of such atrocities, while acknowledging that there may have been certain individual incidents that may perhaps constitute to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

It should be noted that at no stage has Lord Naseby attempted to claim that the Gash Despatches showed that the civilian casualties were trivial” or that these matters should not be investigated.

On the contrary, in common with most observers and other nations who supported the resolution, Lord Naseby urges Sri Lanka’s authorities to honour their commitments to the UN Human Rights Council by conducting credible investigations and where there are incidents that their security forces may have committed alleged violations, then the appropriate due processes of justice should follow.

All received a personal letter from Lord Naseby outlining the key issue of the hugely misleading figure in the Darusman Report of 40,000 Tamil civilians killed whereas the truth is about 6,500 and seeking their support for a correction.

It is against this background that Lord Naseby last week forwarded a full set of papers consisting of: The Hansard Transcript of the debate he initiated in the House of Lords on October 12, the entire copies of the heavily redacted pages of Col. Gash’s Despatches, in itself only available after nearly three years of persistent challenging of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, his interpretation of the un-redacted parts and the substantial corroborative evidence from many other sources. These were all sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres; The Human Rights team at the UNHRC in Geneva, namely the High Commissioner, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and the nine UN Special Procedures mandate holders, each of whom had visited Sri Lanka in his/her official capacity.
They all received a personal letter from Lord Naseby outlining the key issue of the hugely misleading figure in the Darusman Report of 40,000 Tamil civilians killed whereas the truth is about 6,500 and seeking their support for a correction.

Lord Naseby makes it quite clear that he shall pursue every organisation and the persons involved to ensure that the Darusman Report figure on civilian casualties is publicly amended to reflect that the truth about an estimated 6,500 Tamil civilians who died at the end of the Sri Lanka conflict.

Truth must and will win out however inconvenient that may be to the authorities. A guiding light for Lord Naseby in all this has been a quote attributed to be by Mahatma Gandhi:

First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh at You, Then They Attack You, Then You Win

1 Comment »

Consultative Task Force (CTF) recommendations to address accountability

December 11th, 2017

By Neville Ladduwahetty Courtesy The Island

December 11, 2017, 9:05 pm
In the wake of the most recent challenge by Lord Naseby in the House of Lords to the oft touted claim of 40,000 civilian deaths, the former Secretary to the Consultative Task Force for Reconciliation Mechanisms, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu has called for setting up a Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and Non-Recurrence Commission (TJRNRC) to address accountability issues and included Section 5 of the of the Consultative Task Force (CTF) report, in his response (The Island, December 4, 2017). Relevant paragraphs of Section 5are as follows:

article_image

5.3: “The CTF is of the opinion that at a minimum, the purpose TJRNRC must be to establish the truth of what happened in the conflict in Sri Lanka…”.

5.4: “Truth in this context entails responsibility but establishing criminal responsibility, i.e. the determination of who is a perpetrator, is best suited to a judicial mechanism or the existing judicial system…”.

5.5: “The CTF recommends that the Truth Commission conduct investigations in order to find the truth and share information relating to criminal conduct with a prosecutorial body”.

5.11: “Given the importance of ascertaining the truth it is imperative that the Truth Commission has a strong investigating unit made up of researches with relevant skills including in the law, history, anthropology, forensics, criminology, sociology, psychology and sociology…”.

ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS

Before considering the need for a full scale investigation, a few essential and relevant parameters need to be established to guide a Truth Commission.

They are as follows:

1. The time frame of any truth seeking exercise should be that referred to in the Resolution 30/1, which is the time period covered by the LLRC – February 22, 2002 to May 19, 2009 (Para. 7).

2. The Panel of Experts, i.e., the Darusman Panel, appointed by the UN Secretary General states: “There is no doubt that an internal armed conflict was being waged in Sri Lanka with the requisite intensity during the period that the Panel examined. As a result, international humanitarian law is the law against which to measure the conduct of both the Government and the LTTE”.

3. Paragraphs 175, 182 and 183 of the OISL report prepared for the Human Rights Council by the Office of the UN High Commissioner states:

Para. 175: “OISL notes that Sri Lanka has submitted a Declaration of State of emergency, dated 30 May 2000, derogating from articles 9 (2), 12 (1), 12 (2), 14 (3), 17(1), 19 (2), 21 and 22 of the ICCPR. Measures taken pursuant to derogation are lawful to the extent they comply with the conditions set out in international human rights law”.

Para. 182: “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflicts not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka, with all parties to the conflict being bound to respect the guarantees pertaining to the treatment of civilians and persons hors de combat contained therein. Common Article 3 binds all parties to the conflict to respect, as a minimum, that persons taking no direct part in hostilities as well as those placed hors de combat shall be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction”.

Para. 183: “In addition, the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by the relevant rules of customary international law applicable in non-international armed conflict”.

4. The Darusman Panel further states that their mandate did “not extend to fact-finding or investigation”. It “determined an allegation to be credible if there was a reasonable basis to believe that the underlying act or event occurred. Allegations are considered as credible in this respect only when based on primary sources that the Panel deemed relevant and trustworthy”. Since this evidence is archived until 2031, access to such evidence is not available.

5. The OISL report states that it is a “desk review of existing material”. This included access to the documentation gathered by the Darusman Panel that is presently archived until 2031.

SUMMARIZING the above.

(a) Time frame for the Truth Commission is February 22, 2002 to May 9, 2009.

(b) Applicable law is international humanitarian law.

(c) Alleged violations should therefore be judged ONLY in terms of violations of international humanitarian law and NOT in terms of human rights and humanitarian law as applicable in resolution 30/1, in view of paragraph 175 of the OISL report.

(d) All allegations of violations were based on evidence considered “credible” by the Darusman Panel. Interpreting as to what is “credible evidence” is highly subjective, judging from the subsequent conduct of members of the Panel.

(e) The OISL report is based on a “desk review” of existing material including Government publications, international and Sri Lankan NGO/civil society reports, the reports of LLRC and other commissions etc., and above all, material considered credible by the Darusman Panel together with documentation they had accessed in the material archived until 2031.

DETERMINING the TRUTH

There is considerable variation in the estimates of the number of civilian deaths. Paragraph 137 of the Darusman Panel report states: “In the limited surveys that have carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead civilians is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths…”. Therefore by the Darusman Panel’s own admission, the estimate of 40,000 civilian deaths is not based on “a reasonable basis that that the underlying act or event occurred”, but is based on sources they considered to be credible.

Estimates of other sources such as the UN Country team, UN spokesman Gordon Weiss, US Department of State, International Crisis group are only a fraction of the 40,000 estimated from credible sources in the Darusman Panel report. The most recent estimate is 7,000 to 8,000 from Lord Naseby, based on highly redacted dispatches of the British Attache, Lieutenant Colonel Anton Gash.

In view of the range of these estimates, there is a need for an independent national judicial mechanism as stated in the President’s 100 Day Programme, to review the background material relating to these numbers. Such a Commission should address accountability on the basis of a desk review of all existing material in reports of the LLRC, the Darusman Panel, the OISL and the Paranagama Commission, together with all inter-governmental material available in the public domain, the most recent being that presented by Lord Naseby to the House of Lords. This should include all the “credible evidence” currently archived with the UN High Commission. Denial of access to this evidence should be grounds to reject all conclusions reached based on these materials.

Such an approach is justified since the mandate to the Darusman Panel “does not extend to fact-finding or investigations” (Framework of the Panel’s work). In the absence of even prima facie evidence as to the credibility of the evidence, to engage in a strong investigative unit as recommended by the CTF (5.11) would amount to the accused having to defend charges that are not based on fact or investigation, but only on what a prejudiced Panel whose credibility itself is questionable, considers “credible”. This is further justified because the LTTE members who were perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who gave the orders to commit international humanitarian violations cannot be identified or located. A full scale investigation is also not warranted since such investigations could overlap with investigations relating to Missing Persons.

The constitutional provision in Article 13 (5) that “Every person shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty”, is violated if a full investigation is initiated on charges that are not based on prima facie evidence. The additional constitutional provision in Article 13 (5) of “Provided that the burden of proving particular facts may, by law, be placed on an accused person” does not apply, since no laws exist in Sri Lanka relating to international humanitarian law which incidentally should be the basis for determining the truth.

REMIT to NATIONAL JUDICIAL MECHANISM

The remit to the national judicial mechanism should be that it addresses accountability as two distinct and separate undertakings.

One undertaking should address the overall conduct of the armed conflict by the security forces and by the LTTE in terms of international humanitarian law. The task for the national judicial mechanism would then be to conduct a desk review of existing evidence to ascertain whether there were any violations of international humanitarian law by the security forces or by the LTTE. The context of such an assessment should be that each party to the conflict isThe second undertaking should address whether prima facie evidence exists relating to individual acts that amount to violations of international humanitarian law, and if so, such materials should be handed over to existing judicial mechanisms in Sri Lanka for necessary action, under provisions of local law. Since this may require assessing the credibility of some of the evidence during the course of a desk review, it would be necessary for arrangements to be made for the protection of those who furnish such evidence.

CONCLUSION

The proposals made herein are limited to issues relating to the UNHRC resolution 30/1 with a focus on addressing the vastly divergent assessments in the estimates of the civilian deaths in the context of international humanitarian law. The recommendation by the Consultative Task Force for a full scale investigating unit to find the truth and identify perpetrators is unwarranted for three reasons:

(i) the LTTE who perpetrated violations of international humanitarian law cannot be held responsible since they cannot be located or identified, (ii) since charges against the Sri Lankan government are based on oral evidence and desk reviews of such evidence, the same methodology should be deployed to address the charges leveled against the government (iii) such an investigation could overlap with investigations relating to Missing Persons.

Therefore, the rational approach for a independent nation judicial mechanism should be a desk review of existing material as two distinct and separate undertakings where one undertaking addresses allegations relating to the conduct of the armed conflict by the security forces and the LTTE within the context of international humanitarian law, and the other undertaking addresses individual acts of violation to establish prima facie evidence that could be passed on to existing judicial mechanisms.

Instead of being process driven, recommendations, whatever they are, should be pragmatic and not lose sight of the objective which in this instance, is reconciliation.

Neville Ladduwahetty

December 11, 2017.

No Comments »

Lord Naseby responds to British High Commission, Colombo; sends wartime dispatches to UN

December 11th, 2017

Courtesy The Island

December 11, 2017, 10:37 pm
Lord Naseby has expressed disappointment over the British High Commission, in Colombo, callously dismissing wartime dispatches from its own Defence Attache, Colonel Anton Gash.

Apropos a response from the British High Commission in Colombo to a query raised by the The Island, in its Dec 5, 2017 issue, headlined ‘Naseby’s call doesn’t reflect UK’s stand – HC’, Lord Naseby told The Island he had forwarded a full set of papers consisting of the Hansard transcript of the debate he had initiated in the House of Lords on October 12, the entire copies of the heavily redacted pages of Col Gash’s dispatches, his interpretation of the un-redacted parts and the substantial corroborative evidence from many other sources to the Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres; the Human Rights team at the UNHRC in Geneva, namely the High Commissioner, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and the nine UN Special Procedures mandate holders, each of whom have visited Sri Lanka in their official capacity.

article_image

The following is the full text of Lord Naseby’s statement received by The Island:

“The resolution 30/1 entitled ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ emphasized the need for truth-seeking, among others, as an important element in the overall quest to promote reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. The UK government was one of the initiators and a co-sponsor of the resolution. The despatches by Col Anton Gash, the former defence attaché of the British High Commission, constitutes an important element in the process of truth-seeking and should be of interest to all those who genuinely seek a clear picture of what happened during the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka. It is therefore disappointing that the British High Commission fails to acknowledge the importance of the despatches of its own former defence attaché and the insight that is provided by his communications with the British Government.

“While not expressly stated so in the resolution, those who have closely followed events in Sri Lanka after the end of the conflict would agree that the basis for the successive resolutions on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council stemmed from the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity (and in some quarters ‘genocide’) said to have been committed by the Sri Lankan armed forces and the LTTE. Especially, the Report of the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, commonly known as the ‘Darusman Report’, alleged that ‘a number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths’ (para 137), mostly as a result of indiscriminate shelling by the Sri Lankan military. Therefore, the number of civilians killed forms a very important element in truth-seeking especially when the difference is over 30,000.

“While Lord Naseby does not take issue with those advocating reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka including the need to investigate any allegations of human rights violations, Lord Naseby does take issue with those in authority be they the UK government or any other Government as well as the UN and particularly the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council in Geneva if they appear to be ignoring the above context behind the resolution as well as circumvent the significance of the insight provided by Col. Anton Gash which corroborate a large number of other sources that confirm a casualty figure of around 7,000-8,000 (of which about 20% were LTTE cadres who are said to have thrown away their uniforms resulting in Tamil civilian casualties of about 6,500).

“Lord Naseby is concerned that the principles of natural justice are possibly being disregarded as the Gash Despatches reveal that British authorities knew that the estimates propagated by the Darusman Report were based on flawed information. The FCO had this information at their disposal to disprove some of the Darusman Report’s contentions, especially to counter that the estimated casualty figures could not have been as high as 40,000. Almost every western media report to this day, continues to quote this high estimate of 40,000 for war casualties, without questioning its reliability, whilst failing to mention the numerous other independent assessments, from sources who were present on the ground in Sri Lanka during 2009, that consistently point to an estimated death toll in the region of 7,000 – 8,000. In its search for the truth, it would seem morally improper that UK should have allowed the Darusman Report to have been used without contention and facilitated subsequent resolutions on Sri Lanka to have been formulated using estimates that starkly contradicted Britain’s own evidence. After not disclosing its own military attaché’s evidence to the Human Rights Commission, the FCO then took the unhelpful step of attempting to suppress this information when Lord Naseby sought a Freedom of Information request. Britain’s motives in playing a prominent role in seeking and encouraging UNHRC Resolutions on Sri Lanka since 2009 that sought to establish the truth regarding allegations of Human Rights violations, whilst at the same time effectively prohibiting its own relevant information from being considered by the Human Rights Commission, may need to be called into question. Lord Naseby fought for the full disclosure of the Gash Despatches, yet this was not finally granted as the Information Commission Tribunal sided with the FCO, which insisted on heavy redactions being maintained. Nevertheless the redacted Gash Despatches do provide an invaluable insight.

“Lord Naseby acknowledges that the death of any civilians is deeply regrettable however, it is noted that this was an armed conflict between a democratically elected government and a terrorist outfit, the Tamil Tigers, who were proscribed by leading nations including most of those supporting the resolution. It is inevitable that armed conflicts create casualties, made worse in this case by 300,000 Tamil civilians being herded into a war zone against their will by the Tamil Tigers. In effect, this was a mass hostage situation and the Sri Lankan armed forces took action to release the Tamil civilians. Despite this evidence, the casualties remained remarkably low. Moreover, there is nothing from the UK’s own defence specialist, who was allowed access to the theatres of the conflict in 2009, which indicates that Sri Lanka’s security forces were directed by their government to break the principles of conducting operations in a way that was beyond the bounds of military necessity, nor that Sri Lanka’s armed forces did not take due diligence to avoid civilian casualties by conducting their operations with regard for distinction and proportionality. The British government should acknowledge the evidence of their own military attaché whilst continuing to wholeheartedly support the UN Resolution in collaboration with Sri Lanka to secure a long term sustainable peace for all communities on the island.

“Therefore, Lord Naseby wishes to reiterate that the context is vital to any possible war crime prosecution that may arise and 40,000 or more civilian deaths could be tantamount to genocide and/or crimes against humanity if proven that it was part of government policy to do so. However, a casualty figure of 6,500 is a totally different scale beyond the scope of such atrocities, while acknowledging that there may have been certain individual incidents that may perhaps constitute to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

“It should be noted that at no stage has Lord Naseby attempted to claim that the Gash Despatches show that the civilian casualties were “trivial” or that these matters should not be investigated. On the contrary, in common with most observers and other nations who supported the resolution, Lord Naseby urges Sri Lanka’s authorities to honour their commitments to the UN Human Rights Council by conducting credible investigations and where there are incidents that their security forces may have committed alleged violations, then the appropriate due processes of justice should follow.

“It is against this background that Lord Naseby last week forwarded a full set of papers consisting of: the Hansard transcript of the debate he initiated in the House of Lords on October 12th, the entire copies of the heavily redacted pages of Col Gash’s despatches, in itself only available after nearly 3 years of persistent challenging of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, his interpretation of the un-redacted parts and the substantial corroborative evidence from many other sources. These were all sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres; the Human Rights team at the UNHRC in Geneva, namely the High Commissioner, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and the nine UN Special Procedures mandate holders, each of whom have visited Sri Lanka in their official capacity. They all received a personal letter from Lord Naseby outlining the key issue of the hugely misleading figure in the Darusman Report of 40,000 Tamil civilians killed whereas the truth is about 6,500 and seeking their support for a correction.

“Lord Naseby makes it quite clear that he shall pursue every organisation and the persons involved to ensure that the Darusman Report figure on civilian casualties is publicly amended to reflect that the truth about an estimated 6,500 Tamil civilians who died at the end of the Sri Lanka conflict. Truth must and will win out however inconvenient that may be to the authorities. A guiding light for Lord Naseby in all this has been a quote attributed to be by Mahatma Gandhi: “First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh at You, Then They Attack You, Then You Win.”

No Comments »

Prez engineers more defections: Udaya sounds warning to JO

December 11th, 2017

By Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

December 11, 2017, 10:29 pm

Deputy Leader of the breakaway JVP faction National Freedom Front (NFF) parliamentarian Weerakumara Dissanayake yesterday received SLFP membership from President and SLFP leader Maithripala Sirisena.

Former MP and Chairman of NFF Piyasiri Wijenayake and North Central Province PC member P. B. Kumara, too, received SLFP membership.

Anuradhapura District MP Dissanayake switched his allegiance to President Sirisena close on the heels of another UPFA MP Sriyani Wijewickrema belonging to Mahajana Eksath Peramuna representing the Digamadulla electoral district deserting the JO.

A senior spokesperson for the NFF yesterday told The Island that the party was confident Dissanayake’s move wouldn’t cause a major problem.

article_image

The NFF parliamentary group originally comprised five members, Wimal Weerawansa, Weerakumara Dissanayake, Padma Udaya Shantha, Niroshan Premaratne and Jayantha Samaraweera.

The NFF official said that the party would field candidates under the banner of Podujana Peramuna in all districts except in the North and Batticaloa.

Meanwhile, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader MP Udaya Gammanpila lashed out at the coalition for creating a situation that led to MP Wijewickrema quitting the JO. Addressing the media at PHU office at Pita Kotte, Gammanpila said that Wijewickrema was the only woman MP to address their inaugural rally at Nugegoda on Feb 18, 2015. Unfortunately, the way she had been treated at meetings of the Digamadulla nominations committee finally led to her move, MP Gammanpila alleged.

Gammanpila quoted MP Wijewickrema as having told Ampara District leaders last Saturday at the final meeting of the nominations board that even a killing could take place unless issues could be settled amicably. Emphasizing that he under no circumstances endorsed MP Wijewickrema’s demands pertaining to nominations, the MP said that she should have been given an opportunity to present her case.

Gammanpila claimed that former MP and NFF member Jayantha Wijesekera, too, had joined the SLFP as he was deprived of an opportunity to discuss problems for three days. Had the leadership addressed Wijesekera’s concerns, he wouldn’t have abandoned the JO, he said.

Declaring that his party would field candidates in 13 districts, MP Gammanpila said that he had recently clashed with UPFA heavyweight MP Bandula Gunawardena to ensure justice for another party. Gammanpila said the issue arose over allocation of time and space at meetings in the Homagama electorate.

Gammanpila said he didn’t want to name those responsible for the situation as such discourse could cause more desertions.

The PHU leader warned of dire consequences unless all parties reached consensus on nominations and prevent their members switching allegiance simply on the basis of not receiving nominations. The MP said the Podujana Peramuna was really struggling to accommodate requests as the outfit was overwhelmed with prospective candidates.

1 Comment »

Who birthed LTTE & Tamil Militancy & who later adopted it?

December 11th, 2017

Shenali D Waduge

The world is demanding to know how and who killed the LTTE. Based on this same logic shouldn’t we have the right to know who created, who funded, who armed, who financially supported, who provided logistics & material support, who promoted & campaigned on behalf of the LTTE? The beginning of the story should matter more than the end. A new government must hold a Commission of Inquiry into how LTTE terrorism started and all the stake holders involved.

What is curious is that the Tamil New Tigers (TNT) was launched on 22 May 1972 the same day as the Republican Constitution of Sri Lanka by V. Prabakaran who was barely 18 years at the time. It was on 17 September 1972 that the TNT bombed a carnival held at the preset Duraiappah Stadium. Where did Prabakaran get the bombs? Is it a coincidence that Prabakaran traveled to India before forming TNT? Coincidentally TNT also stands for explosives! Why did Prabakaran spend two years in India and returned only in 1974?

Within months of returning Prabakaran’s first victim became the Mayor of Jaffna – Alfred Duraiappah in July 1975. The killing of M Canagaratnam TULF MP who joined UNP in Colombo in January 1978 became LTTE’s 1st attack outside North East Sri Lanka. In April LTTE murdered 9 Tamil policemen including Inspector Bastianpillai when they raided a LTTE training camp. In May 1978 the JR Government proscribed LTTE and Prabakaran was included into a list of 38 wanted men. That didn’t stop LTTE from blasting the Air Ceylon aircraft the very day JR Government introduced its new constitution on 7 September 1978.

Tamil New Tigers became rechristened LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) on 5 May 1976 same time as the Vaddukoddai Resolution. Note timing of the formation of the TNT on the same day as the Republican Constitution and the formation of LTTE & Vaddukoddai Resolution just before a major shift in Sri Lanka’s political system with the 1977 elections & another constitution in 1978 barely 6 years after its first constitution.

LTTE was not the only militant outfit – EROS Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students or Eelam Revolutionary Organisers was formed in London in 1975 by Eliyathamby Ratnasabapathy and its student wing-the General Union of Eelam Students (GUES) was subsequently formed in Madras. EROS and GUES split and formed EPRLF – K. Padmanabha was its leader.

How and who helped them link up with the Palestinian Liberation Organization as PLO provided EROS and LTTE training in Lebanon.

What is interesting is that Tamils in both India & Sri Lanka have been peddling pseudo-historical interpretations to justify a homeland & self-determination. Can the same race evolve in two separate countries demanding homelands using the same criteria? In India Tamil angst was against Hindi domination while in Sri Lanka it was against Sinhalese majority. India dealt with separatism through 16th amendment while Sri Lanka brought the 6th amendment.

What needs to be reiterated is that India’s discussions on the Tamil issue with the Sri Lankan counterparts came ONLY AFTER Tamil militants emerged from training in India and after creating a path to use Tamil Nadu as a logistics hub & support base. India obviously found a great means to exert diplomatic pressure upon a geopolitically vulnerable neighbor.

There are reasons to claim India had a role in the creation of Tamil militancy.

JN Dixit, Indian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka’s interview in 1985 claims India decided to stop training & assistance to Sri Lankan Tamil Groups – it confirmed India had been both training & providing assistance to Tamil groups. www.rediff.com

Dixit’s memoirs also speak of arming Sri Lankan Tamil youth claiming it a policy blunder of PM Indira. these boys who were trained by us from 1977” (Dixit, Assignment Colombo) Though India claimed to have stopped material support by Wikileaks cable of 5 April 1988 quotes Dixit agreeing to pay LTTE Rs.5m per month from July 1987 onwards. LTTE also got Rs.110m from MGR Ramachandran Tamil Nadu Chief Minister according to Mark Salter, author of ‘To end a civil war, Norway’s Peace Engagement in Sri Lanka”. www.ceylontoday.lk and explains why JRJ labelled LTTE as ‘the private army of MG Ramachandran’. LTTE too confirms exchange of money MGR gave us Rs.6 crore’ expressindia.indianexpress.com

That India did not trust Prabakaran completely is established in the manner RAW chief Gauri Shankar Bajpai admitted Col Kittu (Sathasivam Krishnakumar) was used as an Indian mole inside the LTTE. This was confirmed by RAW chief Gauri Shankar Bajpai in his affidavit to the Jain Commission. He was not India’s only mole – Mahaththaya, Prabakaran’s deputy was also kept to secure India’s interests. timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Karunanidhi in his affidavit to the Jain Commission says It is a well-known fact that the LTTE and other Sri Lankan Militant camps were established in India ever since 1982 in tune with the policy of the Central Government at that time. The Tamil militants were given military training and allowed to have their own training camps in India”.

The affidavit of Shri K Mohandas Director General Police (Para 13 Jain Commission) is noteworthy ….The issue had become very sensitive, and meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s advisors were working overtime, giving facilities to the militants, particularly the TELO (Tamil Ealam Liberation Organisation) to be trained in the use of modern arms in the camps organised in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, New Delhi and elsewhere. The idea was that after the training, they would be supplied with arms and sent to Northern Sri Lanka to engage the Sri Lankan troops in guerrilla action. It was supposed to be a top secret operation without even the knowledge of the State Government and its Intelligence agency. (at least as far as Tamil Nadu was concerned.”

The Jain Commission report gives lists of where Tamils were trained & by whom. India stands guilty.

Is this not state sponsored terrorism?

India’s former Union Law Minister Ram Jethmalani is also on record to say PM Indira created LTTE to protect Indian interests at a time China & Pakistan were establishing power in Sri Lanka.

Was it not on this backdrop that the Indo-Lanka Accord was forced upon Sri Lanka after threatening Sri Lanka when it cornered Prabakaran in Vadamarachchi in May 1987? Had Prabakaran been caught by the Sri Lankan Troops we would not have had to endure murders & mayhem from 1987 to 2009.

Having thus placed men in arms in the Jaffna peninsula with the insinuation that Sinhalese in particular the military was not welcome it is important to note that it was the Indo-Lanka Accord that officially peddled the notion of North East being traditional homeland of Tamil speaking people. Baffling is why UNP Govt and key advisors agreed to accept such a false & mythical notion as it is was on this false basis that the N-E was merged though in reality we know that the merger came because Trinco harbor that India wanted was in the East of Sri Lanka and the subtle way to merge territory was by claiming a false territory. The 13th amendment and its clauses in particular land & police are all Indian-drafted and these are all in India’s interests by using Tamils & Tamil politicians to demand its full implementation as a proxy. Who stands to gain from full implementation of 13a – Tamils or India. The answer is clear.

India therefore stands guilty of not only helping nurture armed militancy but officially endorsing a false homeland concept that was purely made for India’s geopolitical advantage. If India had wanted to create a Bangladesh out of Sri Lanka’s northern or eastern territory it would have done so but in the case of Tamils & Sikhs we see the Indian Centre adopting a different strategy & tactic.

Nevertheless, militants and militancy is not easy to handle. The orphans created don’t necessarily remain with their adopted mother. History has many examples of how monsters have changed hands. Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Hosni Mubarak and Gaddafi were all CIA assets later gone astray. Similarly, it is important to capture the timeline of LTTE and Prabakaran being 100% in control of India and thereafter straying to other foster parents.

When did LTTE move hands from being 100% controlled by India to being controlled by West & the Church?

Not very many terrorists are lucky to have their leaders funerals held in Norway and their diplomats sobbing before the coffin! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqC9DmDWhA Not many foreign envoys shed tears and give emotional interviews bemoaning they did not spend much time with Prabakaran http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2017/08/20/i-regret-we-could-not-spend-more-time-with-prabhakaran-says-erick-solheim/

You don’t see Church Fathers/Sisters taking part in LTTE demonstrations, keeping orphaned children to be handed as child soldiers when needed, even placing their names on petitions against a sovereign government or using their NGOs to help LTTE advance their agendas while they themselves carry out their conversion & destroying of Eastern cultures agendas. If this allegation is not true why has the Vatican not taken action against those in robes that have been openly promoting the LTTE. The Vatican has not even investigated their links to terror.

https://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/tamil-eelam-a-church-funded-political-project-shenali-waduge/

https://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/world-vision-christian-ngo-engaged-in-culture-murder-not-social-service-v-k-shashikumar/

Pictures speak a thousand words https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2016/09/26/ltte-terrorism-church-links-can-someone-explain-these-photos/

In determining when LTTE moved away from India to become the orphan of the West the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi is important. Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination continues to be plagued in controversy. It came close on the heels of the Bofors scam. While every unexpected murder is shrouded in controversy and conspiracy theories Rajiv’s death is no different & also points to Church & NIS links to LTTE contract. http://postcard.news/untold-story-insider-plotted-rajiv-gandhis-murder/ When nothing is in black and white these versions should not be brushed aside. Rajiv’s wife a staunch Catholic eventually went on to lead Congress though Subramaniam Swamy has made allegations against her for linking with LTTE to smuggle Indian artefacts out of India & sold in Italy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oYZJeXZOuE

It is curious to note the many Christian/Catholic NGOs operating in the North throughout the period LTTE ran its defacto rule. It was always the Church heads who were at the forefront of demands made by LTTE when in reality 90% of the Tamil populace were Hindus. There were no Hindu religious leaders coming forward on behalf of Tamils. All of the LTTE fronts that emerged after the elimination of the LTTE leader in 2009 were all domiciled overseas most holding foreign passports and openly advocating a separate state. Even after proscribing 16 entities as LTTE fronts in 2014 no foreign government chose to investigate their links to terrorism and providing material support. A handful of arrests over the years have all that has been done. The Australian woman who trained children and women to become suicide bombers & commit suicide when caught remains happily in the UK.

The West has shown no sincerity to their own claimed ‘war on terror’ and most of these LTTE front heads are seen regularly visiting and striking relationships with not only UN officials but foreign MPs as well. With the power of their illegal and illicit international network covering money laundering, credit card scams, human smuggling, narcotics etc they have been able to virtually purchase these foreign players to speak on behalf of them – the coterie of such includes foreign MPs, UN officials, authors, media etc and these are all part of a bigger nexus that has nothing to do with giving people self-determination or a homeland. People and issues are simply a means of advancing and camouflaging bigger objectives and motives. All LTTE fronts are operating from Western countries whose intelligence are well aware of what they are up to.

If India used Tamils and Tamil grievances to arm twist Sri Lanka to sign the Indo-Lanka Accord, change constitution and introduce 13th amendment, pushed bogus homeland theories to justify merging two provinces which had Trinco harbor and is now pushing for ETCA for Indians to legally invade Sri Lanka and attempting to take Mattala, Sampur and other strategic assets it is no different to how the West and India combined to push the Cease Fire Agreement that placed terrorists on par with a national army and virtually gave territory to terrorists officially.

Therefore, it is interesting to not only know how and why Tamil militancy emerged but whether its setting up by India had a foreign connection or link to it initially. We cannot omit to take stock of the fact that South India launched its self-determination bid far before it started in Sri Lanka. That connectivity in palming off India’s headache to Sri Lanka cannot be ruled out. There is little doubt that India stands guilty of fostering terrorism and India is no amateur at it either as Sri Lanka was not its first case of arming insurgents. The other important question is exactly when did LTTE get re-adopted and aligned to Western & Church objectives and without LTTE leader and key ground force leaders, what role or clout India has and was it because India was losing control that it indirectly wanted LTTE eliminated because by that time India had made the necessary moves to politically and economically entrap Sri Lanka.

Let’s not forget that if, even within LTTE there had been moles and agents as had been in the case of other Tamil militant groups, even governments also have moles and paid agents therefore even a national policy is likely to get hijacked and waylaid by these politicians on foreign payroll and agent advisors & consultants.

Be that as it may only a Commission of Inquiry with a mandate to investigate how Terrorism started, who started it, who helped indirectly & directly will spill the beans on every individual, organization, politician, military personnel, state officials, foreigners, NGOs, INGOs, UN, foreign MPs, foreign governments that had been involved. That such an inquiry was proposed immediately after the military defeat of LTTE in May 2009 and stopped by most-likely paid agents & advisors goes to show that while we fervently want to know the truth, those who claim to want to know the truth do their utmost to hide the truth because they have played a role in it. Such are the hypocrisies that prevail.

Nevertheless, we can confidently assume that India, the West, Foreign Governments, the Church, nexus of illegal international players have all been involved and had played a role in Tamil militancy and the existence of these high profile players explains why no action was ever taken against LTTE other than cosmetic bans confined to paper only.

Shenali D Waduge

15 Comments »

ඇල්ලේ ගුණවංශ හිමි කී සුළුකොට තැකිය නොහැකි දේ

December 10th, 2017

1 Comment »

අරලියගහ මැඳුරට කැඳවා අගමැති හාමුදුරුවන්ට පගාව දුන්නා

December 10th, 2017

 ලසිත දුමින්ද

මෙලෙස මුදල් දීම අවභාවිතාවක්‌ නොවේද? බෙංගමුවේ නාලක හිමි
අගමැති පිංකමක්‌ කරන වෙලාවේදීත් මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂට මඩ ගහනවා – ගලගම ධම්මරංසි හිමි

bengamu

ජනතාවගේ කැමැත්තක්‌ නොමැති ආණ්‌ඩුව අද විහාරස්‌ථාන මාර්ගයෙන් ජනතා කැමැත්ත දිනා ගැනීමේ අසාර්ථක උත්සාහයක නිරතව සිටින බව ජාතික හිමිකම් සංවිධානයේ සභාපති බෙංගමුවේ නාලක හිමියෝ පැවැසූහ. 
 
 නාරාහේන්පිට අභයාරාමයේ ඊයේ (08 වැනිදා) පැවැති මාධ්‍ය හමුවකදී එසේ සඳහන් කළ ජාතික හිමිකම් සංවිධානයේ සභාපති බෙංගමුවේ නාලක හිමි මෙසේද පැවැසූහ.
 
 අගමැතිතුමනි, මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂ මහතා මොනවද කළේ අතුරලියේ රතන හිමි දන්නවා. උන්වහන්සේගේ පන්සල සකස්‌ කළේ පසුගිය රජයයි. එහෙම කරගත් රතන හිමි අද පසුගිය රජයට විරුද්ධව එකතු වුණා. මේවා ජනතාව දන්නවා. 850 ක්‌ පමණ වූ භික්‍ෂුන් වහන්සේලා අරලියගහ මන්දිරයට වැඩම කරවලා උන්වහන්සේලාට මුදල් දීම පගාවක්‌ විදිහටයි අපි දකින්නේ. ඉදිරියේ ඡන්දයක්‌ තියාගෙන හාමුදුරුවරුන්ට පගාවක්‌ දීලා, හාමුදුරුවන් හරහා පළාත් පාලන ආයතනවලට ඡන්දය ගන්නයි මේ පගාව දුන්නේ. මෙහෙම මුදල් දීමට ඉඩදීම ගැන අනාගතයේදී මැතිවරණ කොමසාරිස්‌වරයාට කරුණු කියන්න සිද්ධ වෙයි. හදිසියේම ඇයි හාමුදුරුවන්ට සල්ලි දුන්නේ. කෝටි 40 ක්‌ ආණ්‌ඩුව මේකට වියදම් කරලා. ඒක මුදල් අවභාවිතා කිරීමක්‌ නෙමෙයිද? 
 
 අගමැතිවරයා හිතන් ඉන්නවා ආණ්‌ඩුවට මහජනතාවගේ කැමැත්තක්‌ තිබෙනවා කියලා. නමුත් ජනතා කැමැත්තක්‌ නැහැ. ඡන්දයකට මෙතෙක්‌ කල් නොගිහින් හිටියේ ඒ ජනතා කැමැත්ත නැතිබව දැනගත් නිසයි. දැන් කොහොම හරි පන්සල් මාර්ගයෙන් ඡන්දය ගන්න බලනවා. අරලියගහ මන්දිරයට වැඩම කළ හාමුදුරුවරුන්ගෙන් හතර පස්‌ දෙනෙක්‌ ඇරෙන්න අනිත් කිසිම හිමිනමක්‌ ආණ්‌ඩුවට ඡන්දය දෙන්නැයි කියලා කියන්නේ නැහැ. ඒ පැත්තෙන්
 
 විළිලැඡ්ජා නැති අගමැතිවරයාගේ උත්සාහයත් අසාර්ථකයි. අපි මහා සංඝරත්නයෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටිනවා බෙදුම්වාදයට උඩගෙඩි දෙන වැඩවලට සහාය නොදෙන ලෙසට. ඒ වරද නොකරයි කියා අපි විශ්වාස කරනවා. අගමැතිවරයා නමින් බෞද්ධ වුණාට එතුමාට පව් පින් තේරෙන්නේ නැහැ. මේ රජයෙන් ආගමට වූ සෙතක්‌ නැහැ. උතුරේ බුදු පිළිම ඉවත් කරනවා. බෙදුම්වාදයට කප්පම් දෙමින් ආණ්‌ඩුව කටයුතු කරනවා. 
 
 එදා අරලියගහ මන්දිරයට වැඩම කළ සිටි මහා සංඝරත්නය අපි දැක්‌කා. ගොඩක්‌ දෙනෙක්‌ අලුතින් පන්සල් හදාගත් හිමිවරුන්. අපි ඒ ගැන කියමින් උඩ බලාගෙන කෙළගසා ගන්නේ නැහැ. බයට වඩා ලැඡ්ජා නැති අගමැතිවරයෙක්‌ යටතේ තමයි අද මේ රට පාලනය වෙන්නේ. රටේ ජනාධිපතිවරයාත් දන්නවා හිටපු රජය කළ දේවල් ගැන. එතුමා පත්තරෙන් දැක්‌කා කියා විහිළු සපයන්න එපා. 
 
 දේශවිමුක්‌ති පක්‍ෂයේ නියෝජ්‍ය නායක ගලගම ධම්මරංසි හිමි –
 
 අරලියගහ මන්දිරයට අපේ මහා සංඝරත්නය වැඩම කරවලා දුන් මුදල් අපේ පන්සල්වලම මුදල්. ඒ මුදල් පිං කැටවල මුදල්. පන්සලේ පිං කැටවල මුදල් එකතු කරලා ආයෙත් පන්සල්වලටම දීපු එකයි කළේ. එහෙම කළ එක ගැන සතුටු වෙනවා. නමුත් අගමැතිවරයා මේ ස්‌ථානයේදී කළේ වෛරී සහගත ප්‍රකාශ. අපි ඒවා පිළිකුළෙන් යුතුව හෙළාදකිනවා. පිංකමක්‌ කරන වෙලාවේ ක්‍රෝධය, වෛරය පතුරවමින් මේ රටට විශාල මෙහෙවරක්‌ ඉටු කළ මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂ මහතාට මඩ ගහන එක තමයි කළේ. 
 
 මේ රටේ සමස්‌ත භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේලා හිටපු ජනාධිපතිවරයාට ආදරෙයි. එතුමා රට, ජාතිය වෙනුවෙන් විශාල මෙහෙවරක්‌ කළා. මුළු චරිතය පුරාම ශ්‍රද්ධාව තිබෙනවා. නාමිකව බෞද්ධ වූ අගමැතිවරයාට සදාචාර අයිතියක්‌ නැහැ හිටපු ජනාධිපතිවරයාට භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේලා ඉදිරියේ එහෙම ප්‍රකාශ කරන්න. සංඝයා වහන්සේලා භාවිතා කරගෙන තම දේශපාලන අරමුණු ඉටු කර ගැනීමේ පරමාර්ථයෙන් තමයි ඒ වැඩපිළිවෙළ ගෙන ගියේ.

2 Comments »

දෙයියන්ටම ඔප්පු වෙච්චාවේ (හාල් පොල් පිටරටින්)

December 10th, 2017

කතු වැකිය උපුටා ගැන්ම දිවයින

වගාවට මුල්තැන දෙන සංස්‌කෘතියක්‌ හදන්නට, ගොවියා රජ කරවන්නට, රට සහලින් ස්‌වයංපෝෂිත කරවන්නට පැමිණි යහපාලන ආණ්‌ඩුව හාල්, පොල්, පිටරටින් ගෙන්වන්නට සැරසෙන බව කියෑවේ. ඉස්‌සර නම් කීවේ ‘හඳෙන් ගෙනැවිත්’ හෝ හාල් දෙන බවය. එහෙව් එකේ පිටරටින් හෝ හාල් පොල් ගෙන්වීමට තීරණය කිරීම ගැන අපේ අහිතක්‌ නැත. එහෙත් දුකට කාරණාවක්‌ තිබේ. එනම් තේ, පොල්, රබර් අපනයනය කරන්නට නම් දරාපු රටකට පොල් පිටරටින් ආනයනය කරන්නට සිදුවීමය. හාල් අතිරික්‌තයක්‌ ඇතැයි කියන, ඒ අතිරික්‌තය බියර් හදන්නට විකුණන රටකට හාල් පිටරටින් ගෙන්වන්නට සිදුවීමය. විශාල කරදරයක්‌ සිදු වූ විට එලොව පොල් පෙනුණා යනුවෙන් කියන කතාවද, කුමක්‌ හෝ පිස්‌සුවක්‌ නටන පුද්ගලයකුට දෙයියන්ගේ හාල් කැවිලා යෑයි කියන කතාවද ඉදිරියේදී කියන්නට තරමක්‌ ලැඡ්ජා සිතේ.

 කෙසේ හෝ හාල් පොල් පිටරටින් ගෙන්වන්නට තීරණය කළ ආණ්‌ඩුව ස්‌ථිරවම එකක්‌ පිළිගෙන තිබේ. එනම් ජීවන වියදම ඉහළ ගොස්‌ ඇති බවය. ඒවා පිටරටින් ගෙන්වන්නට කැබිනට්‌ තීරණය ලැබෙන්නේ ද ජීවන වියදම සියයට 60 ක්‌ ඉහළ යැම නිසා බව වාර්තා විය.
 
 ජීවන වියදම ‘බැලන්ස්‌’ කරන්නට ගත් ඉක්‌මන් ක්‍රියාමාර්ග ගැන ආණ්‌ඩුවට ස්‌තුතිය පුද කළ යුතුය. එහෙත් අපට තිබෙන ප්‍රශ්නය වන්නේ හාල්, පොල්, නිසා ජීවන වියදම ඉහළ යැමටත්, හාල් – පොල් වල මිල ඉහළ යැමටත් ‘ඉක්‌මනක්‌’ බලපෑවේ නැති වීමය. කොටින්ම කීවොත් මේ අත්‍යාවශ්‍ය පාරිභෝගික ද්‍රව්‍ය දෙකේ පමණක්‌ නොව තවත් බොහෝ භාණ්‌ඩවල මිල ඉහළ යැම වත්මන් යහපාලන ආණ්‌ඩුවේ වයස නොව ඊටත් වඩා පරණය. දැනටමත් මේ රටේ ජනතාව හාල් කන්නේ පිටරටින් ගෙන්වන මට්‌ටමෙනි. හාල් එතරම් ගණන් ය. අපේ රටේ සහල් නිෂ්පාදනයක්‌ සිදුවෙනවා ද යන්න සැක සිතෙන තරමටම මිල ඉහළය. එතරම් පරණ ප්‍රශ්නත් විසඳන්නට මේ වන විට ආණ්‌ඩුව ඉදිරිපත් කර ඇති (ඇත්ත වශයෙන්ම ආණ්‌ඩුව නොව ඊට වගකිව යුතු කෘෂිකර්ම අමාත්‍යාංශය මෙහිදී ප්‍රමුඛය) වැඩපිළිවෙළක්‌ අපි දන්නේ නැත. කොටින්ම කීවොත් සහල් නිෂ්පාදනයේ සිට විකිණීම දක්‌වාම ඇත්තේ අර්බුදය. කුඹුරට පොහොර නැතැයි ගොවීහු උද්ඝෝෂණය කරති. අස්‌වැන්න සාධාරණ මිලකට විකුණාගත නොහැකිව උද්ඝෝෂණය කරති. අන්තිමේදී අතිරික්‌තය ගබඩා කරන්නට තෝරා ගන්නේ මත්තල ගුවන් තොටුපළය. රටේ තිබෙන පොල් ඉඩම්, ඉඩම් – නිවාස වෙළෙන්දෝ කුණු කොල්ලයට අත්පත් කරගෙන මුඩු බිම් කර විකුණා දමති. මේවා ගැන ආණ්‌ඩුව ක්‍රියාත්මක කළ ප්‍රතිපත්තිය කුමක්‌ද? පිටරටින් ගෙන්වන්නට පෙර කවුරු කවුරුත් කල්පනා කළ යුතු කාරණා මේවාය.
 
 ජනතාව රජයෙන් වැඩිපුර දේවල් ඉල්ලුවේ නැත. එහෙත් පසුගිය අවුqරුදු තුනේම ඉල්ලනවටත් වැඩි දේ දෙන’ බවට ආණ්‌ඩුව පොරොන්දු වූ විට ජනතාව තුළ යම් විශ්වාසයක්‌ ගොඩනැඟී තිබිණි. මෙවැනි තීරණවලින් සිදුවන්නේ එම විශ්වාසය බිංදුවට නොව සෘන බිංදුවටම, ගමේ වචනයෙන් කිව්වොත් ලෙල්ලටම වැටීමය. එවැනි ක්‍රියා ඉදිරි මැතිවරණවලට බලපාන්නේ කොහොමද කියන කාරණය ගැන අප කතා කරන්නේ නැත. ඊට හේතුව මොන දේ කළත් යළි යළි රැවටෙන්නට තරම් දක්‍ෂ ජනතාවක්‌ ද මේ රටේ සිටින බැවිනි.

No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Copyright © 2026 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress