lanka C news

2002-2004 වසරවලදී පැවති එක්සත් ජාතික පක්‍ෂ ආණ්ඩුව විසින් විදේශයන්ට විකුණා දැමූ රාජ්‍ය දේපලවලින් ආපසු ගන්න බැරි වූ එකම ආයතනය ලංකා ඉන්දීය තෙල් සමාගම බව හිටපු ඇමති විජේදාස රාජපක්‍ෂ මහතා පවසයි.

තෙල් සංස්ථාවට තිබූ ඒකාධිකාරය බිද දමා පනතද වෙනස් කරමින් තෙල් පිරවුම්හල් සියයක් සදහා එකල අවසර දුන්නද අද වන විට පිරවුම්හල් 350කට වඩා පිහිටුවා ඇතැයිද ඔහු පෙන්වා දෙයි.

ළගදීම ත‍්‍රිකුණාමලයේ සියලූ තෙල් ටැංකි ඉන්දියාවට දෙන බවත් ඉන්පසු ඉන්දියාව තෙල් එවුවොත් පමණක් අපට වාහන දුවන්න හැකි වනු ඇති බවත් ඔහු සදහන් කරයි.

දෙරණ රූපවාහිනියේ 360 වැඩසටහනට එක්වෙමින් ඇමතිවරයා මෙම අදහස් පල කර සිටියේය.

හම්බන්තොට වරාය චීනයට පැවරීම සදහා අත්සන් තබනු ලැබූ ගිවිසුම සම්පුර්ණයෙන්ම නීති විරෝධී ව්‍යවස්ථා විරෝධී බවත් තමන් ඊට එරෙහිව ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ නඩු පවරන බවත් ඒ මහතා එහිදී කියා සිටියේය.

නව ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් සෑදීම සදහා වන ක‍්‍රියාවලිය සම්බන්ධයෙන් අදහස් පල කරමින් ඔහු කියා සිටියේ මෙය සම්පුර්ණයෙන්ම පවතින ව්‍යවස්ථාව උල්ලංඝණය කිරීමක් බවත් නව ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් සකසන්නේ නම් එය කල යුතු ආකාරය ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ ඇති බවත් එය නොතකමින් මේ සිදු කරගෙන යන ක‍්‍රියාවලිය සහමුලින්ම වැරදි යයිද ඔහු වැඩි දුරටත් එහිදී සදහන් කලේය.

සම්පුර්ණ වීඩියෝව මෙතනින්

By Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Balaya bedanna kalin mey aanduwa petrol tika bedanna oney!”
(Before this Government shares power, it must share the petrol!”)
–Anonymous, irate citizen in petrol queue, on TV news   

With shockingly dangerous irresponsibility or sheer nihilism, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe wants the Constitutional Assembly to loosen the centre’s ties with and hugely augment the autonomy of the Northern and Eastern provinces at the very same time that he wants an elephantine Indian footprint in Trincomalee (the oil tank farm, the Port and the Mannar-Trinco highway).

While his Interim Report envisages exceeding the 13th amendment in the matter of the control of land by the Provincial Councils, his ‘Vision 2025’ wants to change the existing land ceiling so that corporate business can snap up large tracts. This would not only mean unrelieved landlessness (which has reappeared in the old ‘colonies’ through subdivision), it would mean that land in the North and East would be acquired by Tamil Nadu based and Tamil diaspora-driven front companies, apart from larger Indian ones with controlling Tamil Nadu –‘Kollywood’ capital–shareholding. Meanwhile anti-Indianism is rising on the streets over the fiasco of the IOC shipment.

A wealth of historical evidence reveals a pattern, the world over. Four factors prove causative in the rise of majoritarian ethnic/ethno-religious nationalism. One is economic pain and inequity generated by uneven and unequal economic development, often resulting in economic crisis. The second is a perceived threat to the nation or ethnic community concerned and/or an assault on the religio-cultural moorings and ethos of the people. The third is the closure or deferment of democratic openings and distortion of democratic representation. The fourth is the alienation of significant social or political power-centres/players at a time of transition,modernization or globalization.

Sri Lanka has experienced all four factors since 2015. Now it is just past mid-term, and the electoral safety valves are opening up belatedly. This is to the good because the awful explosion of Black July ’83 took place after the shutting off and sealing of electoral safety valves a mere six months before, in December 1982, with the referendum that postponed the parliamentary elections scheduled for 1983.

The lack of social abhorrence at the utterly and unambiguously reprehensible rhetorical exhortations to lethal (murderous)violence against Parliament and traitors” (audiences cheered, and a few parliamentarians themselves, from Opposition and Government echoed the rhetoric), reveals the seething anger in society against the cosmopolitan-liberal elite Establishment.A touch of TJ (‘Transitional Justice’) from Geneva or overt Indian intrusion into Constitution-making, and this joint is set to blow as in the late 1980s. The holding of Local Authorities elections in January 2018 will come not a day too soon and the belated opening may barely avoid a violent social explosion.

The petrol fiasco and the inability to manage a single shipment makes one wonder what the country’s fate would have been had this government been in office during the last war! The petrol stoppage and the radicalization of the SAITM struggle show that the government is dysfunctional, the System isn’t working, the System is broken. It is hard to imagine the government not taking a heavy electoral hit. The election will be a plebiscite on Yahapalana or the current UNP-driven Yahapalana model,and will probably see an indictment and rejection.

The impact will be felt on the Constitutional project, the morning after. Even UNP MPs will begin to demur,dissent and re-position, viewing the results as a precursor of national elections 2019-2020.It will be one straight run, a single belt of time, from local elections 2018 through Provincial elections, to the national elections of 2019-2020. The entire state system, i.e. officialdom, judiciary, law enforcement and the armed forces, will inch away from the Government.

The larger Chandrika’s campaign profile/role,the more her pathological asides at MR, the more alienated the SLFP organizers will be and the fewer SLFP votes the SLFP-MS will get.The latter’s best bet would be for President Sirisena to campaign while CBK goes back to London or Paris. Whether she is in or out, the official SLFP will be off balance as the results come in, either moving back into the Opposition and re-aligning (not reunifying through fusion) with the JO-SLPP as did the LSSP and CPSL rivals in 1968, or demanding a radical Yahapalana re-set through de-Ranilization (a la 2003) and a re-assertive realignment of forces by President Sirisena, with UNP dissidents and the JO.

This could even happen earlier, in December itself, as a preemptive prelude to January elections–a re-positioning or pivot when the Bond scam report comes in and the UNP-SLFP accord hits its deadline.

Even if a resurgent MR-JO-SLPP decides to work with a cowed UNP on Constitutional change, it will be limited to amendments flattening the executive Presidency so that the playing field is leveled for ex-President Rajapaksa to run for the country’s most empowered post, the Premiership, in 2020, rather than accommodating non-unitary/quasi-federal devolution! As for the next elected government (2020), it will almost certainly be far more majoritarian ethno-populist than this one.

Contrary to government propaganda, the TNA has yet to articulate its willingness to accept a unitary (not an ‘aekeeya/orumiththanadu’) state, as distinct from a ‘united country’. Its leaders failed to do so even in the Constitutional Assembly debate! The Sinhalese have a legitimate existential fear of the centrifugal, wondering just how loosely ‘united’ the country will be, and thus, ultimately divisible it will turn out to be, given the geopolitical pull-factor. If Delhi cannot instruct its powerful Navy to prevent Tamil Nadu piracy in our territorial waters despite a very friendly government ensconced in Colombo, how can we stupidly opt for a non-unitary Constitution, betting on Delhi to stand up to Tamil Nadu-supported irredentism in our North and East, and to protect us from it?

India and the US view our island through the prism of its joint strategy in the vast zone that US strategic planners newly and openly term the Indo-Pacific”, the theatre in which they hope to push back China in particular and the Eurasian alliance of China-Russia globally. They will carve out a Northeastern Tamil statelet if they see a need and sense an opportunity. While our PM doesn’t care and has invited the Indo-US-Japan axis into Trincomalee, and India into our Deep South, Mattala, 99% of us do care. He represents the 1% that doesn’t. A unitary state, de jure and de facto, is a core strategic and security interest of the Sinhala majority, a red-line for which they must and will fight by any means necessary”.

The Tamil problem must at least be managed and settled in the interim while President Sirisena is at the head of the table.Only an all-parties consensus will not be de-stabilizing.If one listened closely enough, the keywords that came up in the Constitutional Assembly debate as the least contentious were 13th amendment” and as a variant, 13 Plus”.The calm, sagacious speech of Dr. Sarath Amunugama,a model of equanimity and the non-ideological, prudential approach to politics and problem-solving, was a reasoned argument as to why the full implementation of the 13th amendment, perhaps stretched to mean the 13th amendment plus a Senate, minus police powers”, is all that is feasible.

But for how long will the parliamentary two-thirds majority be available, and for what? The Yahapalana coalition is hollowing out and has begun a slow-motion implosive collapse. A contentious Constitutional Final Report will blow it up. As the mid-term anti-incumbency mood, irresistible electoral compulsions and mounting three-way competition cut into consensus-building, threatening to capsize the governing coalition, the quantum of devolution that the official SLFP is willing to sign-off on as visible partners of the UNP–TNAis shrinking, and the window of opportunity is swinging shut.

By Kelum Bandara Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Election Commission’s Member Prof. S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole, in an interview with the Daily Mirror, shares his thoughts on the Commission and the upcoming local authorities’ elections  

• They will make us violate some law somewhere
• Those who voted for the PC Elections Act do not know what they voted for
• Our laws are full of mistakes
• We are always in violation of something
• It came to a matter of choosing which laws we would violate  

Q How is the Election Commission getting ready for the local government elections in the wake of  Government announcing they would be conducted in January?  
Your question shows how wrong the general assessment is on this matter. It is not the business of Government to announce the date. Yet, various ministers have given different dates as if they are in charge. Let’s look at the Local Government Elections Act. No: 25.

Every general election of members of a local authority shall be held within a period of six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the members who are to be elected is due.”

Some Tamil local authorities have been dead from 2011. Others have elections blocked by court order, and most are neglected by us authorities. Act No:27 says that we the Commission appoint a public officer as the Returning Officer (RO) and he shall publish, by Act No: 26, a notice of his intention to hold this election. Since we appoint ROs, we set the date for uniformity, although an RO, usually the GA, has the authority to set the date independently. The Government, however, seems to think they can set the date and that we will obey.

The fact is that we are prepared as well as we can be for the elections. But we do not know all the applicable laws. For example, the Government is amending the Local Authorities Act further. The Provincial Council Elections Act had not been translated into English or Tamil for over a month since its passage to me to act on it. It was passed in such a great hurry, I am reliably told even those who voted for it do not know what they voted for. Last week a document came up for us to appoint a replacement for someone in the Northern Provincial Council who had resigned and we had to invoke the Provincial Councils Election Act. Without knowing if the relevant clause had not been amended, I asked for the appointment to be put on hold until we got a copy. Now I have been given a copy.

Q What are the arrangements being considered to ensure transparency and credibility in counting votes at polling stations themselves?  
In recent years I think that is an aspect we have done very well in. With the full participation of observers and party-candidate representatives, this will run well. We have a good credible system;but I am aware that some minority groups think there is a conspiracy to keep them out. For example, a dispossessed leader and candidate, Seeniaar Gunasingam, complained to me that the ballots were put in three piles for counting so he could observe only one pile and did not know what went on with the counting of the other two. The relevant assistant commissioner, when queried, said they can count all ballots as one lot but it would take the whole night and the next day to complete [ the count]. We must take steps to ensure  confidence especially among minorities. It is then that the result will be credible.

Q How do you regulate canvassing and propaganda this time under the new system? 
The same as always in most things .However, No: 82(c)(2) of the Local Government Elections Act which came into force in 2012 makes a difference. The nomination notice is set to be issued in the period 27-30 Nov. and the nominations in three- and- a -half days in Dec. 11-17. According to this change, hate speech becomes punishable from the first day of the nomination period […] and ending on the day following the date of the poll.”

However, even from 2002, No: 82B has forbidden in bad grammar what it calls treating” before, during or after an election. The new budget to be finalized by the end of November just ahead of the election must bear this in mind.

Given these points, it is important we have well-informed officials who will fearlessly brief the Commission on such important matters rather than simply take orders.

We should have invoked our constitutional object and announced elections. Until a new law is in place, the old law is the law. Until a new delimitation is in place, the old one is valid. Going ahead with existing laws and boundaries had a lot of untidiness because of the mistakes in the Local Government Elections Act. However, through this courtesy to Government by waiting for it to do the right thing, we sucked-up too much and gave Government a terrible weapon to rob people of their franchise

Q The Election Commission was taken to task over the delay in conducting polls. How do you respond to these critiques?  
This is an absurd charge but not entirely without merit. The Government deliberately, I believe introduced delimitation and dragged it for well-nigh two years. Members of the Delimitation Committee say the minister asked them to go slow. When I asked the minister, he said it was with the good health of committee members in mind. His credibility was already poor because the mistakes in the Local Government Law had been pointed out. We were being courteous in not openly challenging him, even though the Constitution, in No: 103(2), specifies;

The object of the Commission shall be to conduct free and fair elections and referenda” which we failed to assert. In time, however, we invoked No:33(1)(d) which lists among the President’s duties, acting on the advice of the Election Commission, [to] ensure the creation of proper conditions for the conduct of free and fair elections and referenda.” We advised the President and to spare him embarrassment kept under wraps the contents of our letter signed by all three of us. To no avail!

As we were readying to announce the Provincial Council Elections on October 2, it was a ghastly shock to see the PC Elections Bill being rushed to prevent our holding elections. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill violates our fundamental rights by postponing elections, we wrote a spate of letters to the Speaker and Prime Minister among others decrying the vitiation of democracy and took a decision to release those letters – which did not become necessary after the Chairman got calls from the Speaker and PM saying they wanted to hold the elections. We were promised that the matter would be put to the Cabinet and the gazette released. On November 1, the Speaker called to say the necessary gazette had been signed. So we set a date for elections in late January.

We did our bit. Looking back however, waiting for the Government to finish its dilatory tactics on delimitation and legal corrections was a big mistake. We said to ourselves we cannot violate the law. But we were already in violation by not declaring elections in the last six months of many a local body. We violate the Constitution as it pertains to our quorum and having a Commissioner General of Elections. Because our laws are full of mistakes, we are always in violation of something. It came to a matter of choosing which laws we would violate.

We should have invoked our constitutional object and announced elections. Until a new law is in place, the old law is the law. Until a new delimitation is in place, the old one is valid. Going ahead with existing laws and boundaries had a lot of untidiness because of the mistakes in the Local Government Elections Act. However, through this courtesy to Government by waiting for it to do the right thing, we sucked-up too much and gave Government a terrible weapon to rob people of their franchise.

If we had so proceeded, someone probably would have invoked court over the said untidiness and stopped the elections. We thought that would reflect incompetence on our part. But doing that would have absolved us of any responsibility for the delay, asserted our independence and proved costly for the reputation and electoral standing of whoever derailed the elections.

Act No:27 says that we the Commission appoint a public officer as the Returning Office and he shall publish, by Act No: 26, a notice of his intention to hold this election. Since we appoint ROs, we set the date for uniformity, although an RO, usually the GA, has the authority to set the date independently

Q How do you look at the content of the present Local Government Election Law that provides for a new electoral system?”  
It is certainly positive as far as the compulsory enhancement of female representation is concerned. It has righted many wrongs in the existing law which made holding elections problematic – said to have had about 60 typing errors and 8 substantive errors. It is disappointing that youth representation is urged but not made compulsory.

However, even the new amendments have mistakes which will make us violate some law somewhere, as I pointed out in a recent op-ed.

Q There was a major uproar about a foreign national being an office bearer of a political party. How lawful is it?  
The law on recognizing political parties let the then Election Commissioner (and now the Commission) give recognition according to statutory rules. That incident occurred years ago before our Commission was formed. Even at the time, the law did not (and even now does not) require the office bearer of a political party to be a citizen. We simply tick through the legal requirements and if all are met, award recognition.

The law does not allow an MP to be a dual citizen. There is a question over whether Commonwealth citizens may be local government officials

Now that the citizenship of party officials has been made an issue, it seems natural for the Government to think the matter through and decide on the laws. In the meantime, to be ready for any eventuality. The Commission has begun asking for the nationalities of party officials

Now that the citizenship of party officials has been made an issue, it seems natural for the Government to think the matter through and decide on the laws. In the meantime, to be ready for any eventuality, the Commission has begun asking for the nationalities of party officials although we have no power to debar such non-nationals from party office.

Q What are the latest efforts being contemplated for the introduction of electronic voting?  
It is only under discussion. Last we talked, we were against it because the ballot is very complicated with a vote for the party and then preference votes. This would make the machine more expensive. India for example has successfully gone for electronic voting because they can tailor-make voting machines to suit their simple direct vote for candidates. We need to revisit this after our law-makers have finished their piecemeal legislation, hurrying through amendments with mistakes and then making further amendments.

I see the future in internet voting. The US and Canada have it for sections of their electorate. Estonia has it for all. There have been no complaints. If we can trust our money to Internet banking, why not our ballot? We are an excitable people and easily believe conspiracy theories. Until we mature in this regard, I think electronic voting has to wait to preserve the sanctity of and public confidence in electoral verdicts. But our future is there.

The relevant assistant commissioner, when queried, said they can count all ballots as one lot but it would take the whole night and the next day to complete [ the count]. We must take steps to ensure  confidence especially among minorities. It is then that the result will be credible

Q Any last thoughts?  
We must not rush through our legislation. We should not make changes at the last minute on an ad hoc basis. This is why our laws are so full of mistakes as I point out in the op-ed I referred to. Our MPs need to devote more time to their legislative work and read what they pass.

For new election laws to come into force it is important to give a 2- year- period as is the international practice. Not doing that smacks of manipulation for party ends.

Shenali D Waduge

On 12^th October 2017 addressing the UK Parliament, Lord Naseby brought to light some shocking news. Using the Freedom of Information Act Lord Naseby ventured to find the truth about the civilian deaths attributed against Sri Lankan Army during the final phase of the conflict from the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office. His application had first been rejected, even 2 appeals to the Foreign Office had been rejected and thereafter not giving up Lord Naseby had appealed to the Information Commissioner and a heavily redacted with many pages missing, document was made available to him. Why would figures and information need to be kept hidden by the British Government? What other lies are being kept under wraps & who else is involved & why are questions we need to now ask & have answered.

Lord Naseby has been a friend of Sri Lanka and has been associated with Sri Lanka for over 50 years. He formed the All Party Parliamentary Group on Sri Lanka in 1975.

He brings to light some facts that not many non-Sri Lankans have wanted to do while most non-Sri Lankans have fallen prey to lies while others have been happy to fall prey for money & other incentives.

Lord Naseby has correctly understood repercussions of the incursions from South India following the occupations of the 3 European rulers – Portuguese, Dutch and the British who brought lakhs of South Indian Tamils to work on plantations while divide and rule legacy meant affording opportunities for the minorities to dominate the majority thus giving them a feeling of being superior to the majority community and as such making demands that would with time result in animosity.

Lord Naseby has correctly surmised that it was to rectify historical injustices and discrimination to the majority Sinhalese that the Official Language Act was introduced to give the Sinhala language its due place. What needs to be reiterated here is that the introduction of the Official Language Act was never to target Tamils as is being alleged but to return to the Sinhala language its due place that was usurped after foreign occupation in 1505. Let it be reminded to all that Tamil was never a language of administration before colonial invasions in 1505 or after colonial occupation. Nevertheless, the Official Language Act was magnanimous enough to give reasonable use of Tamil, a status that Tamil language had not enjoyed ever.

The importance of Lord Naseby’s address to the UK Parliament is the manner someone is finally questioning the lies & hype surrounding ‘civilian’ deaths.

Lord Naseby has rightfully identified that everyone who has been bandying the figure of 40,000 dead have all been and continue to be LTTE Tamil Tigers supporters.

Lord Naseby makes reference to the UNPUBLISHED report by the UN Country Team whose death toll figure is 7721 covering August 2008 to 13 May 2009. He quite rightly says that from 13 May to 19^th May 2009, it is impossible for 40,000 to have been killed.

Lord Naseby also mentions Gordon Weiss the former UN spokesman who initially claimed 7000 civilian deaths in 2009 while also reiterating that it made no sense for the Sri Lankan Army to kill civilians a sentiment echoed by the University Teachers for Human Rights who say that the ground troops took great trouble not to harm civilians.  

Lord Naseby also quotes

• Sri Lankan Census Department – 7000 to 8000 missing
• US Ambassador Robert Blake – 4164 deaths from 20 January to 6 April 2009
• Maj. Gen. Holmes – 7000 to 8000 deaths (report in March 2015)

Another important point Lord Naseby highlighted is that all those whom he quoted casualty figures had also stated that there was ‘no policy to kill civilians’.

Lt. Col. Anton Gash had informed Lord Naseby in January 2009 that he was surprised at the ‘controlled discipline and success of the Sri Lankan Army and in particular the care that it was taking to encourage civilians to escape and how well they were looked after’.

The information he discovered from the dispatches to the UK Government reveal much

• 20 January 2009 – no cluster munitions were used” (remember the lies that were concocted on cluster weapons)
• 28 January 2009 – It is not possible to distinguish civilians from LTTE cadres as few are in uniform”. (The 12,000 LTTE cadres that surrendered were all in civilian clothing)
• 16 February 2009 – IDPs being cared for in Trincomalee – welfare appears to be overriding security considerations” (who knows how many of the 295,000 people that the Sri Lankan Army saved were LTTE cadres?)
• 26 April 2009 – civilians killed from 1 February to 26 April 2009 – 6432”

Lord Naseby appeals to the UK Government which we commend with much appreciation

1. UK must now get the UN and the UNHRC in Geneva to accept a civilian casualty level of 7000 to 8000 not 40,000”
2. UK must recognize that this was a war against terrorism, so the rules of engagement are based on international humanitarian law (IHL) not the European Convention on Human Rights”.
3. The West in particular the US & UK, must remove the threat of war crimes and foreign judges that overhangs and overshadows all Sri Lankans, especially their leaders. We in the UK should reflect on the sacrifices of thousands of young Sri Lankan soldiers who died to create peace in that country”

Sri Lanka came to our need in two world wars and had casualties, and it was one of just a handful of countries who supported the UK over the Falklands. Now it is time to offer the hand of friendship and act to lead the international community to recognize what the truth really was”.

What is Lord Naseby’s wish I hope and pray that, as a result of this debate the UK will recognize the truth that no one in the Sri Lankan Government ever wanted to kill Tamil civilians”. This is the truth that we want to also convey to the world. We thank you Lord Naseby for taking the initiative.

What is shocking is that even by 24^th October 2017 the Sri Lankan Cabinet had not taken up the remarks made by Lord Naseby. It is shocking that the present Yahapalana Government is not interested in even appreciating the effort taken by Lord Naseby, an effort that the present Sri Lankan Government has not even wanted to do. It is no exaggeration to say that this present government is not in the least interested in exonerating the good name and reputation of the Sri Lankan Armed forces as was evident when it co-sponsored a legally questionable UNHRC Resolution. Violations and interferences by the UN/UNHRC and foreign diplomats has been such that they have unabashedly advocated a new constitution, changes to Sri Lanka’s internal administrative structures and have even agreed to fund and pay salaries of those being tasked to do the changes. All these are violations of Westphalian sovereignty.

Shamindra Ferdinando writing to the Island newspaper highlights that the former government lacked a strategy to overcome the lies propagated by the West, which may well be true but when the Western lies were based on a larger overall agenda and plan, no amount of countering would have changed the status quo. Nonetheless, ample counter facts are available for anyone seeking the truth to weigh the lies and figure out the truth. However, the previous Government should have continued to demand the UN to release the report that placed the number of dead at 7721 and injured as 18479 from August 2008 to May 13, 2009.

To the list of liars and lies have to be included – Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission and its reports/statements, foreign mainstream media, human rights organizations, foreign envoys, foreign governments, UN officials. Lets also not forget the scores of UK parliamentarians who had been supportive of LTTE separatism. Siobhain McDonagh Labor MP claimed 100,000 were killed in Sri Lanka. These claims should have been diplomatically challenged through the Sri Lankan Foreign Mission.

Even after the previous Government banned 16 LTTE fronts under UNSC Resolution 1373 it did not persist in demanding that the foreign governments where the LTTE fronts & leaders were operating initiate investigations on them for terror links and material support.

Another opportunity came following the HRW report Funding the final war – LTTE intimidation and extortion in the Tamil Diaspora, a case study of UK and Canada” which also highlighted the British Hindu kovils that provided revenue for the LTTE. There were ample LTTE events that had been organized openly in the UK inspite of UK Government banning the LTTE and pressure by the Sri Lankan Foreign Office would have gone a long way to curbing the menace. The Foreign Office could have easily alerted to British authorities to take action against the many illegal acts that LTTE fronts were upto in the UK like credit card scams, abuse of charity programs, money laundering, illegal acts all of which were affecting the purses of the British tax payers. The Sri Lankan Foreign Office should have insisted that the Government be kept updated on investigations against these and should have even sought action against Adele Balasingham for training children as child soldiers and teaching them to commit suicide when caught.

A nation’s Government must defend its territory, its people and the Armed Forces that defend both the Nation & its People. When Lord Naseby took it upon himself to question the guestimates that had been falling from the sky quoting all types of dead numbers, he went out of his way to seek clarifications from his own government and despite many obstacles & having his applications rejected, his persistence led to a conclusion that should have had the Sri Lankan Government IMMEDIATELY thanking him and issuing a statement officially through the Foreign Ministry to UNHRC with the findings of Lord Naseby. However that the present government chose not to goes to show that it does not stand by the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka and this is a very shocking but a fact that we must all now come to terms with.

A Government that does not defend its own troops will never defend the nation or its people.

Shenali D Waduge

https://video.buffer.com/v/59f978c79363929e043c5661

Dr Sudath Gunasekara

Dear All,

I draw you attention to the following article

‘Tamilstan, Muslimstan or Federalism?

ColomboTelegraph 6. 11. 2017 by Dr Jagath Asoka (An Indiana or Lankan?) Pl read the article first to find out who this idiot is?

This is one among many responses to this letter by one Rajash / November 5, 2017 23:35 appeared below that letter.

Need to neutralize the Sinhala Buddhist image and influence. Cancel Poya days as holiday. Find out exactly on which date Buddha attained Nirvana and make that day only a holiday (like Christmas if you wish). De-robe all the thugs in saffron. Destroy all Budhha statues littering the country with crow droppings. Take away the prominence given to Sangha. All Sinhala Politicians to stop blaring Sri Lanka is Sinhala Bull shit country.

Where is the government? What is Maitree Sirisena doing? I can understand what Ranil the traitor is doing, for he is born to bring the nemesis for this Island nation.

I also copy a famous Sinhala verse in this backdrop I learnt as a child and I make a modest attempt to pen a modern version of the same situation below for your awakening and for you to relax a bit.

Vane gijindaya dutuvoth                Vanasaya

Linde panidaya vetunoth u            kaya

Atakin karawelaya atakin               penibeya

Marana tunak deka minisek peni keeya

(This I think is the pathetic predicament we are facing today as a Nation)

Uture koti relaya Eelam                       doladukaya

Batahira negenahira Marakkin             vanasaya (Wilpattuwa & Kuchchaveli See Sunday Divina

supplement p.1 feature by Tharanga Ratnaweera)   

Rata meda demalunata sinnakkara    deya

Janapati   gahanava    jatiye                 malaberaya

Gannata Indiyan sayure mutu              etaya

Porakathi batahirun ekatuwa                Bharataya

Sihalun Budusasuna karanata               avasanaya

Dangalathi, Tavama Sihalun maranidi  vaedaya

Despalu horun rata gena neti                 adaraya

Dhana bala aragalaye diva re                yedilaya

Muradev deye ada walanda                  setapeya

Rata deya rekiimata kisiveku                  netiseya

Aiyo Mage rata deya den                       avasanaya

Lakmava handai welapei muta             waralasaya

Heladeya budusasuna maranaye         abhiyasaya

Rata deya vina karana neti  deya         abhimanaya

Wehi neti hena hathak mun hisa          vediyutuya

දේශප්‍රේමී හිතවතුනි ,

මේ වනවිට අපගේ මාතෘ භූමිය දෙකඩ වී උතුරු-නැගෙනහිර ප්‍රදේශ ඇතුලත්ව දෙමළ ඊලාම් රාජ්‍යයක් බිහිවීමේ අවදානමකට පත්ව ඇත.

අප,ගෝලීය ශ්‍රී ලාංකික සංසදය විසින් මේ අවදානම ලක් රජය පාලනය කරනු ලබන  පිරිසගේ සහ රජයේ තීරණ ක්‍රියාත්මක කරනු ලබන අයගේ දැනුවත් වීම වෙනුවෙන් හා ඔවුන්ගේ සිහිකැඳවීමේ අරමුණෙන් අන්තර්ජාලය මගින් විද්‍යුත් පෙත්සමක් අදාල ආයතන  හා පුද්ගලයින් වෙත යැවීම සඳහා සූදානම් කර ඇත.

අප සැමගේ අරමුණ මේ සඳහා අඩුම වශයෙන් අත්සන් ලක්ෂයක් පමණ ලබා ගැනීම සහ එම පෙත්සම ගරු ජනාධිපතිතුමා , ගරු අගමැතිතුමා, හිටපු ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මැතිතුමා ,  සියළුම ආගමික පූජක තුමන්ලා  ඇතුළු සියළුම විද්වතුගෙන් සමන්විතවූ සංවිධාන වලට යැවීමයි.

කරුණාකර ඔබගේ වටිනා කාලය වැයකර මෙම විද්‍යුත් පෙත්සම  අත්සන් කර අවම වශයෙන් මෙය තවත් දේශප්‍රෙරේමීන් 10 දෙනෙකු වෙත හෝ බෙදා හරින මෙන් මෙයින් ඉල්ලා සිටිමු. 

https://www.change.org/p/prisedent-of-sri-lanka-මාතෘ භුමිය බෙදා වෙන්කරන යෝජිත ෆෙඩරල් ව්‍යවස්ථාවට විරුද්ධව ඔබේ අත්සන ලබා දෙන්න

අත්සන ලබා දෙන්න මෙතනින්

ස්තූතියි.!

ගෝලීය ශ්‍රී ලාංකික සංසදය.

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/article/1033971/cost-of-exporting-from-sri-lanka-much-higher-than-vietnam-or-thailand

I wrote few opinions few weeks back and highlighted the facts about  Vietnam and Indonesia’s success in exports against the exports from Sri Lanka .One of the slide shown by the EU expert is illustrated below

https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2017/10/14/bureaucracy-hinders-businesses-several-permits-for-one-export/

https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2017/09/25/sad-state-of-affairs-of-sri-lankan-exports/

https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2017/09/25/sad-state-of-affairs-of-sri-lankan-exports/

https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2017/10/14/bureaucracy-hinders-businesses-several-permits-for-one-export/

Sri Lankan Exports are declining and Vietnam and Thailand are growing, even Bangladesh is doing much better .

There was an another article in the press with the heading  Sri Lanka must build brands ,not be a mere  commodity Exporter where a Leading Tea Exporter, and another wizard from DNV GL Business Assurance in  Sri Lanka taking about food security to etc another speaker from Malasian Blue Ocean Strategy talked about importance of Building Brands .

Sri Lankans are still talking about Rubber ,Tea and Cinnamon where brands have been established and none of them are talking about how bureaucratic our system to have Ease of Doing Business and how to cut red tape  let alone brand  building

We need  to build a different kind of brand called  EASE OF DOING BUSINESS .Investors go to Vietnam Indonezia and  Thailand and also  to Singapore ,because their BRAND of ease of doing business is well known.

When Yahaplana government started then Finance Minister started the EODB ( Ease of doing Bussiness ) and the whole business community was elated and first few sessions showed some remarkable results where State Bureacrats were take to task by the Minister who chaired the sessions ,I have solved some of our shipyard matters too.

After few sessions ,momentum was gone ,minister came and rushed back ,and the Heads of State Agencies kept sending their lower rankers to represent .Finally no one cared the minister’s ruling .Why? May be they lost confidence ?

Recently I went for a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries to discuss how to get Director General of Fishery to allow small commercial boast repair and building in 20 number fishery harbour ,in addition to repairing fishing boats .

Reaction from the Ministry was ,it cannot be allowed because their ACT does not permit to do so .

Private sector and even Fishery Harbour Corporation were trying to earn more income from these activities which included generating foreign currency and yet ,bureaucracy was overwhelming  despite the fact that Minister was quite supportive .

I was trying to analyses the reasons behind and found that under Yahapalanaya ,all state officials are trying to play safe ,presumably after the Sil Redi” case .

Business circles are talking theory and filling newspapers with their photo and their opinions but none of them are hitting the nail at the right place .

We had few brands which placed our resplendent island in the world map .That was Madam Sirimavo Banadaranayake and World cup Cricket !!

Whole country need a new brand building exercise.

That is to build a BRAND OF CONFIDENCE.

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

RANJITH SOYSA 

I was listening to a very professional presentation on the Central Bank bonds robbery by the veteran banker and public activist Rusiripala Thennekoon (may his unenviable efforts be rewarded!) in which he cited a number dates and incidents which weave an incredible story of a set of criminals scheming to rob the central bank and other connected institutions, and, by hook or by crook through their deft actions to cover their backs  still continue brazenly to handle the affairs of the State. It is indeed an incredulous story of a series of events which can only take place in a few countries like Sri Lanka.

The unprecedented two event which took place in February 2015, one by moving the Central Bank to the Prime Minister’s ministerial responsibility and second by appointing a non- citizen, Arjuna Mahendran as the Governor of the Central Bank on 27^th Feb 2015 were crucial factors in the sordid story which unfolded, Mr Tennekoon drew the attention of the audience to another three  dramatic  but calculated key issues which were  directly connected to the plot.  Mr Arjuna Alosiyous resigned  from the position of a director of the Perpetual Treasuries on 2015.01.06 (did he know his uncle will be appointed as the Governor!) and the other relevant incident was the extra-ordinary meeting held at the Central Bank premises on 26.02.15 where Ravi Karunayake, Kabir Hasshim (Secy-UNP), Malik Samarawickrama (President, UNP) conferred with Arjuna Mahendran and concluded that the Government is in urgent need of Rs 15 billion whereas the Monetary Board had decided on a much lesser figure. The last, but not the least important event was the change of the bond sales method by the Governor and his direct intervention in the process of calling for the bids for the bonds.

The key actors were on their high horses and looted the Nation and it is estimated that the loss incurred by the Central Bank alone was Rs 754 billion on the day of the bond issue on 29^th March 2017. The profit earned by Perpetual Treasuries during the two bond issues exceeded more than 106% compared to the relevant figure for the previous year.

Mr Tennekoon who had published a comprehensive booklet on the Tale of the Bond Sales in a chapter with the heading ‘ the end of the unfinished story’ concludes, in spite of obvious and planned  plot to rob the country’s resources and the country has in fact been looted, investigation by committees including  two COPE committees, the complaints made to Bribery Commission, the wide publicity and the exposure  in the media and to the public , the bond scam perpetrators have not been brought to the book. He is of the view that a powerful unseen hand is shooting down the flames.

The billions earned by the criminals greased the palms of many a person who sees no evil neither hears no evil and even opts to play the role of the Devil dodger. While many issues have been touted to the inquisitive public such as prolonged discussions on the Constitution to distract their attention from the great bank robbery in camouflaging the truth, hope springs always for justice, fair –play and the rule of law.

RANJITH SOYSA

By Kelum Bandara Courtesy The Daily Mirror

President doesn’t seem to be serious about Steering Committee on constitution making

That is why he has decided to call for an All Party Conference 

It’s feared whether Parliament will enact new Constitution in 

the same way it enacted PC Elections Act

Unitary status and foremost place for Buddhism are unique features of our Constitution

Evangelical Lutheran Religion is the official religion of the state in Norway

Evangelical Lutheran Church is the established Church of Denmark

Why aren’t those advocating secularism here considering 

these models?

All Federal countries, barring a very few, are geographically vast countries

Former Principal of Sri Lanka Law College Dr. Jayatissa de Costa, in an interview with , argued that Federalism, under any garb, wasn’t acceptable for a small country like Sri Lanka.
Dr. de Costa, a President’s Counsel, says the entire constitution making process was unconstitutional. Following are excerpts of the interview done with Dr. Costa.

 Q: President Maithripala Sirisena has called for an All Party Conference (APC) to initiate a dialogue on the constitution making process. What is your view?

The President is on record calling for an All Party Conference consisting of the political party representatives, and another one comprising religious leaders. There is the third one comprising scholars and professionals. It shows that the President isn’t taking the report of the Interim Committee very seriously. Once again, the President is considering his views independently. There was no substantial discussion on the whole process. Otherwise, there is no reason for the President to call for another conference.

 
Q: There is a school of thought that the entire constitution making process is unconstitutional. What is your view?

I agree. In Sri Lanka, sovereignty lies with the people. In the Republic of Sri Lanka, sovereignty is in the people, and is inalienable. Sovereignty includes powers. Everything starts from that. People‘s representatives thought it fit to promulgate the 1978 Constitution. That is an offshoot of the first Republican Constitution. That is where we started as an independent sovereign nation. When we attained independence, the first Constitution was a product of the British Parliament. The Ceylon Independence Act was passed by the British Parliament. From 1947 to 1972, we were governed by British sovereign power. Every law was enacted in her name. When I took oath as a lawyer in 1971, it took the oath of allegiance to Elizabeth the Second, the Queen of Ceylon at that time.

Once again, the President is considering his views independently. There was no substantial discussion on the whole process. Otherwise, there is no reason for the President to call for another conference

The first homegrown constitution was promulgated only after 25 years of independence. One can argue that the provisions of the Soulbury Constitution can be used to make the new Constitution. There were no provisions because, over the years, the Supreme Court as well as the then highest court of the country promulgated on a number of occasions that certain Articles of the Soulbury Constitution were unalterable. In other words, the British, when they gave independence, thought it fit to retain some unalterable provisions. So, at the 1970 General Elections, the United National Front gave a firm assurance in their election manifesto that if it were elected to power, all the elected representatives would sit separately as a Constituent Assembly. They did that.

Q: The Government maintains that the Steering Committee came up with proposals only. It says this isn’t a final document. Then, why are you panicking?

There is a catch in it. The Supreme Court clearly said that a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the approval of people by referendum were needed to enact the Provincial Councils Election Act. Suffice it to say that it isn’t the intention of the Legislature to allow the nullification of a Bill and introduce new matters at the committee stage of the debate on the legislation. The former Chief Justice has challenged it. The Supreme Court will pronounce its position. It isn’t the case here. After that, every right thinking citizen has the right to suspect similar moves by the Government in the future. Under the pretext of a discussion paper or whatever, Parliament, sitting as the Constitutional Assembly, too can do it obtaining the two-thirds majority. What is this indecent hurry?

Q: In your view, what is the significance of Sri Lanka to be a unitary state?

According to classification of the Constitution, unitary is the opposite word of Federal. It’s like the sky and the earth. Right throughout, a vast majority of legislators and people have endorsed the unitary nature of our Constitution. If you observe the results of major elections, there are two major political camps. One is led by the UNP, and the other opposed to it. We can leave out the ethnically based political parties in the north and the east for the moment. The 1972 Constitution clearly states that Sri Lanka shall be a unitary state. The same is copied in the 1978 Constitution, a product of the UNP-led group. Article 2 of the 1978 Constitution clearly states that the Republic of Sri Lanka is a unitary state. It has become a basic feature of our Constitution. The 1978 Constitution was promulgated as a result of an election promise to establish the presidential system. J.R. Jayewardene received a mandate to establish the Executive Presidency. Yet, he didn’t receive a mandate to introduce the Promotional Representation System. The unitary nature is one of two unique features in the constitution. The other feature which is also important is the foremost place given to Buddhism.

A vast majority of legislators and people have endorsed the unitary nature of our Constitution. The unitary nature is one of two unique features in the constitution. The other feature which is also important is the foremost place given to Buddhism

Article 9 of the present Constitution states, The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give Buddhism the foremost place, and accordingly it shall be the duty of the state to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana while assuring all religions the rights guaranteed by article 10, 14(I) e.

It’s the Government’s duty to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana. Some people, who call themselves post modernists, question the foremost place given to Buddhism. Those, who advocate such a position, conveniently forget what the Constitution of Norway says. They take the Norwegian Constitution as a model here.

Article 2 of the Norway Constitution states,” Evangelical Lutheran Religion shall remain the official religion of the state.”

The Article 4 of Constitution of Denmark states, The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the established church of Denmark, and as such, it shall be supported by the state. In Denmark, it’s supported by the state.

Critics of the foremost place for Buddhism ignore these facts.

It’s the Government’s duty to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana. Some people, who call themselves post modernists, question the foremost place given to Buddhism. Those, who advocate such a position, conveniently forget what the Constitution of Norway says

Q: Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP M.A. Sumanthiran said Sri Lanka should be a secular state if equal rights are to be guaranteed for all. What is your view?

Why haven’t they read the Constitutions of Denmark and Norway? Why double standards? They take these countries as role models regarding the matters. This is Sri Lanka. We are a free sovereign state.

Q: Why do you see Federalism as dangerous for Sri Lanka?

If you look at the successful Federal countries, all are big countries like Canada, the United States, and Australia. Malaysia is also a Federal country. Islam is the state religion.

Q: But, even small countries such as Switzerland and Belgium have Federal features. What is your response?

Switzerland is an exception. It has built safeguards for four different ethnic groups throughout its history. The majority are German speaking Swiss people. Then, there are French speaking, Italian speaking and a fourth group called Romanists. There are a number of cantons there. Cantons have their own laws and traditions. If a citizen of one canton wants to settle down in another, he has to obtain the approval of that particular canton. Will Jaffna Tamils adhere to such a thing here? It applies to Muslims too. In Colombo, we have already become a minority. In Switzerland, you can’t do it. When it suits them, they refer to it as a model though. You can’t compare the incomparable.
Throughout the history of Sri Lanka, it’s a question of the Mahasanga having advised the rulers. Any attempt to dilute the foremost place for Buddhism is against the fundamental principles of our Constitution.

If a citizen of one canton wants to settle down in another, he has to obtain the approval of that particular canton. Will Jaffna Tamils adhere to such a thing here? It applies to Muslims too. In Colombo, we have already become a minority

Q: Government MP Jayampathi Wickramaratne argued the other day in Parliament that there can be more than one subordinate legislative body in a unitary state. He said that is what was proposed. What is your view?

The framers of the present proposals, debated now, are the ones responsible for the infamous referendum that extended the life of Parliament for another term without an election. The referendum itself was rigged. There was no legal provision in the Act to challenge it then.

Sri Lanka is too small to have a Federal state. All the Federal countries, except a few, are geographically vast. There is no necessity to have a number of governing units.
Chief of the North–East Provincial Council Varatharajah Perumal left the country after declaring Eelam. Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran said Buddhism couldn’t be given foremost place in his province.

By Ranga Jayasuriya Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Last week, the government announced that the private medical school at the centre of a bitter dispute, South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine(SAITM) would be converted into a non-governmental and not-for-profit entity. That should have laid to rest a protest campaign that had regularly paralyzed health services and medical faculties in state universities and clogged streets in Colombo with protestors. However, it does not appear to be the case. The Medical Faculty Students’ Parents’ Association (MFSPA) has rejected the government’s solution. Its spokesman has said:This institute will continue even in the future. The SAITM should be completely abolished and it should not be continued as any other institute as well.”

Similarly, the Medical Faculty Students’ Action Committee (MFSAC), which claims to represent the students of the state medical schools has claimed it would continue to boycott academic work. The purported reasoning is the same. Its convener Ryan Jayalath has said: Through this decision, the ownership of the SAITM will be the only thing that would change. The ownership of it will be handed over to some other party. But the deceitful procedure of the SAITM will be continuing even in the future. The main issue here is the privatization of free education.”

The Medical Faculty Students’ Action Committee (MFSAC), which claims to represent the students of the state medical schools has claimed it would continue to boycott academic work

Anti-SAITM activism was built on the same rotten premise that has turned much of our universities into rotten places. It was not a campaign to preserve quality of medical education, or any education for that matter. It was ( and is) aimed at preventing anyone other than those few thousand students in state universities (whose numbers account for barely 16% of all students who passed the GCE Advanced Level and therefore eligible for university education), from getting an education. University deans and Vice chancellors who jumped the bandwagon might have genuine concerns about the standard of education. They have now accepted the government’s solution and asked students to resume studies.

Yet, all those stakeholders of the protest campaign were influenced by one shared buffoonery: the misplaced notion as the state universities being the pinnacle of intelligentsia. They ought to be, but they are not in reality. Admission for state universities is done through a mixture of merit basis (40 %) and district quotas. Given still existing socio-economic disparities across the country, it is the right thing to do in order to ensure a more egalitarian composition of the student intake. Yet, those socio-economic disparities leave certain caveats in the students, which cannot be addressed purely by cramming for exams. Universities are expected fill in those gaps, before the young graduates are released back to the workforce. That does not happen. That manifest failure in universities creates a pervading sense of insecurity in the mind of students, who having been given a way up in the ladder through the affirmative actions, left abandoned in the middle. The source of regular unrest in universities should be traced to this sense of inadequacy and insecurity.

In order to keep these places calm, or at least to make sure that discontent would not spill out of gates, successive governments and university administrators have sought to maintain the status quo, which in effect has perpetuated mediocracy, and has given effect to a cycle of low productivity and under achievement in the wider economy.
When students talk about preserving free education, they actually mean about preserving their traditional privileges enabled by the prevailing status quo. Creating more competition from the outside the confines of state universities would mitigate their chances.

This however comes at the expense of a much larger cohort of young men and women who could not go to universities, yet equally bright, and perhaps are more endowed in certain social skills than an average university student. The latter is a function of social economic conditions, which is not unique to this country. Primary and secondary education has failed to address this lacuna not mainly due to much lamented unequal distribution of education resources in the country, but because they overemphasized on rote learning in vernacular language. A successful education system should try to inculcate those skills in their students, so that they would have a greater chance of mobility. Instead, ours is trying to keep away from education system, students who have such skills, so that lesser privileged students do not feel insecure. That is nonsense, but that is the whole logic of the campaign against private education. To escape this pernicious grip of state monopoly in higher education, about 8 per cent of local students leave the country to study abroad annually.

Consider the impact Sri Lankan universities could have on the quality of their intake, if they have a common sensical criterion to admit students who sit for London AL.

That is self-harming to the students in local universities as well, who would otherwise have a greater scope for socialization with a diverse bunch of people who will bring in with them different skills and outlook. Consider the impact Sri Lankan universities could have on the quality of their intake, if they have a common sensical criterion to admit students who sit for London AL. Such a lack of foresight in the administrators in a country where nearly half a million students are studying in international schools says a lot about the current mess in the local education system. Much vaunted six per cent of GDP to education is of little help, when you do not have the right structural framework and competent human capital- which universities should be able to address by opting to international recruitment. Modern universities are run like modern airlines, with vice chancellors befitting CEOs of multi nationals.

Anti-SAITM campaign was never about the quality of education ( if so why not talk about abysmally low international rankings of local universities). Nor was it about free education. It is a symptom of a larger failure in the current education system. Come SAITM or high water, university students would protest till the rot remains intact.

By Prof. Shantha K. Hennayake Department of Geography University of Peradeniya-Courtesy The Island

November 6, 2017, 8:49 pm

This indeed is the paradox of multinational federalism: while it provides national minorities with a workable alternative of secession, it also helps to make secession a more realistic alternative to federalism”.

Second, federalism has not led to the disappearance of ethnonationalism in any state; ethnonationalism is only contained and may be passing a dormant state only to erupt at a later date as in the case of Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. Third, without a qualitative change in political culture federalism cannot resolve ethnonationalist problems. Thus, an imposed federalism without the necessary political culture is bound to fail.

One of the strong arguments against federalism’s ability resolve ethnonationalism is the intensity of pre-federal ethno-political sentiments; higher the intensity, lesser the ability to resolve it through federalism. A prominent scholar on federalism, Paul Gilbert, elaborated that the pre-federal stage politics of minority ethnic groups claiming ethnonationalist sovereignty could jeopardize the federal solution. He argues that “Nationalist cases based either upon alleged will of the people or upon supposed cultural distinctness are both to be mistrusted” . The ability of federalism to resolve ethnonationalism “led by heresthetic politicians attempting to change political institutions for their own self interests” also will not be successful as pointed out by a political scientist, Keith Dowding. John Agnew , a prominent political geographer has pointed out that in the recent past federalism has faced high incidence (e.g. USSR and Yugoslavia) of failures or to be in perpetual crisis (e.g Canada and Spain). Another political geographer, Graham Smith, also questioning the ability of federalism to resolve ethnonationalist crisis, argues that “federal systems that have continued to prosper, such as Switzerland, may owe their good fortune less to federalism than to the fact that divisions are overlapping rather than territorial. P. Spencer and H. Woolman, two political scientists argues that federalism could “reinforces the very divisions it seeks to manage and … for elites to use local power bases, constructed and articulated in nationalist terms, to press for more and more power, even at the risk of pulling the system apart”. The pessimism towards federalism’s ability to solve ethnonationalist crisis emanate from, according to Specer and Williams, the fact that “most fundamentally, even the most diverse forms of federalism are after all grounded in a recognition of the temporal and logical priority of the national”.

The main argument against federalism as a solution to ethnonationalist problem in modern state can be summarized as follows.

1. Some of the most successful federal states (The US and Australia) did not emerge to cater to ethno-territorial secessionist demands of minority ethnic groups.

2. Minority ethno-secessionism has not been resolved by introducing a federal form of government in some states such as (India, Canada, and Spain)

3. Having a federal system per se will not resolve secessionist problem. It is the political commitment of all parties to uphold federalism that is essential.

4. Democracy and rule of law in both the political and civil society must accompany federalism, if it is to be successful.

5. Federalism should not be sought for vested interests but for its intrinsic objective of maintaining uniqueness within the larger state.

6. Defining federal units can create entirely new and perhaps more substantial problems and conflicts than earlier.

Pointing out the potential of federalism to resolve ethnonationalist problems, Kimlicka argues that “while there are some circumstances where federalism is relevant, these very same circumstances make it likely that federalism will simply be a stepping-stone to either secession or a much looser form of confederation. In general, it seems to me unlikely that federalism can provide an enduring solution to the challenges of ethnocultural pluralism. It may restrain these challenges for a period of time, but federal systems which are designed to accommodate self-governing ethnocultural groups are likely to be plagued by deadlock and instability. … where federalism is needed to keep a country together, the odds that country will remain together over the long-term are not great. Federalism may be the best available response to ethnocultural pluralism, but the best may not be good enough”.

This is exactly the point I am trying to make here in relation to the present effort of introducing or imposing as some argue, a federal constitution in Sri Lanka. Federalism, more to the point, a federal constitution alone may not be good enough. The package to resolve Sri Lankan ethno-secessionist problem should extend beyond a good federal constitution. The package must include a fundamental metamorphism in both the political and civil society from their present level of expedient extremist ethnocentric politics into democratic politics where the welfare of the people and the country is given primacy. Thus, it is of paramount importance that the current discourse on federalism also emphasize non-constitutional requirements needed for smooth practice of federalism.

What are the non-constitutional requirements for the smooth practice of Federalism?.

My initial reading of the federal systems around the world exposed me to a wide variety of non-constitutional factors cross cutting culture, politics, law and even simple common sense.

J. Bednar , an authority on federalism pointed out that federalism will be successful only if two political conditions are met.

1. National forces must be structurally restrained from infringing on regions and

2. Regional temptations to renege on federal state should be curbed by independent judiciary.

Forsyth Murray, another scholar on federalism pointed out that federalism will not be successful on its own but it is contingent upon the wide range of conditions such as “the depth of ethnic passion; the number of competing groups in question; their relative size and strength; the depth of economic and education disparities between them; the presence of a will to unite; the reality of concrete benefits to be derived from unity; the readiness to distribute the benefits of union equitably; the political tradition of people concerned; the presence or absence of democracy at local level; the links between the groups within and beyond the borders of the state; the external situation in general”. It becomes obvious that many socio-political issues beyond the purview of a constitution have to be tackled first to make federalism successful. Having a federal constitution first will automatically create these non-constitutional requirements of federalism is not only wishful thinking but also dead wrong. Jojislav Koslunica , the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stressed the importance of commitment and cohabitation of the two conflicting parties to make federalism successful.

Stressing the point that civil society is a crucial determinant of the success or failure of the federal formula, Radmila Nakaradha argues “success in resolving ethnic conflicts requires a double operation. Firstly, there should be intervention into the social infrastructure and civil society. .. The second operation is to establish the decisive balance between individual and collective rights, freedom and self-determination…” Jonathan Fox, a scholar on federalism also pointed out the role of civil society accountability as an important requirement in successful governance and federalism.

Another scholar A.N. Roy pointed out with respect to Indian federal experience that “the success of federalism also depends on civil society and the political culture” and thus “for a federal system to succeed, a climate of tolerance, compromise, and the recognition and respect for diversities is imperative”.

Radmila Nakaradha highlighted that federalism will not succeed in a violent society. The problems that are likely to arise in a federal system need to be resolved in a non-violent manner. Otherwise, the whole rationale for moving into federalism is undermined.

Amidst all these scholarly pronouncements and predictions, I was fascinated by the simple yet paramount concept of “enduring principle proposed by AR Gitelson, a political scientist. Gitelson has basically summarized in simple to understand language the fundamental non-constitutional requirements of federalism which are found scattered in other writings.

These enduring principles were

1. the rule of law,

2. republicanism,

3. separation of powers,

4. checks and balances and

5. national supremacy.

Gitelson’s simple but powerful argument is that the US political system, characterized primarily by federalism is maintained through these enduring principles. These principles are universal requirements of a democratic society, irrespective of the form of government. Empirical evidence from around the world shows that if these principles fall apart, so do the federal structures based on them. The failure of federal states such as Soviet Union, Yugoslavia can be directly attributed to the collapse of the above principles. In Sri Lanka too the future of federalism will undoubtedly depend on the degree of adherence to these principles.

Rule of Law.

Rule of law is fundamental to a civilized society. In a modern democratic society, rule of law is essential for its smooth functioning irrespective of the type of governmental system. The most basic principle of rule of law is that all citizens respect the rule of law which applies equally to all.

In federal states, the constitution is supreme as it alone guides the two parallel governments – the federal and regional. Further, the constitution reign supreme in case of a disagreement or conflict between the two levels of government. However, no federal constitution can anticipate all the potential problems within a federal system and therefore the judiciary – a Supreme Court – is empowered to interpret the constitution in a federal state. Supreme Court decisions are the final interpretations of the constitution. Federalism will function and survive only under the conditions of unquestionable acceptance of constitutional supremacy by all. If either government – federal or regional – disrespects the constitution and the Supreme Court rulings, federalism will disintegrate into total anarchy and renewed violence and chaos.

At the level of the civil society, people must not only uphold the laws of their own region/province, but also the federal laws which are applicable throughout the entire country. Federalism will degenerate if the people living in a regional state/province defy the federal laws. Even a brilliantly crafted federal constitution will not last a day if the society is not law abiding. Federalism could be and should be maintained through consensus and rule of law and not disagreements and violence.

Both the political and civil society in Sri Lanka does not have a respectable record on upholding the rule of law and enforcement of equality of under the law. Laws and even the constitution are violated with impunity by the political and governmental leaders as well as the members of the civil society to protect and sustain political power. Federalism cannot survive with these violations and excesses. Thus, it is important that the leaders who are committed to introduce federal system of government also emphasize on the need to reestablish rule of law in the country and also practice it themselves first.

Republicanism

Republicanism is about upholding democratic principles of governance. It is not paying lip service to a concept of “good governance”. Republicanism starts with the acceptance of the most basic assumption that government is of the people, by the people and for the people. It has been argued that federalism to be the most republican form of all systems of government. Federalism, is not a political ideology or mechanism to justify authoritarianism, dictatorship, or defiance and last of all terrorism either at the national or provincial level. Rule of law, free and fair elections held regularly as stipulated not at the time of most politically advantages to those in power, and democratic principles and human rights are inseparable elements of the large system federalism. Federalism is not a license for provincial tyrants to act undemocratically in the name of political autonomy and/or self-determination of an ethnic group. The peace loving people who desire, respect and uphold democratic rights should come first in any attempt to formulate a federal structure. Sri Lankan federalism should not be contemplated only as an opportunity to satisfy the political aspirations of Tamil people as projected by the ITAK and TNA. It has to be seen as an opportunity for all people, including the Tamils to fully participate in democratic politics and decision making at all levels of governance. Whatever, the subsequent justifications, the real origin of Tamil ethnonationalism which escalated to the level of terrorism is precisely the lack of real opportunities for the Tamils to fully and actively participate in national democracy and governance in the Sri Lankan state. Both Sinhalese and Tamil political parties and the governments since 1948 are responsible for this utter failure. Federalism should reestablish republicanism in this country – both in Sinhalese and Tamil areas – in its true sense of the word. Federalism without republicanism is as good and real as ‘present Soviet Union’!

Separation of Powers

The concept of separation of powers – legislative, executive and judicial – was introduced precisely to prevent concentration of all three powers on a single individual, political party or a body. Separation of powers is considered an essential requirement in any modern democracy to prevent corruption and dictatorship or tyranny. Separation of powers is more important in federal system as the very purpose of federalism could be defeated if the leaders become national or regional dictators.

In Sri Lanka, one of the arguments for the emergence of Tamil ethno- nationalism and its subsequent intensification into terrorism is precisely the continuing over-centralization and over-concentration of power in Colombo. As the Tamil demand for regional autonomy intensified so did the Colombo’s effort towards centralization.

By Neville Ladduwahetty Courtesy The Island

November 6, 2017, 12:00 pm
UN Special Rapporteur, Pablo de Greiff, at a media briefing following his 14-day visit to Sri Lanka stated: “Sri Lanka continues to deprive itself of the benefits of Transitional Justice”. Before addressing the benefits of Transitional Justice, certain fundamentals need to be clarified. Some of these fundamentals are, for instance: What is Transitional Justice? Is it relevant to Sri Lanka? From what to what is Sri Lanka supposed to transition? Is Justice to be restorative or retributive?

Answers could be found in a publication by the “International Center for TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE”.

Addressing the question of “What is Transitional Justice”? the publication states as follows:

“Transitional justice is a response to systematic or widespread violations of human rights. It seeks recognition of victims and promotion of possibilities of peace, reconciliation and democracy. Transitional justice is not a special form of justice but justice adapted to societies transforming themselves after a period of pervasive human rights abuses…”

“This approach emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s, mainly in response to political changes in Latin America and Eastern Europe – and to demands in these regions for justice. At the time, human rights activists and others wanted to address systematic abuses by former regimes but without endangering the political transformations that were underway. Since these changes were popularly called “transitions to democracy”, people began calling this new multidisciplinary field “transitional justice”.

RELEVANCE of TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE

If Transitional Justice is an attempt by a country to transition from systematic and widespread violations of human rights, or societies transforming themselves after a period of pervasive human rights abuses as in Latin America and Eastern Europe to one of “peace, reconciliation and democracy”, how relevant is it to a country such as Sri Lanka that has experienced uninterrupted representative democracy even before it became a sovereign independent state? Furthermore, during the time frame referred to in the UNHRC Resolution 30/1, which was February 22, 2002 to May 19, 2009, the conduct of the parties to the conflict, i.e., the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, should be judged on the basis of International Humanitarian Law and NOT International Human Rights Law, since the conflict was a Non-International Armed Conflict applicable to Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions; a fact acknowledged in the OISL report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights paragraphs 182 and 183, cited below.

Paragraph 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”.

Paragraph 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”

If the “benefits” of Transitional Justice are peace and reconciliation, on what basis does Mr. Pablo de Grieff infer that such benefits do not already prevail since standards, parameters and guidelines do not exist to measure either or both benefits? He cannot deny that the derogation of civil liberties in Sri Lanka is currently far less than what exists in countries such as the US, UK and France in their efforts to deal with threats from terrorism, judging from comments made by none other than the High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the derogation of civil liberties in those countries. Therefore, how relevant is Transitional Justice to Sri Lanka?

The whole premise for recommending Transitional Justice is because of a belief that human rights were violated during and after the armed conflict. As far as the armed conflict is concerned there is agreement between the UN High Commissioner’s Office for Human Rights and the Panel of Experts headed by Darusman, appointed by the UN Secretary General, that the conflict was an armed conflict, and that the applicable law is International Humanitarian Law and NOT Human Rights Law. The Executive Summary of the latter’s report states thus: “…the Panel proceeded from long settled premise of international law that during an armed conflict such as that in Sri Lanka, both international humanitarian law and international human rights law are applicable”. Despite this “long settled premise” the summary 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 in the conflict of both the Government and the LTTE” . Therefore, it could justifiably be concluded that Transitional Justice, the basis of which is pervasive human rights violations, is not applicable to the period February 22, 2002 to May 19, 2009.

Furthermore, there is opinion that International Humanitarian Law applies even after hostilities cease. Such an opinion was conveyed during the case of the Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, when the Security Council appointed the Appeals Court of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Protection of Persons responsible for serious violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991. The Tribunal stated: “…we find that an armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between government authorities and organized groups or between such groups within a State. International humanitarian law applies from the initiation of such armed conflict and extends beyond the cessation of hostilities until a general conclusion of peace is reached, in the case of internal conflicts, a peaceful settlement is achieved. Until that moment, international humanitarian law continues to apply in the whole territory of the warring State or, in the case of internal conflicts the whole territory under the control of a party, whether or not combat takes place there”.

The President of this Tribunal was a highly respected and internationally recognized jurist, Antonio Cassese. The opinion of the Tribunal was that only International Humanitarian Law applies, not only during an armed conflict but also beyond the “cessation of hostilities”, and that it applies throughout the entire territory of the State. This opinion rejects the notion held by some that international humanitarian law and international human rights law apply concurrently. In view of the opinion of the Tribunal, Transnational Justice has no relevance to Sri Lanka.

APPLICABLE LAW

The UNHRC resolution 30/1 requires Sri Lanka “…to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law, as applicable”. The notion that Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law are applicable concurrently during an armed conflict is a commonly held false premise because the tendency is to assume that the full scope of human rights law that applies at peace time is applicable along with humanitarian law during an armed conflict.  This assumption ignores that certain provisions of human rights could justifiably be derogated provided certain provisions of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are retained. Thus, for human rights and humanitarian laws to apply concurrently, it is absolutely necessary for human rights to be derogated to the limits stated in Article 4 (2) of the Covenant. However, since human rights in its derogated form are incorporated in provisions of Additional Protocol II of 1977, the applicable law during an armed conflict should be humanitarian law.

The principle of derogation is also recognized by Article 15 (7) of the Sri Lanka’s Constitution in the interest of national security. Furthermore, Sri Lanka’s Emergency Regulations were also in operation during and after the conflict. Therefore, the determination by the Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia that humanitarian law is applicable during an armed conflict and beyond is valid. Thus, Transitional Justice is arguably irrelevant to Sri Lanka.

GOVERNMENT”S POSITION

A statement by the Foreign Ministry reported in The Island of October 27, 2017 stated: “Since Sri Lanka is not a signatory to the Rome Statute regarding international jurisdiction with regard to war crimes, ensuring justice with regard to such matters will be the business of national independent judicial mechanisms”. This statement is an exact reproduction of “point 93” of the President’s 100 Day work programme. Having committed to a national judicial mechanism in January 2015, how did the Foreign Ministry co-sponsor the UNHRC resolution in September 2015 – nine months later – that calls for a judicial mechanism that includes a “special counsel’s office, Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators”, in violation of the President’s commitment to the People?

The Foreign Ministry statement commits “to present its own set of national proposals for a transitional justice process, involving truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence”. Is the government aware that by committing to base its national proposals on transitional justice it has agreed to establish truth, justice, reparation etc. on the basis of human rights, whereas both the Panel of Experts report and the OISL report accept humanitarian law as the applicable law?

Is the Foreign Ministry serious when it claims that it could establish the truth and administer justice, when access to the very evidence that could have a bearing to address alleged violations is denied not only by the UN but also by US and UK who are the chief initiators of the UNHRC 30/1 resolution.? This is a disgrace and a violation of rules of natural justice for which the Ministry is accountable. Furthermore, how could issues relating to reparation be addressed without establishing the number of persons affected as a consequence of alleged humanitarian law violations, bearing in mind that to arrive at this number, one has to know how many were affected by violations committed by the LTTE as well? This is not a realistic undertaking regardless of whether the judicial mechanism is national or not.

A recent statement by the Foreign Ministry stated that engaging in debates over the number of civilians dead is a meaningless exercise except for a “feel good factor” for the individuals concerned. Those engaged in this so called “meaningless exercise” of challenging contrived numbers such as 40,000 dead suggested in the Darusman report did not do it to win debates or feel good. They did it because they saw the injustice of spuriously concocted numbers. Had the Foreign Ministry been effective in challenging these numbers picked out of thin air, there would not have been the need for members of civil society to step up to the plate and fill the void.

Also, the Foreign Ministry did not present the conflict as an armed conflict nor that the conduct of the security forces and the LTTE should be judged on the basis of international humanitarian law as stated in the Darusman and OISL reports.

Furthermore, thus far no attempt has been made to challenge the ability of anyone to distinguish civilians from combatants in claims to the number of civilians who died, since it is a well established fact that the LTTE shed their uniforms, thus violating one of the two key principles of humanitarian law, namely, distinction and proportionality. Additionally, was the issue of civilians losing their right of protection when they provided material support to the combatants ever raised? Was the issue that the respective parties to an armed conflict are responsible for the protection of civilians in their charge ever taken up by the Foreign Ministry or any other? Was the issue of supplying humanitarian aid NOT being an obligation of the government as a party to the armed conflict under rules of humanitarian law, ever raised? Were such issues not raised to stay “engaged” and/or to “feel good” in the eyes of the UNHRC and the international community? Clearly, the current attitude towards Sri Lanka is due to the failure of the government led by the Foreign Ministry to develop an effective strategy as far as Geneva is concerned; a failure that continues to persist.

Since the first UNHRC resolution on accountability in 2012, Sri Lanka has been taking a defensive strategy – always explaining its actions during and after the conflict. This is a flawed strategy. Instead, Sri Lanka needs to change course and adopt a proactive approach and present the conduct of the armed conflict in the context of what it really was, that it was an armed conflict in which humanitarian law applied and human rights law applied ONLY in its derogated form both during and after the conflict until the transit camps were dismantled.. Such an approach amounts to Sri Lanka using the provisions of internationally accepted law and its approaches, to counter issues relating to accountability. Since the Foreign Ministry is unlikely to transform itself to fulfill such a role, the task of presenting issues relating to accountability should be undertaken by a representative of the Defense Ministry to present the segment on accountability. Since a national mechanism or any other would not be in a position to establish the truth as to who was a victim of government action or LTTE action, the remit should be to identify the victims and arrange for reparations, justified on the basis that no post conflict mechanism anywhere has established the “truth”, and that without the “truth” there is no “justice”. Therefore, transitional justice boils down only to reparations.

CONCLUSION

Special Rapporteur Pablo de Grieff was an emissary representing Geneva and sent to Sri Lanka to promote transitional justice. The concept of transitional justice evolved to help countries in Latin America and Eastern Europe that had experienced pervasive human rights violations under repressive regimes and to assist their transition into democracies. Such concepts have NO relevance to a country such as Sri Lanka that has experienced representative democracy even before it became a sovereign independent State, and has continued to be so without interruption even during the conflict that is recognized internationally as an armed conflict, wherein humanitarian law applies and NOT human rights law. Therefore, violations if any should be judged on the basis of the norms of humanitarian law. This makes transitional justice irrelevant to Sri Lanka.

Notwithstanding this, the government co-sponsored resolution UNHRC 30/1 that calls for the establishment of a judicial mechanism to address issues relating to accountability with the participation of foreign judges etc. (para. 6 of UNHRC Resolution 30/1), completely ignoring a commitment by the President in his 100 Day Programme for a “national independent judicial mechanism”. Despite its commitment to Geneva, a recent statement by the Foreign Ministry confirms that the President’s commitment for a national independent judicial mechanism would prevail. However, the Foreign Ministry statement did not specify what the remit to a national judicial mechanism would be.

Whatever the mechanism, what is of relevance is that starting from the first Resolution in 2012, Sri Lanka has taken a defensive approach explaining its conduct during the armed conflict without taking a proactive approach to justify that its conduct should be judged on the basis of humanitarian law as an entitlement. Perhaps the strategy adopted thus far is based on the notion that all issues relating to Geneva are political. Since this approach has not helped Sri Lanka get off first base, it is time a different track is used, that being the legal approach.

Those who represent Sri Lanka in Geneva are not likely to change course because they lack the needed understanding and conviction to make a credible case to justify its conduct based on humanitarian law as an entitlement. Therefore, the team representing Sri Lanka should consist of a member from the Defense Ministry to address accountability issues in a credible manner to convince some members of the Human Rights Council of the need to revisit the position taken by the UN High Commissioner. While the legitimacy of such an approach is unquestionable, the question is whether the Government led by the Foreign Ministry or any other that represents Sri Lanka has the chutzpah chutzpahchutzpahchutzpahto be up to the task.

Neville Ladduwahetty
November 4, 2017.

Myanmar Buddhist HanMg Says:

November 5th, 2017

The Buddha in his wisdom did not expect a nation or the rulers to be lame ducks in the wake of an enemy invasion. However Buddha’s expectations from one who is training to be an Arhant whether monk or layman are different and it should not be mistaken with the Buddha’s expectations from the laity burdened with numerous worldly responsibilities. It is also because the Buddha in his wisdom did not expect every ‘Buddhist’ to opt for Arahantship nor to become an ascetic renouncing the worldly affairs. To the majority Buddhism is a way of life rather than a faith, philosophy, or a religion.However it should be stressed that a soldier like all others is subject to the law of Kamma and will not escape the Kammic fruits of taking the Life”of a sentient being (panatipatha) even though he may have had the overall noble intention of protecting his country and his people.”

It has been easy to continuously silence Buddhists by making them feel that they should not be aggressive in protecting their religion or culture. Often the argument thrown at Buddhists is that they should be compassionate and calm bordering on pacifism and tolerance. Many Buddhists have embraced the argument that should rely solely on their inner strength” and that there is no need to understand the external threats.

WELL THIS WAS WHAT THE BUDDHISTS MONKS OF NALANDA DID AND THEY WERE ALL KILLED AND THE WORLD’S OLDEST UNIVERSITY WAS BURNT TO CINDERS, THE BUDDHIST MONKS IN MALDIVES FACED A SIMILAR FATE WHEN THEY GAVE THEIR NECKS TO BE BEHEADED IN A COUNTRY THAT WAS ONCE BUDDHIST, IN BANGLADESH TOO WE SEE SIMILAR SITUATIONS

FINALLY, ALL BUDDHISTS MUST REMEMBER NALANDA, AND PLEDGE NEVER AGAIN. WE CAN STOP INVASION OF BUDDHIST COUNTRIES BY BARBARIC FORCES STARTING BY RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXTERNAL THREATS. THE WORST THING WE CAN DO IS PUT OUR HEADS IN THE SAND” AND DO NOTHING.

http://www.lankaweb.com/…/buddhism-has-sha…/comment-page-1/…

Shenali D Waduge

“A Framework for the Constitution of the Union of Ceylon” prepared in 1994 by a firm of British solicitors (Bates, Wells and Braithwaite) for the Sri Lanka Peace Support Group an entity within the Centre of Policy Alternatives. What is interesting about this proposal is that it lays out the nuts and bolts of a confederate structure; a concept that many are unfamiliar with but elements which are being peddled through the present constitution giving rise to the reality that this new constitution is certainly not drafted in Sri Lanka by the people whom the government claims to have appointed and none of the proposals that were requested by the public have been taken into consideration. A careful reading of the 1994 proposal compared with the clauses being presently promoted and the slogans used will clearly reveal that these documents have been kept ready until their ‘men’ have been brought into power by regime change. For these reasons and more the citizens of Sri Lanka must reject this new constitution.

The letter sent by the British solicitors to both President Kumaratunga & Prabakaran is enclosed

http://www.sangam.org/FB_HIST_DOCS/UKLetters.htm

Cover letter http://www.sangam.org/FB_HIST_DOCS/UKMessage.htm

The full text of the proposal

http://www.sangam.org/FB_HIST_DOCS/UKProposal.htm

The proposal by the British firm was on the request of an entity known as Sri Lanka Peace Support Group formed within the Centre for Policy Alternatives. Guess who members of this group consisted

• Radhika Coomaraswamy
• Sunila Abeysekera
• Sunil Bastian
• Sunanda Deshapriya
• Rohan Edrisinha
• Kethesh Loganathan

• Jehan Perera
• Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
• Jeevan  Thiagarajah
• Joe William
• Javed Yusuf

http://www.uthr.org/Peace/PSG_on%20_peace_talks.htm

Their statements from 2000 to 2006 are available on the CPA website – http://www.cpalanka.org/peace-support-group-psg-statements-2000-to-2006/

The Group issued an open letter for the 2001 elections http://www.island.lk/2001/11/04/featur09.html and the proposals they make clearly indicate where their allegiance lies.

In 2002 Daily News featured an article by Centre of Policy Alternatives Director Rohan Edrisinha titled Meeting Tamil aspirations within a united Lanka”. http://archives.dailynews.lk/2002/06/24/fea01.html

Salient points covered in his article is important to understanding who is peddling the new constitution and what the real gameplan is.

Edirsinha makes reference to the banned LTTE front leader of Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam, Rudrakumaran who was also the lawyer for LTTE referring to the need for Tamil self-determination as part of a political solution. Edirisinha agrees to that right.

Interesting is the quote maximum devolution within a united country seemed to be the philosophy behind a proposal submitted to President Kumaratunga and Prabakaran” on 20 December 1995 prepared by a British law firm Bates, Wells & Braithwaite on request of Sri Lanka Peace Support Group.

Don’t know where era Edirisinha was living in as he claims the ‘proposal basically provided for a confederation the Union of Ceylon consisting of two internally autonomous states, one for the Tamil area (north east of the country) and the other for the mainly Sinhalese areas’.

The other areas that the proposal covered were

Apart from foreign affairs, external defence and security monetary policy and currency, maintenance of relations between the states and a few other matters, each state would have the power to adopt its own constitution which would have to endorse certain core principles set out in the Preamble to the Constitution and entrenched clauses on human rights, while setting out its own structure of government, have its own Prime Minister and exercise complete autonomy in all other areas.”

It provided for a Central Council of the Union to exercise power with respect to the reserved subjects and to provide a channel of communication and co-ordination between the two states consisting of an equal number of representatives from the states. The Council would appoint a President and Deputy President of the Union from amongst its members for a specified time with agreed alternation between representatives of each state.”

The citizens of the union would share a common nationality and have the freedom of movement and the right to reside and work in any part of the union.”

The proposal provided for a Constitutional Court consisting of an equal number of judges from each state and a suggestion that one or more non-Ceylonese judges of international repute be included as well. The main function of the Court would be to interpret the Constitution and to ensure state compliance with the provisions of the preamble and the human rights provisions of the Constitution.”

Under a provision titled ‘Referendum & Guarantees’ the proposal provides each state to conduct a referendum to ‘modify the powers of the Union affecting that State’. Is this not another means for UDI?

What is bizarre is that it also included provision in implementing the Constitution and maintenance of peace between the 2 States guaranteed by the United Nations!

This law firm was suggesting to create two independent & sovereign entities confirmed in the Preamble that relations between the 2 States would be governed according to the ‘applicable principles of international law & justice’.

It is shocking that a British law firm would continue to refer to Sri Lanka as ‘Ceylon’ and questions which era they are living in. However, the elements proposed clearly tally with the present elements of the new constitution putting those who come before us as being the persons drafting the constitution to ridicule!

Shenali D Waduge

Ranjith Soysa, Spokesperson, GSLF

Introduction

CountryWatch (www.countrywatch.com)  is the publisher of several country-specific  data and intelligence reports apparently for the use of corporations, government agencies, universities, schools, libraries and individuals and says it provides  up-to-date news and information on each of the recognized countries of the world.”

CountryWatch further claims that its management has extensive international business experience” while members of the editorial department have strong academic backgrounds.”   It also claims to provide critical” country-specific intelligence data to a global audience including public and private sector organizations with overseas operations and global interests.”

Reviewing the PDF online of 2017 Country Review on Sri Lanka” (Read: SL Country Watch), we found  misinformation, errors, and even some old data.

As a publication aimed at the academic and business communities, CountryWatch should be judicious and objective in the content it presents.  Yet, very strong bias against the former Rajapaksa administration runs through the pages.  Uncorroborated, even false, reports used by Rajapaksa’s political opponents to vilify the former president have found their way into this report.  While editors are certainly entitled to their opinion, passing opinion and commentary as facts seriously undermines the integrity of any publication.

In general, the publication lacks critical analysis, is not well organized,  and is an assortment of material apparently culled from various sources, most of it not even related to Sri Lanka.

Page after page of general information under topics such as Environmental Overview” pad the size of the publication but do nothing to enhance the Sri Lanka-specific knowledge its readers are likely seeking.

The same could be said of the Editor’s Note” – which is repeated word for word  on pages 2, 78, 122, & 145: adds pages, nothing else.

The fact that President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s name has been misspelled (as Rajpaksa) 69 times throughout the report doesn’t speak well for editorial oversight.

We are politically unaffiliated and independent Sri Lankan expatriate groups.  Our only purpose in putting the following detailed comments together is to correct inaccuracies and present facts omitted or misrepresented by CountryWatch. .

Contributors:

Global Sri Lankan Forum Inc., Melbourne, Australia

Sri Lanka-US Political Affairs Council (SLUPAC), California, USA

Comments may be sent to:

Ranjith Soysa, Spokesperson, GSLF (ranbourne@gmail.com)

Start reading critique on 2017 Country Review on Sri Lanka

Dismissing the record of a popular Asian leader as spurious” – Page 76

DHARSHAN WEERASEKERA,

‘If at any time it appears to the President of the Republic that a question of law or fact has arisen or is likely to arise which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer that question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit…report to the President its opinion thereon.’ – Article 129(1), Sri Lanka Constitution

On 1^st November 2017, President Sirisena announced that he will convene three conferences – one for religious leaders, another for politicians and a third for intellectuals – to discuss the proposed constitutional changes.[1]  However, within the past week former Justice Minister Wijedasa Rajapakshe PC has published three articles arguing that the present constitution-making process is illegal.[2]  Barely a month ago, former Chief Justice Sarath Silva also stated publicly that the constitution-making process is illegal.[3]

If a former Chief Justice and a former Justice Minister say that the constitution-making process is illegal, the Government cannot ignore such a warning, or at any rate does so at its peril.  Under Article 129 of the Constitution the President can invoke the consultative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on any matter of public importance.  It is hardly possible to think of a more important matter than a new Constitution that might be illegal.

In this article, I shall briefly discuss the arguments being put forth by the former Chief justice as well as the former Justice Minister, clarify why I think it is incumbent on the President to first settle the question as to the legality of the constitution-making process before convening conferences of politicians, religious leaders and intellectuals to discuss the purported merits of the proposed changes, and explain the consequences to the country if a new Constitution is enacted without settling the question as to its legality.

THE ILLEGALITY OF THE CONSTITUTION-MAKING PROCESS

To digress a moment, I should mention that I have argued since January 2017 that the constitution-making process is illegal.  My first article on this subject, titled ‘The Illegality of the Ongoing Constitution-making Process in Sri Lanka,’[4] was published in lankaweb.com on 1^st January 2017.  A second article titled, ‘The Ongoing Constitution-making process in Sri Lanka:  An Inquiry into its Legality,’[5] appeared on 23^rd August 2017.

I am informed that, in June 2017 Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera and the Global Sri Lankan Forum forwarded a version of the second paper above to the President of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.  So, it is safe to presume that relevant parties at the Human Rights Council are now aware of, and are monitoring, some of the shenanigans going on in this country with respect to the new Constitution.

However, for the purposes of the present article, I shall confine myself to the arguments presented by the former Chief Justice and the former Justice Minister.  To the best of my knowledge, though their arguments are slightly different, they both start from the premise that the prescribed amending procedure set out in Chapter 12 of the Constitution (Articles 82(1) – (6) and 83) does not state anywhere that the said amending procedure can start with Parliament turning itself by resolution into a ‘Constitutional Assembly.’

Here’s the former Chief Justice Sarath Silva, in an interview with Daily Mirror on 6^th October 2017:

‘The entire constitution making process is also unconstitutional.  There are particular ways providing for the amendment of the Constitution.  They are given very clearly.  The Bill for the amendment of the Constitution should be determined by the Cabinet.  Then, the Cabinet should decide whether it should be passed by a two-thirds and referendum.  If the Cabinet decides, the Supreme Court won’t exercise its jurisdiction.  It must go according to this.  Otherwise, the Supreme Court can order a referendum.’

‘There is no provision in the Constitution for a Constitutional Assembly.  At least it must derive its authority from the Constitution.  It derives authority from some resolution in Parliament.  The Parliament can’t do that.  The Parliament must act according to the Constitution.  The Government derailed the procedure.’[6]

The following, meanwhile, is a quote from Mr. Rajapakshe’s article, ‘Constitutional Assembly is unconstitutional, null and void ab initio,’ of 3^rd November 2017:

‘Articles 75, 82 and 83 of the Constitution have categorically conferred power on the Parliament to repeal the existing Constitution and replace it with a new one.  The limitations of such powers are clearly stipulated in Article 76(1) in the following manner:

‘Parliament shall not abdicate or in any manner alienate its legislative power and shall not set up any authority with any legislative power’

‘The provisions are unambiguous.  If so, is the approval of the resolution presented to Parliament to establish a Constitutional Assembly a violation of the affirmation/oath taken by members of Parliament in terms of Article 63 of the Constitution with utmost honesty and dignity?’[7]

And he goes on,

‘At present, we being the legislators, have lost the grip on the purported Steering Committee and the task has been taken over by highly paid so-called foreign experts, NGO activists who patently act against the national interest in return for what they are paid by foreign masters some of whom have been advocating federalism.  There is influence from western countries where Tamil Diaspora is active and their efforts to interfere were defeated by some members of the committee.  A question has now arisen as to what is the use of the Parliament if it entrusts its duties and obligations to an organ which is not recognized by the Constitution.’[8]

To repeat, the arguments of both the former Chief Justice and the Justice Minister start from the assertion that the present constitution-making process is contrary to the prescribed amending procedure set out in Chapter 12.  What can the Government say in reply?

If I were a Government lawyer, I would inter alia point out three things.  First, Article 75 of the Constitution gives Parliament wide powers to ‘makes laws’ and this includes the power to amend or repeal the Constitution, and these powers are wide enough to cover the setting up of the ‘Constitutional Assembly.’

Second, Article 82(5) only says that a 2/3 majority is sufficient to pass a proposed amendment in Parliament but it does not preclude the amendment being submitted to a referendum of the people.  So, the interests of the people have not been harmed by the present constitution-making process because whatever final proposal is generated will be submitted to a referendum and the people can have their say then.

Finally, the present process does not circumvent the prescribed procedure because, once the final constitutional proposal is produced, the Government has every intention submitting such proposal to Parliament sitting as Parliament – and not as the ‘Constitutional Assembly’ – that is, of initiating the amending process at Article 82(2) and proceeding thereon.

Needless to say, there are good counter-arguments to the above points, but I shall not go into those here.  The point is this.  The fact that a former Chief Justice and a Justice Minister have publicly raised a question as to the legality of the present constitution-making process means that the Government can no longer ignore it, because of the following reasons.

1. It is well-established in law that:  ‘Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of fact excuses; ignorance of the law does not excuse.)
2. It is also well-established that, in any dispute questions of law must be settled before questions of fact
3. Under our Constitution, only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and the President has the capacity under Article 129 to invoke the Supreme Court’s consultative jurisdiction on any matter of public importance.
4. It is reasonable to suppose that, a former Chief Justice and a former Justice Minister of Sri Lanka have sufficient knowledge about the Constitution of this country, and in any event, even if one suspends one’s judgment about their interpretation of Chapter 12 vis a vis the ‘Constitutional Assembly,’ what they are pointing out – namely, that provision for a ‘Constitutional Assembly’ is not made anywhere in Chapter 12 – is literally correct.  Therefore, their interpretation as to the illegality of the ‘Constitutional Assembly’ might be correct.
5. Maithripala Sirisena cannot indemnify the people of Sri Lanka for any harm including loss of life and property that might result from the promulgation of an illegal Constitution.
6. Therefore, it will be an act of the grossest possible negligence not to mention dereliction of duty if the President does not use his power under Article 129 of the Constitution to obtain a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court as to whether or not the constitution-making process that has been followed thus far is lawful.
7. Since much is made of the fact that under the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution the President has been made responsible to the Cabinet and also the Parliament, if Mr. Sirisena fails to invoke Article 129 and obtain a Supreme Court ruling on the issue in question, not just he but the Cabinet as well as Parliament can be held responsible said failure, because they had every opportunity to formally request the President to obtain the said ruling.  They cannot all claim that they did not read the newspapers, or were completely unaware that there may be questions as to the legality of the constitution-making process.

CONSEQUENCES

In the event an illegal Constitution is enacted, and a future Government obtains a ruling confirming such illegality it will render every single act performed under the impugned Constitution null and void and of no effect in law.

Among other things, every transaction including international agreements and contracts with foreign governments and companies signed during the period when the impugned Constitution was in operation will be null and void and subject to renegotiation at the discretion of the new Government.

In domestic law, every case where a judge has issued a divorce decree, partition decree, a criminal conviction, and so on, during the period when the impugned Constitution was the ‘supreme law of the land’ will have to be reheard, because the judge when issuing such order derived his or her authority from the said Constitution.

I leave the reader to imagine the chaos, not to mention drain on the public funds that will result from all of the above.  To put it simply, Sri Lanka will quite literally become a ‘Banana Republic,’ the laughingstock of the entire world.

OBJECTIONS

A critic might raise two objections to what I have said above.  First, ‘how can a future Government obtain a ruling on the legality of the new Constitution if your premise is that that Constitution itself is illegal?’  For instance, in order to obtain a ruling, the future Government will have to turn to an institution such as the ‘Constitutional Court’ – or ‘NGO Court’ as it is already being called by many Sinhalas – but that court would be illegal by definition if the Constitution is illegal.

Second, suppose the Sinhalas persuade Sirisena to request the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the legality of the constitution-making process, and the Court after due consideration says that it is perfectly legal.  In other words, what if the Sinhalas lose the case?  Won’t they be worse off than if they had never pursued the issue at all?

With respect to the first objection, I concede that there is a problem, but not an insurmountable one.  For instance, a new Government can be elected on the basis of a Constitutional Proposal that is put to the people before the elections.  If the Government is elected with an overwhelming majority, the document that was put to the people before the elections will assume the status of a ‘People’s Constitution’ and will derive its authority directly from the people, and independently of the impugned Constitution.

Under those circumstances, the People’s Constitution can have provisions and procedures for obtaining a ruling on the legality of the impugned Constitution.  With respect to the whether the Sinhalas will be worse off if they lose the case, I reply that they won’t be, because of the following reasons.

If they lose on the question of the legality of the constitution-making process, they can immediately resume their objections on the facts, i.e. the merits or demerits of the proposed changes, which is what outfits such as the JO are doing at present anyway.  The advantage in an action under Article 129 is that if the Sinhalas win, they win big – i.e. it puts an end to the new Constitution once and for all.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I repeat my warning made in a number of previous articles that, the Americans are ultimately behind what is happening to this country at present.  The Americans are in the process of integrating Sri Lanka into their strategic matrix in the Asia-Pacific region.  They are going about it systematically – putting the hooks in as it were – but the hooks have not yet locked-in fully.  There’s still a small window of opportunity to wriggle free.

It is no longer in dispute among informed observers that the present Government will suffer a crushing defeat at the 2020 General Elections, i.e. it will be a repeat of ’77, except it’ll be the Sinhala Nationalists who will romp to power rather than the UNP.  The only way for the UNP, and ultimately the U.S. to prevent what is going to happen is to postpone the 2020 elections.  A new Constitution will give them a pretext to do this.

So, all that the Sinhalas have to do is to prevent a new Constitution from being enacted in the next two years, or to discredit any such Constitution to such an extent that even if enacted it is not worth the paper it is written on.  In my view, Sirisena probably understands what the Americans are doing to Sri Lanka, but he can’t fight it because he’s afraid that, if he helps the Sinhalas get back in power, the Sinhalas instead of thanking him will hound him and his family to kingdom come.

So, the Sinhalas have to allay his fears.   They should ask the Sangha to mediate a deal.  The Sinhalas will take a solemn oath, before Daladawa or Ruwanveliseya, in the presence of the Sangha, that if the Sinhalas return to power Sirisena, his family and a select number of Sirisena’s henchmen that he will specify will not be harassed or harmed in any way.  It will be a general amnesty.  They can take their ‘winnings’ and retire.

In return, Sirisena will not permit the new Constitution to be enacted, and will start by instituting action under Article 129.  At a minimum, a hearing of this type, which I presume will involve submissions by members of the public also, will buy the Sinhalas at least six months respite, plenty of time, in my view, for the Government’s 2/3 majority in Parliament to collapse of its own decrepit weight.

[1] ‘MS to call All-Party conference to allay fears,’ Daily Mirror, 1^st November 2017

[2] ‘Constitutional Assembly is unconstitutional, null and void ab initio,’ The Island, 2^nd November 2017, 3^rd November 2017 and 4^th November 2017 respectively.

[3] Interview with former Chief Justice Sarath Silva, Daily Mirror, 6^th October 2017

[4] Dharshan Weerasekera, ‘The Illegality of the ongoing constitution-making process in Sri Lanka,’ 1^st January2017, www.lankaweb.com

[5] Dharshan Weerasekera, ‘The ongoing constitution-making process in Sri Lanka:  An inquiry into its legality,’ 23^rd August 2017, www.lankaweb.com

[6] Interview, Daily Mirror,  6^th October 2017

[7] ‘Wijedasa Rajapakshe PC, ‘Constitutional Assembly unconstitutional, null and void ab initio,’ The Island, 3^rd November 2017

[8] Ibid

KAMALIKA PIERIS

(Revised 07/11/17)

This essay lists some new developments in China which are of interest to Sri Lanka .Firstly, China has successfully tested a high-altitude spy drone which could help it dominate a region of the Earth’s atmosphere known as ‘near space’. Scientists are trying to develop a durable ‘near space’ vehicle capable of observing large areas for weeks, months or even years on end. Such a spy drone would be able to penetrate air defense systems and gather sensitive intelligence behind enemy lines.

This ‘near space’ which begins at about 20km above sea level, has until now been regarded a “death zone” for drones due to thin air and extremely low temperatures. ‘Near space’ has long been seen as a promising frontier for military intelligence, but has remained inaccessible because it is too high for most airplanes to operate, and too low for satellites. At this altitude, thin air makes it hard to generate lift for a drone while extremely low temperature means electronic components, like batteries are prone to fail.

US Navy and NASA have conducted test flights of drones for ‘near space’ but without success. China, on the other hand, seems to have developed a drone that can stay in ‘near space’. This drone, created by the Academy of Optoelectronics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing was tested at a research facility in Inner Mongolia at an altitude of 25km. The drones had glided towards their targets more than 100km away, adjusting course and altitude in flight without human intervention. On-board sensors beamed data back to a ground station.

This marks a significant step towards China’s ambition of exploiting near space for purposes of military intelligence, said the South China Morning Post. Yang Chunxin, a professor at the School of Aeronautic science and Engineering at Beihang University in Beijing, said there were still many challenges in developing high altitude drones. The goal of our research is to launch hundreds of these drones in one shot, like letting loose a bee or ant colony,” said Yang Yanchu, lead scientist of the project.

China’s politics has also taken a significant step forward. China’s Communist Party formally elevated President Xi Jinping to the same status as Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, at the 19^th Communist Party Congress held in October 2017 in Beijing.  XI Jinping’s name was written into its constitution at this meeting.

Xi Jinping now joins Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping in the pantheon of modern China’s most powerful men, noted observers. He is the third Chinese leader to be so honored. This makes Xi the most powerful Chinese leader in decades, with ambitions to make his country a superpower on the world stage,

Xi Jumping’s ‘Thoughts on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in a New Era’   will now be included in the constitution. His views now join Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping’s Guide to action, as the basis of China thought. Xi’s contribution is not another Little Red Book of pithy quotations. It is a mightier, drier tome of his speeches on The Governance of China.”

Xi Jinping gave a marathon speech of three and half hours at the Congress meeting, showing his seriousness, determination and epoch making character. His speech revealed new directions for the party, country and China’s foreign policy. Therefore his speech has implications for the world at large. He spoke of a ‘moderately prosperous China,’ ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ and a ‘new era’. These were repeated several times throughout the speech, with explanations. Xi Jinping    called China a ‘great power’ or ‘strong power ‘26 times in his speech, said analysts.

The anti-China Western powers have spoken disparagingly of the Party Congress as a ‘spectacle’. It was no spectacle. A  week-long  Party Congress, is held once every five years in the imposing and cavernous Great Hall of the People on the western side of Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. It is a gathering of the party elite. In the Chinese system, the Party Congress is not merely about the party, but also about the country. What is decided there is decisive said analysts.

This Congress was the 19th Congress since 1921. The Congress is composed of representatives of the provinces, the military and government agencies. Around 2,300 delegates attended the congress. 265 were on the stage as the present officials or political elite. Two past presidents, Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, were sitting beside Xi Jinping, together with other key officials. BBC and CNN hardly gave any coverage to this event, but ‘France 24’ did.

The Congress will elect 370 full and alternate members to the Central committee. Then the Congress will elect 25 politburo members by secret ballot. Thereafter the Standing Committee of the Politburo also will be announced. The structure is perfectly pyramidal. There is a planned succession in the Chinese Communist Party where two heirs below the age of 58 should be blooded for five years before assuming the top positions of President and Premier. But Xi Jinping has not appointed younger cadres to the seven member Politburo standing committee said analysts.

China appears to be gaining ground in international relations. The world knows that China is having disputes with its neighbors over the ownership of the South China Sea. .China asserts sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea in the face of rival claims from the other countries in the region. China has rapidly reclaimed reefs, creating artificial islands capable of hosting military planes. There have been confrontations between the other countries and China.

But on October 31, 2017 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) held their largest-ever joint maritime rescue exercise, jointly with China, signaling a lull in South China Sea tensions. China, Thailand, Philippines, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos and Brunei took part, with Vietnam notably absent. The drill simulated a collision between a Chinese passenger ship and a Cambodian cargo vessel off south China’s Guangdong province. It involved about 1,000 rescuers aboard 20 ships and three helicopters. ASEAN was initially set up to confront Communist China.

Jean Pierre Lehmann, Emeritus professor of political economy, has looked at the historical relations between China and Russia. He pointed out that throughout history, relations have hardly ever been warm or close between Russia and China. Apart from a shared border China and Russia have very little in common. In fact, it is difficult to think of examples of neighbors having such radically different cultures, he observed.

Russia today aspires to being a geopolitical giant, but is an economic dwarf, said Lehmann. Russia’s export sector is dominated by a small handful of colossal players. In contrast, many Chinese enterprises, including small and medium-sized ones, are plugged into the global market and looking to export (and increasingly to acquire assets). China, whose GDP is 10 times greater than Russia’s, has become a global economic giant and now is in the process of flexing its geopolitical muscle.

But political relations between Russia and China have now become very good, observed Lehmann. There are good relations between President Xi Jinping and President Putin. Significantly, a joint Russian-Chinese University has been established in Shenzhen. Lastly. Lehman said that when he visited Moscow this September, the Red Square and the department store Gum had masses and masses of Chinese tourists. They were not there before.   This new generation may create ‘a solid Sino-Russian edifice’, concluded Lehmann.

The China-Sri Lanka relationship is now getting publicity in the west. A piece in the New York Times written by Brook Larmer was titled, What the world’s emptiest international airport says about China’s influence.’ In this piece, the role of China in Sri Lanka is contrasted with the role of Japan in Sri Lanka.

‘There’s another East Asian country seeking its own foothold in the Indian Ocean with whom Sri Lanka’s bilateral relationship is often overlooked. That country is Japan’, said Larmer. On the surface, the manners in which China and Japan have sought to widen their spheres of influence here have been vastly different. China has invested heavily in infrastructure in Sri Lanka — partially or fully funding the construction of not just the Mattala Airport and Colombo Port City, but the extension of the Southern Expressway to Hambantota and the city’s deepwater port.

These developments are for the most part ‘white elephants,” says Larmer, possessions that are useless or troublesome, especially those that are expensive to maintain or difficult to dispose of. He draws upon the Mattala Airport, which was designed to handle a million passengers per year but currently receives only a dozen passengers per day, to argue that such white elephant projects are not driven by local economic needs, but by remote stratagems.”

The infrastructure is built, of course, with the expectation that China would be paid back — and if the debt could not be paid back, then, that it would be written off by giving China equity, often a majority stake, in the infrastructure project. This is precisely what has happened with the deep water Port in Hambantota — which China now controls 70% of for the next 99 years, continued Larmer.

Japan, on the other hand, has taken a softer route in Sri Lanka Investing heavily in cooperation and aid programmes. Japan’s influence in Sri Lanka is not as bound by financial obligations as it is by emotional appeal. Japan, through JICA, provides six main types of assistance to Sri Lanka of which only one, the loans, need to be paid back. These six forms of assistance  focus on the three priority areas for cooperation , infrastructure for development and economic growth, social and economic improvement in rural areas, and social infrastructure to mitigate vulnerabilities.

They include a seedling subsidy project through the Department of Agriculture. since the year 2012, three Japanese agricultural experts have been living in Sri Lanka, visiting remote villages every day and working closely with communities to improve livelihoods through agricultural production.  Japan has also helped in demining efforts in the North, eradication of child labor in Ratnapura, and the provision of a long-awaited Doppler Weather Radar Network to Sri Lanka, which will allow the country to more accurately anticipate and prepare for deadly monsoons or droughts. Japan also carried out the construction of the Jaya Container Terminals, the section between Kurundugahahetekma and Kokmaduwa in the Southern Expressway, and the new bridge over the Kelani River.

Like China, Japan too has invested in Sri Lankan infrastructure with loans that must be paid back. And yet the infrastructure projects it has chosen to fund are anything but white elephants.” This means that today, in Sri Lanka, there are two East Asian countries asserting their power in very different ways, one by constraining Sri Lanka monetarily and the other by currying favor, through aid programmes and necessary infrastructure.

Geeth Sameera, an agricultural instructor with the Department of Agriculture in Hambantota put it this way, ’Right now, China has our wallets, OK? But thanks to agricultural programmes JICA has funded, Japan has our hearts.’ Japan is playing a long game, hoping that aid and assistance, will allow them to benefit from Sri Lanka’s all-important location in the end. As with most things, only time will tell, concluded Larmer.

But China, undaunted, is continuing to play a role in Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka in turn, respects China. Nearly 120 members of the current Parliament had so far visited China, reported the media. Speaker Jayasuriya is on record as having said that he requested China to arrange for members to visit China. The Chinese government has pledged Yuan 2 billion in aid to Sri Lanka for the period 2018-2020, said Yi Xianliang, Chinese Ambassador to Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lanka embassy in China celebrated 60th Anniversary of China – Sri Lanka diplomatic Relations and the 65th Anniversary of the signing of the Agreement on Rice for Rubber, at a function in Beijing on 31st October 2017. It was attended by Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chen Xiao Dong on behalf of the Government of the People’s Republic of China. At the function, the Vice Minister said ‘As an ancient Chinese poem puts it, `if you give me a peach, I’ll pay back in Jade’, Chinese people will never forget that when China was blockaded by the West, it was Sri Lanka that gave valuable support despite the tremendous pressure’.

In his welcoming speech, Sri Lanka’s ambassador to China, Karunasena Kodituwakku, recalled the firm relations that existed between China and Sri Lanka for past 2000 years. Both countries have assisted each other whenever necessity arose and China has supported Sri Lanka not only in diplomatic and economic fields, but also in times of national security issues, he said.

Tilak Marapana, Sri Lanka’s Minster for foreign affairs, said the longstanding, close and friendly relations between  China and Sri Lanka are built on a solid foundation of historic, economic and cultural ties based on friendship, cooperation, mutual trust and understanding and respect for the territorial integrity of the two countries. He identified the historical visits of former Premier Zhou En-Lai to Sri Lanka in 1957 and former Prime Minister Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike to China in 1961 and 1972 as landmark events.

The Minister said that relations have expanded vigorously into multiple areas such as political, trade, investment, economic, technical and defense cooperation, and people to people contact through promotion of tourism. He extended Sri Lanka’s sincere gratitude to China for being a true and trusted friend and ally during the times of need. On that happy note, this series of essays on Yahapalana and the Republic of China comes to an end. (CONCLUDED)

වරුණ චන්ද්‍රකීර්ති

හිල්බට් ගැන කියලා මේ කතාව කියන්නම්.

මේ ලේඛකයා විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයේ ඉගෙනගත්තේ ගණිතය, සංඛ්‍යානය වගේ විෂයයන්. එහෙම ඉගෙනගත්තා කියලා කිව්වාට දන්න මහ ගණිතයක් නෑ. විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයකට ගිහිල්ලා ආවා කියන්නේ ගෝනි එළුවා බැලුවා වගේ වැඩක්නේ. ඕවාට නොගිය අයට නම් ඒක මහා වික්‍රමයක් වගේ පේනවා ඇති. ඉතින් ඇත්ත නොකියා ඉන්න එක තමයි වඩා හොඳ. ඒ හින්දා දැන් හිල්බට් ගැන විතරක් කියන්නම්.

විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයට ගිය දෙවැනි දවසේ මේ ලේඛකයා දේශනයක් අහන්න ගියා. ඒ ගණිත විශ්ලේෂණය ගැන දේශනයක්. දේශනය කරපු මහාචාර්යතුමා තමන් උගන්වන විෂයය ගැන අපිට හඳුන්වලා දුන්නා. ඒ විෂයය ඉගෙනගැනීමේ ප්‍රයෝජන ගැනත් කියලා දුන්නා. ඊට පස්සේ මහාචාර්යතුමා හිල්බට් ගැන කතාව කිව්වා.

හිල්බට් කියලා ගණිතඥයෙක් හිටියාලු. ඒ හාදයා ඉන්න කාලයේ ගණිතඥයෝ අපරිමිත ගාණකුත් මේ ලෝකයේ ඉඳලා තියෙනවා. ඉතින් හිල්බට්ට ඕනවෙලා තියෙනවා මේ ගණිතඥයෝ හැමෝ ම එක තැනකට කැඳවලා සම්මේලනයක් තියන්න. ඉතින් හිල්බට් කරලා තියෙන්නේ ඒ ගණිතඥයන්ට සම්මේලනයට එන්න කියලා ආරාධනා කරන එක. ඒ කට්ටිය ආවා ම නවතින්න තැනකුත් දෙන්න එපායෑ. ඉතින් කාමර අපරිමිත ගණනක් තියෙන හෝටලයකුත් හිල්බට් හදවලා තියෙනවා. කොහොම හරි වැඩ ටික කරගත්තාට පස්සේ ගණිතඥයෝ ටික ඇවිල්ලා.

ඉතින් මුලින් ම කරන්න ඕන වැඩේ ඒ යක්කු ටික හෝටලයට යවන එකනේ. කාමර හැම එකක් ම එක, දෙක, තුන කියන විදිහට අංක යොදලා නම්කරලා තියෙනවා. ගණිතඥයන්ටත් එක, දෙක, තුන කියන විදිහට අංක දීලා තියෙනවා. ඊට පස්සේ හිල්බට් කරලා තියෙන්නේ තමන් ගේ අංකයට අදාළ කාමරයට යන්න කියලා ගණිතඥයන්ට කියන එක. ඉතින් අංක එක ලබිච්ච හාදයා අංක එකේ කාමරයට ගිහිල්ලා. අංක දෙක ලැබිච්ච හාදයා අංක දෙකේ කාමරයට ගිහිල්ලා. හැමෝ ම මේ විදිහට තම තමන්ට අදාළ කාමරවලට ගිහිල්ලා.

ඒත් පොඩි අවුලක් වෙලා. ඒ මොකක්ද දන්නවා ද? හිල්බට්ට කාමරයක් නෑ!

දැන් මේ කතාව කියලා අපේ මහාචාර්යතුමා අපෙන් අහනවා හිල්බට් මේ අවුල විසඳගත්තේ කොහොම ද කියලා. කොල්ලෝ, කෙල්ලෝ එක එක උත්තර දෙනවා. ඒත් මේ ලේඛකයාට මේක මහා විකාරයක්. ගණිතඥයෝ අපරිමිත ගණනකට ආරාධනා කරලා ඉවර කළේ කොහොම ද? කාමර අපරිමිත ගණනක් තියෙන හෝටලයක් හදලා ඉවර කළේ කොහොම ද?” කියලා තමන්ට හිතිච්ච දේ මේ ලේඛකයා මහාචාර්යතුමාට කිව්වා. අන්න හරි පුතාට විතරයි තේරුණේ” කියලා මහාචාර්යතුමා උත්තර දුන්නා. එහෙම කියපු මහාචාර්යතුමා තමන් උගන්නන විෂයයේ අයන්න, ආයන්න අපිට කියලා දෙන්න පටන්ගත්තා. ඒත් ටික වෙලාවකින් ඒ වැඩේ නවත්තපු එතුමා ආයෙත් හිල්බට් ගැන කතාව පටන්ගත්තා. ඒ, තමන් අහපු ප්‍රශ්නයට අදාළ තමන් ගේ ම උත්තරයක් එතුමා ළඟ තිබුණ හින්දා.

මම අහපු ප්‍රශ්නයට මෙහෙම උත්තර දෙන්න පුළුවන්. හිල්බට් අර ගණිතඥයන්ට කියනවා තමන් ගේ අංකයට එකක් එකතු කරගන්න කියලා. එතකොට අංක එක තිබුණු ගණිතඥයා ගේ දැන් අංකය දෙක. අංක දෙක තිබුණු කෙනා ගේ දැන් අංකය තුන. මේ විදිහට හැමෝ ගේ ම අංක එකකින් වැඩි වෙනවා. ඊට පස්සේ ඒ අංකයට අදාළ කාමරයට යන්න කියලා හිල්බට් ගණිතඥයන්ට කියනවා. එහෙම වුනා ම, අංක එකේ කාමරය හිස්වෙනවා. හිල්බට් ඒ කාමරයට යනවා.”

මෙන්න මේ වගේ මහාචාර්යවරුන්ගෙනුත් ගණිතය ඉගෙනගන්න මේ ලේඛකයාට සිද්දවුනා. පස්සේ කාලෙක අපේ ඒ මහාචාර්යතුමා ඇමැති, අගමැති, ජනාධිපති උපදේශක තනතුරුවලිනුත් පිදුම් ලැබුවා. ඉතින් එතුමා අපරිමිත වැඩ කොටසක් මේ රටට කරලා දෙන්නත් ඇති. ඒකනේ අපේ රට මේ විදිහට දියුණුවෙන් දියුණුවට ගිහිල්ලා තියෙන්නේ.

ගණිතඥයෝ කොච්චර ඉන්නවා ද කියන එක ගැන නම් අදහසක් මේ ලේඛකයාට නෑ. මොකද ගණිතඥයා කියන සත්ත්වයා හරියට අර්ථදක්වන්න අමාරුයිනේ. අපේ ගමේ කේන්දර බලන මනුස්සයාත් එක්තරා ආකාරයක ගණිතඥයෙක්. ඉස්සර මේ විදිහට වෙලාව බලන අයට කිව්වෙත් ගණිතයා කියලානේ. කොත්මලේ ගණිතයා, දොඩම්පෙ ගණිතයා වගේ අය ගැන අපි අහලාත් තියෙනවානේ. ඉතින් එක එක විදිහේ විච්චූර්ණ ගණිතඥයෝ මේ ලෝකයේ ඉන්න පුළුවන්. කොහොම වුනත් අපි හැම එකෙක් ම ගණිතඥයෙක් විදිහට ගත්තත් අද ලෝකයේ ඉන්න පුළුවන් ගණිතඥයෝ ගණන කෝටි 750 ක්, 760 ක් විතර ඇති. අපරිමිත ගාණක් ගණිතඥයෝ හොයාගන්න එක නම් හීනෙන්වත් කරන්න බැරිවෙයි. මොකද අපිට යමක් ගණන්කරලා ඉවරකරන්න පුළුවන් කියන එකේ අදහස ඒක පරිමිතයි කියන එකනේ.

ගණිතඥයෙක් කියන්නේ මොන වගේ හාදයෙක්ට ද කියන එක අර්ථදක්වගන්න අමාරුවුනාට හරකෙක් කියන්නේ මොකෙක්ට ද කියන එක නම් අපිට ලේසියෙන් ම හිතාගන්න පුළුවන්. අපේ ගම්වල විතරක් නෙවෙයි කොළඹ පවා හරක් ඉන්නවා. උන්ට කකුල් හතරක් තියෙනවා. වලිගයක් තියෙනවා. සමහර එවුන්ට අං තියෙනවා. හැම එකෙක් ම වගේ උම්බෑ කියලා කෑගහනවා. ඉතින් හරකෙක් අඳුරගන්න එක අමාරු වැඩක් නෙවෙයි.

අපේ සංඛ්‍යාලෙඛන දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවට පැවැරිලා තියෙන එක රාජකාරියක් තමයි අපේ ගම්වල හරක් කී දෙනෙක් ඉන්නවා ද කියලා හොයලා බලන එක. ඉතින් මේ වැඩේ කරවාගන්නේ ඒ දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවට අනුයුක්ත ව රටපුරා ම ප්‍රාදේශීය ලේකම් කොට්ඨාශ මට්ටමෙන් සේවයකරන සංඛ්‍යාලෙඛන නිලධාරීන් හරහා. ඉතින් සංඛ්‍යාලෙඛන දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව ඒ නිලධාරීන් හරහා ග්‍රාම නිලධාරි මහත්තුරුන්ට, නෝනලාට එල් – එක කියලා ලේඛනයක් බෙදලා දෙනවා. ග්‍රාම නිලධාරි මහත්තුරු, නෝනලා කරන්න ඕන එක පුරවලා දෙන එක. ඒ ලේඛනයට ඇතුළත් කරන්න ඕන තමන් ගේ වසම ඇතුළේ ඉන්න හරක්, එළුවෝ, කුකුල්ලු වගේ සත්තුන් ගේ සංඛ්‍යාති.

ඉතින් මේ ලේඛනය පුරවන ග්‍රාම නිලධාරි මහත්තුරු, නෝනලා තුන් වර්ගයක් ඉන්නවා. එක කට්ටියක් ලේඛනය ලැබිච්ච ගමන් ම තත්පර කිහිපයක් ඇතුළත ඒක පුරවලා සංඛ්‍යාලෙඛන මහත්තයාට ආපහු දෙනවා. තව කට්ටියක් ඒක ගෙදර ගෙනියලා පුරවලා ආපහු ගෙනැල්ලා දෙනවා. තව කට්ටියක් ගෙනියන ලේඛන ආපහු ගන්න නම් ඒ පස්සෙන් ඉවරයක් නැතුව යන්න වෙනවා. කොහොම හරි මේ ලේඛන එකතු කරගන්න සංඛ්‍යාලෙඛන මහත්තුරු ඒවා සාරාංශ ගතකරලා එල් – දෙක කියලා ලේඛනයක් හදනවා. ඉතින් මේ ලේඛනවලින් වාර්තාවෙන හරක් ගණන ගැන හිතාගන්න වැඩේ පාඨකයන්ට ම කරන්න පුළුවන්.

මේකට මේ නිලධාරීන්ට දොස් කියන්න බෑ. ගම්වල ඉන්න හරක් ගණන තියා ඉන්න මිනිස්සු ගණන කියන්නවත් ක්‍රමයක් දැන් නෑ. ඉස්සර නම් අපේ ගම්වල ගෘහමූලික නාමලෙඛනය කියලා ලැයිස්තුවක් ග්‍රාම නිලධාරි කාර්යාලයේ තිබුණා. ඒත් දැන් හැම වැඩේට ම බලන්නේ ඡන්ද හිමි නාමලෙඛනය. ඒත් ගමේ ඡන්ද තියෙන ගම්වල ජීවත්වෙන්නේ නැති අය කොච්චරක් නම් ඉන්නවා ද? අපේ දේශපාලන නායකයෝ ගැන හිතන්න. ළමයි ඉස්කෝලවලට දාගන්න එක ගැන හිතලාත් සමහරු ජීවත්වෙන තැනින් බාහිර තැන්වල ඡන්ද ලියාපදංචිකරනවා. අනිත් එක ඒ ලේඛනයේ ගමේ ඉන්න හැමෝ ගේ ම නම් ඇත්තෙත් නෑ. ලියාපදිංචිවෙන්න බැරිවුනත් නම නෑ. ළමයින් ගේ නම් කොහොමටත් නෑ.

මේ අවුල් හින්දා ගම්වලට අදාළ සංඛ්‍යාලෙඛනවලින් ඇත්තක් හොයාගන්න බෑ. ඉතින් කොහොම ද ගමක සංවර්ධන වැඩක් සැලසුම් කරගන්නේ? ගම්වලට පත්කරලා ඉන්න නිලධාරීන් වෙන වෙන ම තමන් ගේ කාර්යාල පවත්වාගෙන යන එකත් මේ ලෙඩේට එක හේතුවක්. ඒ හින්දා අඩු ගණනේ කට්ටියට එකතුවෙලා එක ඉලක්කමක් දෙන්න තියෙන ඉඩකඩත් ඇහිරිලා. ඉතින් මේ ලැයිස්තුවේ ඉන්න හරක් අනිත් ලැයිස්තුවේ නෑ.

මේකට කලින් ලියපු ලිපි කිහිපයකින් කියපු විදිහට ගමේ ආර්ථික කටයුතුවලට අදාළ පොදු සභාවක් පිහිටුවාගන්න පුළුවන් නම් මේ අවුල විසඳගන්න එක අමාරු වැඩක් නෙවෙයි. ඒ වගේ සභාවකට පුළුවන් ඉතා ම පහසුවෙන් ගමේ ඉන්න මිනිස්සු ගැන, ගමේ තියෙන සම්පත් ගැන හැම තොරතුරක් ම බොහොම පැහැදිළි විදිහට එකතුකරලා, යාවත්කාලීන කර කර පවත්වාගෙන යන්න. එහෙම කරන්න පුළුවන් නම් සංඛ්‍යාලෙඛන දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව මේ කරගෙන යන කණාපල්ලම් ගැහිල්ලත් නවත්තගන්න පුළුවන්.

ඉතින් අද අපේ ගම්වලට තියෙන ලොකු ම අඩුව තමයි මේ විදිහේ පොදු පාලන සභාවක් නැති එක. ගමට අනුයුක්ත කරලා ඉන්න ග්‍රාම නිලධාරී, සංවර්ධන නිලධාරී, සමෘද්ධි නියාමක, කෘෂිකර්ම නිලධාරී වගේ අයත්, ගමේ පන්සලේ හාමුදුරුවෝ, ඉස්කෝලේ විදුහල්පතිතුමා, දායක සභාව – සංවර්ධන සමිතිය – කාන්තා සමිතිය, තරුණ සංගමය වගේ සමාජ සංවිධානවල නායකයොත් එකතුකරලා මේ වගේ සභාවක් පිහිටුවා ගන්න පුළුවන්. මේ වගේ ආයතනයක ගමේ නියෝජනයත් තියෙනවා. ආණ්ඩුවේ නියෝජනයත් තියෙනවා. ඉතින් අද අපේ තියෙන අවශ්‍යතාවලට ගැලපෙන විදිහේ ගම් සභාවක් පිහිටුවාගැනීමේ මූලික අඩිතාලමත් ඒක වෙන්න පුළුවන්.

වරුණ චන්ද්‍රකීර්ති ෴

C. Wijeyawickrema

Sri Lankans know Ranil is a black-white. From time to time he discloses this. He once wanted to invite Portuguese PM to come to Colombo to commemorate 500 years of Portuguese arrival. He is a vice president of some Asian Christian democratic union. But his recent statement that a president of Sri Lanka will be a better president if he knows English is an insult to the man who gave him the job of PM. That man was either humble or had an inferiority complex to tell before a UNP gathering after became the common candidate in 2005 that he will continue to address Ranil as Ranil Sir. I wonder whether Ranil addresses him in return as Sir.  Or if madam CBK calls Sirisena Sir. Perhaps, Austin Fernando and president Sirisena address each other as Sir. This kind of questions are important in understanding the way how these servants of the people behave. Instead of staying at home they come out in the public they say because of their itch to serve suffering masses.

Not knowing English did not prevent Kings Dutugemunu, Vijayabahu or the Hasalaka Hero to serve their motherland. Prabakaran got Ranil to sign the CFA 2002 without knowing English. JRJ had to sign 13-A plan forced upon him by Rajiv boy and Dixit despite his English. Nobody denies if a person knows English it helps. Knowing another language is like having a window open to see another culture. But president Sirisena did not get the opportunity to learn English in Pollonnaruwa at the right time.

If Ranil said that to become an MP at any level one must have at least a pass of GCE (AL) four subjects, we can think he is not insulting millions of people who did not get the opportunity to learn English. Are they not intelligent people, otherwise? Ranil’s strategy is clear. This is the black-white method of creating an inferiority complex in the minds of one’s opponents. It is the humiliation game. Very few people have the mental strength to overcome this kind of attack. For example, would president Sirisena confront Ranil and say that English has nothing to do with running a country. Maliban mudalali did not know any English.

Once when lawyers tried to show that Henry Ford was an ignorant man, asking him silly questions, he got angry and told them in court that he can get the best expert in the world on any subject he wants advice by simply pressing one of the buttons on his office table.

The problem is that people who do not know English try to use it when they do not have to, and thus get exposed by failing to achieve what they were expected to communicate. When Pope visited, president Sirisena read a speech written in English. Pope did not know English, people did not know English, we on TV did not understand what he read. This was a dead-rope given to him by his advisors. It would have been better if he gave a speech in Sinhala and gave an English translation of it to Pope’s assistants. The use of a translator is not self-insult or humiliation. But revealing an unwanted reverence to English making one’s own mother tongue secondary is acceptance of humiliation. For example, Dayasiri Jayasekara made a big blunder recently at a Royal College function when he tried to read an English note with Latin words.

Because of their educational value I thought of reproducing/referencing several essays I penned in the past highlighting this English language game of Colombo black-whites. Useless politicians claiming recognition via English language proficiency is the last thing Sri Lanka needs. These PMs and Presidents with or without English destroyed Sri Lanka. Ven. Elle Gunawansa once identified them as uttering either Budu Ammo or Oh! My God when faced with mortal fear.

===============

English with a smile – a reply to Dayan Jayatilleke
Posted on October 14th, 2013

…Who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole literature of India and Arabia.” Macaulay (1835)

Macaulay: The Shaping of the Historian by John Clive, Random House, 1973, p. 372

Introduction

I met a Buddhist monk is America who was not very fluent in English at that time. One day I asked this monk, -Monk, you got a first class honors degree in Buddhism, you did a Ph.D. in Japan using the Japanese language and in debates in Japanese you defeated even Japanese students and won prizes, you know Sanskrit which is a very difficult language to learn, but why is it that learning English has become a problem for you? He answered, -You know, when we try to learn English in Sri Lanka, when we make a mistake they laugh at us. So we got ashamed and felt humiliated.

Once I was working in a medical school and whenever I had difficulty in spelling an English word I had a habit of quickly going to the room next to mine and ask the young English woman, how to spell it. One day when I asked spelling for a word she told me lets see the dictionary. Surprised, I said why you have to look in the dictionary it is your mother tongue. She said, Wije, English is not English, it is a mixture of languages.

Long time ago when I was an Executive officer in the then Cement Corporation, I had a Malalasekera English-Sinhala dictionary on my table that anybody could see. The lady who was a proctor working with us as assistant legal officer asked me one day why I was keeping a dictionary with me. Later, she came to go to law classes that I was attending and told me not to tell others about it. I passed the LL.B. exam, she was still a proctor before her sudden death.

The most interesting thing was English with Smile books written as textbooks to teach English that we used. When I was an undergraduate I stayed with Tamil roommates. The last was Shaktivel, a vet science student who later became senior Thondamon’s private secretary. Other Sinhala students who could not speak in English used to write on my room door English with a Smile.” At a later date, I met one of them, who taught in a school in N’Eliya. I was travelling in an office vehicle, he told me, Machan, Monty (Gopallawa) offered me several high posts but I did not have Kaduwa.  He was Monte’s pillion rider at Peradeniya.

Why I gave these episodes in my own life that I am developing as short essays in a book I am writing, was that Dayan Jayatilleke has tried his black-white method of resorting to Lord Macalay’s advice given in 1835. British colonial system is still live in Sri Lanka and other former colonies because Macaulay designed a system to create -Brown Britains in India which Nehru once said had created English-educated clerks. After guns and conspiracies established colonial power it was sustained by making natives feel humiliated as primitives needing -modernization. English was a key instrument used in implementing this strategy. Dayan must be applying this strategy with teachers in Colombo university, because those teachers who could go to university because of the Sinhala medium recently passed a resolution requesting going back to teach in English medium. Yes, there was a time Sinhala language was taught in English! Dayan must be an uncrowned king among those university lambs. So, about my essay that appeared on the Colombo Telegraph where as a side issue I dismissed Dayan’s bogus theories and proposed a way to help both Tamils and Sinhalese to live following M.C. Sansoni CJ’s advice, Dayan commented –This writer Wijewickrema obviously has a problem of confusion caused by an inadequate comprehension of the English language. He should re-read what I have written, carefully, and with a dictionary handy.

Recently, retired geography professor G. H. Peiris tried to educate him about his fancy or crazy theories, and I want to educate him not to use his English card against other people who do not think English nothing more than a tool, a bicycle. I am giving him examples of some essays I wrote on the subject of learning and using English to show him he is barking at the wrong tree. Dayan lives by taking the slippery path whenever he gets cornered. In the past I tried to make him answerable to his own writings, but he was like a moving target. ‚ English was used as part of colonial control of masses by a handful of black-whites in the former colonies. Dayan is DJ and not Dayan Silva, because his father had an English-medium education and as a reporter had developed connections with big black-white families in Ceylon. Martin Wickremasinghe or Munidasa Kumaranatunga did not get such an opportunity. Colonial and black-white policy was not to give opportunities to those who knew both Sinhala and English well, but massage the ego of people like Dayan’s father. The difference between DS Senanayaka and Sir D. B. Jayatilleke was that the latter was an expert in both English and Sinhala. Because of this, colonial masters wanted to get rid of him.

On my essay (Which and what zone of agreement) I challenge Dayan to list what I did not understand from his theories. I wish to tell Dayan that what I have suggested is the best solution to help Tamils without making the Sinhalese nervous. Dayan has the opportunity to show why nine-province colonial set up should not be replaced by a seven-river basin division and why GSN units should not be re-demarcated with ecology-based boundaries.

Examples of why a working knowledge in English should be promoted with teachers who know how to teach English as a foreign language, and English should not be a qualifying barrier for university admission since so many students do not have an opportunity learn English.

Reply to a person who suggested that Ajantha Mendis should have answered questions on cricket in English (Island, August 2, 2008)

What is the language of cricket?

Bandula Abeyewardene’s (BA) much hesitant response (Island, 7/23/2008) to Daya Ranasinghe’s (DR) reaction to BA’s view on the need to teach English to cricketers, provided more evidence of the colonial mentality of BA. English like any other language is a tool like a computer or a typewriter and nothing more.

Who is a black-white? The black-white phenomenon is found in former colonies, which is a state of mind. This was why Carlo Fonseka had to engage in a series of debates in the recent past in trying to define who is a black-white. Whether one knows English (in the former French or Spanish colonies those two languages) or whether one lives abroad has no direct connection with it. Recently, I saw a poem written by DR on a female soldier on guard duty and the reading it gives one goose bumps of pride and patriotism. A black-white cannot pen such poems. We know the poems by the Tibetan (Sikkim) monk S. Mahinda who was more Sinhala than the native Sinhalese.

In Mexico, a black-white is called a coconut- brown outside, white inside. One of the tests one can use in this regard, if he or she is visiting Anuradhapura from Colombo, is whether he or she gets goose bumps or a chill running through the spinal cord (the awesome feeling) at the first sight of the Ruwanvali Maha Seya or standing on the bund of the Tissa Vawa. Just think of the mental state of some Marxists who called the King Dutugamunu, a fool of bricks for erecting the Ruwanvali, but take trips to see the pyramids in Egypt!

As a tuition master in English, BA has every right to promote English classes. But his mental status is summarized by his word embarrassment.” Princess Diana had to take tuition to learn how to speak English. The current U.S. President has trouble in speaking English despite a Yale education. SWRD had a silver tongue, but could not read or write in Sinhala. In USA, 40% of college students need remedial education in reading and writing. Humans have to communicate and unlike animals they have developed languages. Why is it that in Sri Lanka not knowing English is an embarrassment?

In British colonies, English was the language of the ruler and those who acted as translators became powerful and privileged. The colonial master needed more people able to work in English and a class of people evolved who learned English and embraced Christianity, the religion of the master.

Lord Macaulay, in the 1840s in India, formulated an education policy to create a class of Indians who were brown in colour, but English in thinking and behaviour. More than Lord Nelson or Cecil Rhodes, it was Macaulay who helped the continuation of colonialism after giving the former colonies independence”. We have a class in Colombo, who are remote-controlled from London or Paris.

When language is power, it is more than a communication tool. At the time of independence, only 5% of people in Ceylon knew English. This group mostly living in Colombo or in big cities continued the white rule with minimum of changes, spatially or structurally, in the colonial open economy, exporting rubber and graphite and importing pencils and erasers. The attempt to change this policy began only after 1956, which BA brands as a mess and a sin. Poor people had no means to learn English.

Only rarely, people learn languages for the fun of it. They learn it, if it benefits them. Taxi drivers and Colombo Ayahs or lads at tourist sites use it. Thus, in those days people learned how to sign a document in English because otherwise there had to be a witness to his or her non-English signature. Today people learn Japanese or Hindi for the market value of it. In USA, parents force their children to learn Chinese, Russian, Hindi or Japanese and not German or French as was done in the past. Nurses going to USA needs English as patients they meet cannot speak Sinhala. That is why Tamil doctors in Colombo should know Sinhala not because of discrimination, but to earn money. If Ajantha Mendis wants to learn English or Hindi, it will be his decision and not others. Herein lies the mental status problem of BA. He should not be the person to decide or suggest it. I have no doubt that Mendis tried to learn English at school, but could not due to lack of competent teachers or not being able to afford private tuition.

C.Wijeyawickrema, USA

8/22/2008

Opinion Island

Cricket is language-blind

I thank Gamini Gunawardane for his article on the evolution of Sinhala Cricket (Island, 8/15/2008). If Ajantha had to pass an English language test before he was allowed to play cricket, he would have missed the bus, and with teams of English-speaking cricketers, Sri Lanka would not have won a place in world cricket. I see a personal connection here because I was able to become a college professor and a director of research in America because of the language-blind university entrance exam in 1961-62. In fact, I did not take even Sinhala as one of the four subjects!

Because of Gamini’s reply and because of Bandula Abeyewardene’s (BA) total misunderstanding of my response (Island, 8/2), my task is reduced to answering a few, below the belt personal and private issues raised by BA.

Because of his inability to understand the message in my letter, BA has now made another mistake by placing patriotism and fluency in English on a collision path (Island, 8/9). I see no direct connection between the two except that I know that some people stress the fact that when two Tamils meet or when Indians meet each other, they always speak in Tamil or Hindi respectively, but when two Sinhalyas meet, they tend to use English. I do not worry about such habits. SWRD who helped the Sinhala people had a grade three level ability in reading and writing in Sinhala.

I was only challenging BA’s idea that a Sinhala cricketer who might become a cricket hero at a future date could avoid the embarrassment of not being able to speak in English if cricketer-training includes tutoring in English. I did not oppose English or people learning it as a second language. The gist of my letter was to tell people not to take the raft (English) on to your shoulders after using it to cross the river. Learning English or any language for that matter is like learning how to swim or how to ride a bicycle. We do not carry the bicycle on our backs when we walk.

C.Wijeyawickrema  USA

http://www.island.lk/2009/07/01/midweek1.html -Sinhala Bushism and the 13 Amendment

Anjalika Silva – USA

The CNN program on Sri Lanka that aired on Sunday October 29, 2017, in the USA was inadequate and inaccurate to reflect the true post war Sri Lanka. The end of the war now enters the 9^th year since its brutal terrorism was crushed for peace that was not dished out based on race.  Peace came to all people regardless of ethnicity.  All people in the country were terrorized for close to 30 years with LTTE bombings and killings.   This program did not portray the post war rapid development and changes that should have been highlighted.  It played the same tune of misinformation that can be proven as a manipulation for other underlying reasons to keep the dismal myth of discrimination that was the theme of the hour.

Referring to a conflict that involves two sides, with a poor cross section of interviewees that provided only one side to the conflict, how could the viewing audience form an opinion from stilted facts?  There are two sides to any conflict that can balance the truth.  Sri Lanka has consistently been misrepresented regardless.

Showing the world that Sri Lanka was both intolerant and oppressive to its minorities, Anthony Bourdain with little knowledge, undermines a country that has been repeatedly invaded and is in a rare position to have crushed the most brutal terrorist war (not a civil war) because not all Tamils were involved, was poorly advised or guided. He should stick with his food fantasies and refrain from misrepresenting the history of, and the truth about the conflict in Sri Lanka. His second visit after 10 years was because in the first visit, the North was not safe for anyone and all the people lived in fear of LTTE bombings and indiscriminate killing that affected life throughout the island.  This response may be long, but it is intended to also to set some facts straight to avoid a misinterpretation through statements made in the program that one side was a victim and the other was an oppressor.

The majority in the capital Colombo is not the Sinhalese who are the majority in the country.  It is proven that 60% of the minority Tamils live outside the north which has become a self-proclaimed homeland referred to in the program implying a division where one minority is at liberty to live throughout the country while other groups are not accepted in the North.  This is the reality before and after the conflict.  There is no declared homeland for Tamils alone and that is not Sri Lanka.    The capital of Colombo is 40% Tamil according to the census data.   Colombo, the capital is in the deep-seated South. The place that has the prosperity that attracts all ethnic groups where most Tamil citizens who live in the South do not wish to be separated and isolated in a Tamil homeland.  The ethnic proportion in the country is 70% Sinhalese and 12% or less Tamil minority, Muslim and other ethnic minorities making up the balance. According to the propaganda machine, implying the north as a Tamil homeland is preconceived and fans flames of divisiveness according to this program.

The argument of repression does not hold water.  If those who were portrayed as such are living among the mislabeled oppressor, they have access to all opportunities but continue to be looking for excuses claiming oppression although Sri Lanka has not deprived Tamils or any minorities of any privileges available to everyone.  This includes free university education, state funded schools, the use of the Tamil language as a working language, healthcare, freedom to live anywhere in the country.  Employment in high positions of Government, seats in Parliament, professions that are all permeated by Tamil members at a proportion far higher than the ethnic ratios of the country.  How can so many survive if it was a civil war?  Bourdain should name things as they should be – it was a terrorist war in no uncertain terms even as declared by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  Terrorism needed an excuse as a protector and killer of its own people at the same time as all terror groups.  https://www.google.com/search?q=FBI+refernce+to+Tamil+Tigers&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS756US757&oq=FBI+refernce+to+Tamil+Tigers&aqs=chrome..69i57.6734j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Human Rights of Tamil People were violated by the LTTE – The narrative of the Bourdain program appears to be pre-conceived and stilted with half-truths and inaccurate facts. Before Anthony Bourdain goes against every grain of editorial policy of the program and CNN, the program should have represented a balanced view or no view at all.  It also taints all Tamils as participants of the belief of oppression.  They may not be heard but not all are in that category as they flourish and have proven to be extremely successful in the south.   While there are Tamil people enjoying high positions throughout the country, majority Sinhalese people are portrayed as barbarians dominating the minorities.    It describes all Sinhalese as Buddhists disregarding the Christian Sinhalese and Tamils, and completely ignores the suffering and massacre of the Muslim populations living in their ancestral parts in the East of the country.  In addressing the post war Sri Lanka speaking to Tamil representatives alone is not balanced journalism.  Referring to Sinhalese Buddhists oppressing Tamil Hindus is a complete fabrication preconceived for this production.

If parts unknown were covered, why was the plight of the Muslims in the Eastern part of the country not covered?  They were slaughtered by the LTTE that deliberately gunned down worshippers in mosques, Buddhist temples, and border villages.  These areas were conveniently avoided. Also eliminated were rival groups of Tamil youth from the east who were considered inferior to the LTTE. Most of the victims were the poor, powerless and low caste who had nowhere to go and remained under the brutal authority of the LTTE.  They gave up their children who were forcibly taken as child soldiers.

Rehabilitation of child soldiers and return to families at Government expense – In post war Sri Lanka, families no longer need to be concerned about abduction and conscription of their children as young as 10 years.  If there was respect for Human Rights, the most important human right is to keep their children and not have to send them as fodder for a senseless war that they didn’t understand.  Brainwashing with hate, and being trained to kill was the saddest plight of the poor Tamil people who had nowhere to turn.  In the end they became human shields and even today, the military that has been reported to have saved lives of fleeing Tamil civilians, some shot at by the LTTE have become a point of debate regardless of whose bullets killed civilians.  This is another debate that will never be fairly aired by any international media channels.

In reporting on the conflict in Sri Lanka, the positive aspects of the country are taken out of the picture, harping on the negative and twisted truth to propagate opinions not deserved by the country or the people who fought for peace as the only nation that crushed terrorism.

Pre-Independence Sri Lanka Under the British – Divide and rule by repressing the majority –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_Ceylon

Before accusations of repression and discrimination are bandied around to describe the Sinhalese majority, the history of Sri Lanka must be understood.  The truth is that pre-independence, the Tamil minority were the privileged group while the Sinhalese majority was deprived of good education and employment opportunities to keep them repressed and their potential diminished.  The Divide and Rule” British strategy kept the majority (then at 72% of the population) suppressed while the Tamil minority community (then at 15% )of the population in the 1930s  were the privileged prior to independence in 1948.  The British occupied Sri Lanka from 1815 to 1948 until independence.  Tamil minority had better schools and better employment opportunities while the majority were second class.

Even in pre-Independence negotiations, leaders from the majority community worked hard for Independence due to the relationship of the late D.S. Senanayake, the first Prime Minister of the then Ceylon and Lord Mountbatten.  With drafting the constitution in 1944 in preparation for the 1948 independence, communalist minded Tamil leaders like G. G. Ponnambalam who was a very successful lawyer in the country, demanded 50% representation for 15% of the minority population and was rejected by the British at the time.  Since then the equal representation for an unequal demographic proportion was an agitation that remained as a demand whether reasonable or unreasonable.

Post-Independence majority entitlement diluted favorable status to minority –

The majority population of Sinhalese became more educated after independence in 1948 and their potential was unlocked when they began to expand their presence with the removal of the repression that was exerted under British rule.  However, at no time was there any deprivation of opportunities for minorities as the majority emerged.  The privileged position of the Tamil minority began to be diluted and that was received not as proportionate to the demographics but as an allegation of discrimination. Dilution of opportunities is not the same as discrimination when it involved sharing with the majority population of their country.

References such as, Years of mistreatment and oppression lead to the formation of the LTTE and their campaign to seek and independent state” declared in the program does not hold water because 60% of the Tamil population lived and thrived in the South of the country enjoying all privileges of education and employment, free healthcare, freedom to own businesses, own property and freedom that all citizens shared.  There were no ethnic barriers.  At no time did employment applications or other state documents make it mandatory to declare ethnicity or religion. The flourishing south and the capital was generating revenue for the country and financing the north which contributed very little to the financial revenue of the country.

The dependency of the north on support from the south continued even at the height of the war to maintain schools, hospitals, salaries of all government operations.    There was no reference to the migration of Tamil people toward the south or overseas to get away. Likelihood of conscription of their children by the LTTE played a part to some extent in mass migration to safeguard their children from being conscripted. Some claimed asylum and refugee status presenting Sri Lanka as the so-called land of Genocide that they continued to visit and later obtain dual citizenship and own property in any part of the country.  The war placed no restrictions on their return to the island regardless of the reasons for leaving.

Anthony Bourdain referred to the children hoping they won’t take to arms again but not about the suffering they endured and the freedom they now enjoy going back to school with government help from the south for rehabilitation and return to their families.

Claim of Buddhist domination over Hindus has no foundation – To refer to the majority community being Sinhalese Buddhists as the oppressor, and Hindu Tamils the oppressed is completely inaccurate.  The degree to which the peace will be frail will lie entirely in the hands of a current Ethnic based TNA, the political opposition in the Parliament that is constantly fanning racial hatred insinuating a return to violence.  The battle for peace was fought mainly by 90% of the lives lost from the majority, but it brought peace enjoyed by all minorities included.  The leader of the Tamil Nationalists in the Parliament is constantly threatening and demanding but he had his free education, attended law school and enjoyed employment as a Supreme Court Justice in this so-called environment of discrimination.

Caste Based discrimination in the North – The root of the conflict in the North began with caste based discrimination among Tamils dividing their social status based entirely on caste. Hindu temples had different entrances for the low caste Tamils.  Even today in 2017, moderate Tamils admit to the caste based discrimination in the North.  The war ended in 2009.  The terrorist leader first eliminated influential high cast Tamils in the main stream as moderate Tamils.

Assassination of all moderate Tamil leaders and Politicians by the LTTE – The LTTE didn’t need any excuse to assassinate any prominent moderate Tamil leader who was in mainstream politics.

Before 1983, the terror group started with the murder of their own leaders, an early casualty was the Tamil mayor of Jaffna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Duraiappah ) who was a part of main stream politics and considered a traitor by the LTTE. The same fate befell many more after him. Starting with the killing of the Jaffna mayor, other Tamil moderates, a Sri Lankan President, Prime Minister of India and a host of other valuable political and military leaders of all ethnic groups that included a much-loved Tamil Foreign Minister who could have been the Barak Obama of Sri Lanka, were eliminated in addition to all other Tamils from rival political groups in the East.  The LTTE killed their way to self-proclamation of being the saviors of the Tamil people.

Who fought for peace?  Who rebuilt Jaffna at the speed with which it was brought back by rebuilding in 3 years was not shown as a part of post peace changes.  The rail line was damaged by the LTTE and rebuilt by the Government of the south that financed everything for the north regardless of the negligent and nonexistent contribution to infra structure.  The war was financed by the avenues of dubious financing from overseas but none of it was spent on any infra structure rebuilding or facilities for the Tamil people.  All the contributions went into war machinery deceiving the poor and voiceless Tamil people who were taken care of by the government.

Data that proves the Myth of Discrimination prior to the terrorist war – The south of the country was a safer place for minorities.  The sacrifice of life by all ethnic groups 90% of whom were from the Sinhalese majority have never been acknowledged as a part of the gratitude for peace for all people regardless of ethnicity. Tamils enjoyed privileges and had no issue with the majority community as they had 12% of the population that enjoyed 22% of the free education slots in Medical schools, 24% of the slots in free Engineering schools and over 17% of liberal arts education that was never withdrawn from them due to race. Prior to 1983 when the terror movement figures in scientifically compiled population census data proved the minorities had an unemployment rate far lower than the majority.  This is a study that meets international standards of data collection proving Sri Lanka does not subscribe to discrimination.  (Source:  An ACSLU Report – The Myth of Discrimination Against Tamils in Sri Lanka By ACSLU Dated February 1996 – A Refutation of Claims used to Justify Racist Terror in Sri Lanka – Australian Centre for Sri Lankan Unity P. O. Box 536, Toowong QLD 4066, Australia  http://www.infolanka.com/org/srilanka/issues/acslu.html

Omission of a reference to the Eastern Province and Ethnic Cleansing by the LTTE – Anthony Bourdain failed to address the suffering of the Muslim people and the violence against the Sinhalese and Muslims who equally populated the eastern part of Sri Lanka.  The LTTE drove them out due to their aim to annex the north and east as a home land for a homogeneous ethnic group while retaining the freedom to live anywhere in the country for the same 12% of one minority.

Changing the balance of ethnic distribution through violence was an undertone in the program and being CNN from the USA that is vehemently against terrorism and responsible for extensive reporting, failed to portray the terrorism in its true form as it applied to Sri Lanka.  Instead the emphasis was more on discrimination and oppression with a passing reference to the peace implying that it is frail.

Sri Lanka will only heal the scars of war if the minorities acknowledge that in proportion to the ethnic composition, we must stop crying foul and become the beacon we are because even during a terrible war, the majority accepted, protected, tolerated, sacrificed and pushed for peace regardless.

The majority is entitled to their proportion of privileges and at the same time the reality is that minorities are not deprived of anything based on race or religion.    The divide is a political perception while within the country the melting pot continues to live enjoying their hard-earned peace.

Underlying subterfuge continues with a push to continue strife from those who are far removed from the ordinary people who have welcomed the peace.  There is a problem with the southern Tamil population subscribing to a separate land because some have never lived there nor have a desire to live in the north. Those in Sri Lanka speak privately about their fears if there is a push from the overseas separatist diaspora.

A program aired by CNN and Anthony Bourdin can plant seeds of resentment that plays right into the hands of miscreants who misrepresent the peace with never ending demands.  Anthony Bourdain should not have attempted to portray post war Sri Lanka by talking to only one side of the conflict.  Journalism without balance is not appreciated by the viewing audience who know their facts.  CNN exhibited a level of ignorance that is refuted in history, census data and personal experience.   To report on post war Sri Lanka, one must look at the war and get the other side too.  There is no shortcut to the truth.

********************************************************

Zero Point Zero Production, Inc.

(Production Company)

875 Avenue of The Americas

19th Floor

New York, NY 10001-3551

USA

Phone: (212) 620-2730

Contact:  contact@zeropointsero.com  (Production Company)

Comments@cnn.com

– https://www.eater.com/2017/10/26/16547516/parts-unknown-sri-lanka-preview-trailer-anthony-bourdain

Listen to how Anthony Bourdain talks about the conflict that they knew little about in a conversation with Anderson Cooper. He refers to a tragic history and conversations with Tamil people.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/10/28/sri-lanka-anthony-bourdain-parts-unknown-ac.cnn

https://www.google.com/search?q=CNN+link+to+Anthony+Bourdain+on+Sri+Lanka+Parts+Unknown+post+war&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS756US757&oq=CNN+link+to+Anthony+Bourdain+on+Sri+Lanka+Parts+Unknown+post+war&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.21405j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

මතුගම සෙනෙවිරුවන්

බුදුන් වහන්සේ ලංකාවට වැඩම කළ තෙවැනි ගමනේදී සුමන සමන් දෙවියන් ගේ ආරාධනයෙන් සමනොල කන්ද මස්තකයට පිවිස එහි තමන් වහන්සේ ගේ ශ්‍රී පාදය තැබූ බව ඓතිහාසික ජන ප්‍රවාදයන්හි මෙන්ම වංශකතා ප්‍රවෘත්ති වලද දැක්වෙයි.ශ්‍රී පාද මස්තකයට ළඟා වන මාර්ග නවයක් පමණ තිබේ. ඉන් ප්‍රධාන මර්ග දෙකින් එකක් රත්නපුර පළාබත්ගල හරහාද අනෙක හැටන් හරහාද වැටී ඇත. පළමු වන විජයබාහු රජු ශ්‍රී පාද නමස්කාරයට සිත් ඇතිව එහි ළඟා වීම නිමිති කොට පළාබත්ගල ශ්‍රී පාද මාර්ගයට යාබදව ගිලීමලේ විහාරස්ථානයේ ශිලා ලේඛනයක් කරවූහ.ගිලීමලය බඹරබොටුව ආදී ගම් ශ්‍රී පාදයට පූජා කළහ. එයට සමාන තවත් ලිපියක් ගිනිගත්හේන නගරයට ආසන්නයේ අඹගමුවේ සන්ක්ලයින් නමැති තේවත්තක පැරණි විශ්‍රාම ශාලාවක් ඉදිරිපස පිහිටුවා ඇත.මෙහි සඳහන් වන්නේ ශ්‍රී පාද ස්ථානයට කළ යුතු වත් පිලිවෙත්  මෙන්ම මගීන් උදෙසා දන්හල් පැවැත්වීම සඳහා පිදූ  ගම්වරයන් ගැනයි. උඳුවප් මස පොහෝ දිනයෙන් ආරම්භ වන ශ්‍රී පාද වන්දනා සමය අවසන් වන්නේ වෙසක් පොහොයෙනි. එම කාලය තුළ ශ්‍රී පාද රජ මාවත ලෙසින් සැලකෙන රත්නපුර මාර්ගයත් හැටන් මාර්ගයත් නඩත්තු කරනු ලබන්නේ එම පළත් වල ප්‍රා දේශිය ලේකම් කාර්යාල සහ ප්‍රා දේශිය සභා මගිනි. හැටන් මාර්ගයේ තිබෙන එකම ප්‍රා දේශී සභාව අඹගමුව ප්‍රා දේශීය සභාවයි.

මෙම සෙල් ලිපියට අනුව විල්බාව කෙල ගමුව තිනියගල සොරගොඩ ලියවළ බදුලු වනය කොටවැල්ල කලඟ වෙල මකුළුමුල අඹගමුව වැලිගම්පළ සහ උලපනය යන ගම්වල ගොඩ මඩ ඉඩම් වලින් ලැබෙන රාජ්‍ය භාගය නොහොත් බද්ද ශ්‍රී පාද ස්ථානයට පෙර රජ දවස් සිටන් පරිත්‍යාග කිරීමක් සිදුව තිබේ. පදලස් දා පිහිටි  සමනොළ කුලෙහි කම්නවාම් පුද සිතියම් වැට දලවනුවට හා මෙහි දා වන්දනට සිවු දෙසින් වැඩි මහ සඟුන් වහන්සෙ ට වටනා පිඬු පසයට හා සෙසු ද වන්දනට රැස්වන ආගත දුබ්බා ගතයනට දෙන දන්වැට ට හා රජරට මඟැ අගෙ පස්ගවුයෙකැ දන්හලක් බැගින් කරවා දානෝපකරණ ඇති කොට දනුදෙනු කොට යනුවෙන් සඳහන් වන්නේ එම ක්‍රියාවයි.වර්තමානය වන විට එවැනි ක්‍රම වේදයක් නැතත් අඹගමුව කුරුවිට සහ රත්නපුර ප්‍රා දේශීය සභා විසින් ශ්‍රී පාද මාර්ගයේ කඩ බදු දීම් වලින් ලැබෙන ආදායම යොදවනු ලබන්නේ මගින් ගේ ගමන් පහසුව සඳහා තනා ඇති අම්බලම් සහ මාර්ග නඩත්තු කිරීම පිණිසය.එම පරිපාලනය ඉංග්‍රීසීන් ගේ යුගයේදීද එලෙසම සිදුව ඇත. එම නිසා නුවර දිස්ත්‍රික්කයට අයත් උලපනය වැනි ගම්මාන අත් හැරණද අනෙක් සියළු ගම්මාන සමගින් අඹගමුව ප්‍රා දේශීය සභා බල ප්‍ර දේශය නිර්ණය ව තිබේ.එය මෙතෙක් පැවති රාජකාරි බල ප්‍ර දේශයයි .

අඹ ගමුවට වර්තමානය වන විට ග්‍රාම නිළධාරී වසම් 67 ක් තිබේ.ගම්මාන 302 ක් තිබේ.කොට්ඨාශ තිස්පහකි.වතු 136 කි. මෙහි සමස්ත ජනගහනය 210000 කී.  එහි සිංහල 23% ක් දෙමළ 70% ක් සහ මුස්ලිම් 6% පමණ ජීවත් වේ. 1980 ට ප්‍රථම මෙම බල ප්‍රදේශ අඹගමුව උතුර ගම් සභාව සහ අඹගමුව දකුණ ගම් සභාව වශයෙන් කොටස් දෙකකට වෙන් කර තිබුණි. එකල සමස්ත බල ප්‍රදේශයම  පාරම්පරික සිංහල වැසියන් ගේ ගම්මානයන් කේන්ද්‍ර කොට ගෙන නියෝජනය වී තිබුණි. නමුත් 1987 දී ප්‍රාදේශීය සභා පණත සම්මත කරගත් පසු එයට සමගාමීව වතු දෙමළ ප්‍රජාවට පුර වැසි කම් ලැබුණි. එයින් සිදු වූයේ සමස්ත බල ප්‍රදෙශයේ නියෝජනයේ ප්‍රධාන පාලන බලතල දෙමළ ජනතාවට ලැබීමයි. 2011 පළාත් පාලන චන්ද විමසීමේ දී අඹගමුව ප්‍රා දේශීය සභාව නියෝජනය කරමින් සිංහල මන්ත්‍රී වරු හත් දෙනෙකු පත් වූ අතර දෙමළ මන්ත්‍රී වරුන් දහතුන් දෙනකු පත්ව එහි සභාපති ධූරයද වතු දෙමළ ප්‍රජාවට හිමව තිබුණි. නමුත් පාරම්පරික සිංහල වැසියන් ගේ සහනශීලිත්වය නිසා ගැටුම් නිර්මාණය නොවුණි. සාමාන්‍ය දෙමළ ජනතාවද සිය වතුවල පොකුරු ගම්මානයන් වශයෙන් සිටි අතර  සිංහල ගම්මාන සියල්ල විසිරුණු වසම් වශයෙන් තිබේ. මෙහි ප්‍රතිඵලය වූයේ සිංහල ගම්මානයන්හි යටිතල පහසුකම් දියණු කිරීමේදී වැඩි අවධානයක් යොමු නොවීමයි. දේශපාලනඥයන් චන්ද කාලයට ජනතාව රවටමින් ඇතැම් විට ජාතිවාදී  ලෙස කටයුතු කරමින් සිය බලය තහවුරු කරගත් අතර තොන්ඩමන් මුතු සිවලංගම් මෙන්ම වත්මන් වතු දෙමළ ප්‍රජාව නියෝජනය කරන දිගම්බරන් වැනි අය නිතරම උත්සාහ දරන ලද්දේ සිය වතු දෙමළ චන්ද පදනම් ආරක්ෂා කරගැනීමේ ක්‍රියා දාමයක නිරත වීමයි. ඔවුන්ගේ දැඩි ඉල්ලීම වූයේ මෙම අඹ ගමුව ප්‍රාදේශීය සභාව කොටස් තුනක් කඩා ගැනීමයි. ජේ.ආර්. ජයවර්ධන පාලන සමයේදී මෙන්ම අවසාන වශයන්ම මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ යුගයේදීද එම ඉල්ලීම් නැවත නැවතත් ඉදිරිපත් විය . නමුත් එම ඉල්ලීම කිසිවිටකත් ඉටු නොවුණි.

වත්මන් යහපාලන රජය පත් වීමේදී මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා සහමුලින් පරාජය කරගැනීම අත්‍යවශ්‍ය විය. ඒ සඳහා ඔවුහු දෙමළ මුස්ලිම් දේශපාලනඥයන් සමග රහස් ගිවිසුම ඇති කර ගත්හ. අද සිංගප්පූර් සම්මුතිය වශයෙන් ඉදිරියට පැමිණෙන්නේ එයයි. දෙමළ ජාතික සංධානය සමග ඇති කරගත් ගිවිසුම ගැනද මැතිවරණ සමයේදී තිස්ස අත්තනායක මහතා හෙළි කර තිබුණි. කෙසේ වෙතත් වතු දෙමළ දේශපාලනඥයන්ට දුන් ප්‍රධාන පොරොන්දුවක් වූයේ අඹගමුව මෙන්ම නුවර එළියද නියෝජනය වන ප්‍රාදේශීය සභා  කොටස් හයකට කඩා ගැනීමයි. එසේම උඩරට වතු කරයේ දෙමළ ජනතාවට අවශ්‍ය යටිතල පහසුකම් සඳහා වෙනම ඒකකයක් පිහිටුවීමට ඔවුහු එකඟතා ඇති කර ගත්හ. ජනාධිපති වරණයෙන් පසුව 2016 මැතිවරණයේ දී මෙම පොරොන්දු ඉල්ලීම් වලට සහතිකයක් ලැබුණ අතර ඒ අනුව කඳුරට නව ගම්මාන අමාත්‍යංශයක් පිහිටුවන ලදහ. එසේම මෑතකදී එස්.බී. දිසානායක අමාත්‍යවරයා විසින් ඉදිරිපත් කරන ලද උඩරට  සංවර්ධන අධිකාරියේ සඳහන් වනුයේ උඩරට ඉඩම් වෙනත් අයට ලබා දීමේදී යථොක්ත අමාත්‍යංශයෙන් විමසිය යුත බවයි. මෑතක ඉදිරිපත් කරන ලද ව්‍යවස්ථා සම්පාදක මණ්ඩලයේ අතුරු වාර්තා වේ නිරීක්ෂණ තුළද කඳුරට දෙමළ ප්‍රජාව වෙනුවෙන් මලයහ නමින් වෙනම පාලන ඒකකයක් යෝජනා කර තිබේ.කෙසේ වෙතත් අඹගමුව ප්‍රාදේශීය සභා බල ප්‍රදේශය මස්කෙළිය නොර්වුඩ් සහ අඹ ගමුව යනුවෙන්  ද නුවර එළිය ප්‍රාදේශීය සභාව කොටගල නුවරඑළිය සහ ඩයගම යනුවෙන් ද වෙන් කරලීමට ගත් තීරණය තනිකරම දේශපාලන පොරොන්දුවක් බවට ඇමති ෆයිසර් මුස්තාපා මහතාද තහවුරු කර තිබේ. මෙවර එයට මූලිකත්වය නෙ කටයුතු කරන්නේ ජාතික භාෂා ඇමති මනෝගනේෂන් මහතාය.

මෙම වෙන් කිරීම සඳහා වන ඉල්ලීම සිදු කරන අවස්ථාව වන විට පළාත් පාලන බල ප්‍රදේශ සීමා නිර්ණ ගැසට් පත්‍රය නිකුත් කර තිබුණි. නමුත් දෙමළ දේශපාලනඥයන් ගේ ඉල්ලීම මත යම් යම් සංශෝධන කර නැවත 2017 දී එය නිකුත් කෙරුණි. දැන් එම සීමා නිර්ණ කමිටුවද අවසන්ය. එහෙත් පසුගියදා පක්ෂ නාකයන් ගේ රැස්වීමක් කැඳවූ අගමැති රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා අඹගමුව බල ප්‍රදේශ තුනකට කැඩීමේ යෝජනාවට අනුමැතිය ගෙන ඇත. එහෙත් එම රැස්වීමට නුවර එළිය නියෝජනය කරන කිසිම සිංහල මන්ත්‍රී වරයෙකු සභාගගී වී නැත. මනෝගනේෂන් දිගම්බරන් රවුෆ් හකීම ෆයිසර් මුස්තාපා වැනි  මෙරට සුළු ජන වර්ග නියෝජනය කරන දේශපලනඥයන් පමණක් එයට සාභාගි වී තිබේ. අනතුරුව මෙම යෝජනාවට කැබිනට් අනුමැතියද ගෙන තිබෙන්නේ ශ්‍රී පාදය ජනාධිපතිවරයා යටතේ තිබෙන්නේ යැයි කියමිනි. එහෙත් මේ පළාතේ ඉඩම් සීඝ්‍රයෙන් අන්සතු වන්නේද රජයේ අනුදැනුමෙනි. විශේෂයෙන්ම මුස්ලිම් ව්‍යපාරිකයන් ශ්‍රී පාදය අවට ඉඩම් ගැන ඇස ගසා ගෙන සිටිති. ඔවුහු හෝටල් සංකීර්ණ හදන මුවාවෙන් මේ වන විටත් විශාල ඉඩම් ප්‍රමාණයක් මිලදී ගෙන තිබෙන්නේ ශ්‍රී පාද පාලනය බෞද්ධයන්ගෙන් පැහැර ගෙන තමන් යටතට පත් කර ගැනීමේ චේතනාවෙන් බව පැහැදිලියි.නමුත් අඹගමුව ප්‍රා දේශීය සභා සිංහල මන්ත්‍රීවරු මැදිහත්ව කීප වරක්ම මෙම වෑයම අහෝසි කරන්නට කටයුතු කර ඇත.අඹ ගමුව කොටස් තුනකට කඩන ගැසට්ටුව නිකුත් කළ පසුව ශ්‍රී පාදයේ අවසාන ගම් වසම වන සීත ගඟුල ( අංක 320 B) පාලනය වනු ඇත්තේ මස්කෙළිය ප්‍රදේශීය සභාවෙනි. එහි සමස්ත බලයම ජාතිවාදී පදනමින් (ජනගහනය පණස්දාහකට එක් බල ප්‍රදේශයක්) දෙමළ ජනතාවට අයත්ය එවිට ශ්‍රී පාද ස්ථානයට යනෙන ගමන් මාර්ගයත් තානායම් සහ වෙළෙඳ බලපත්‍රයන් සියල්ල පාලනය කරනු ලබනුයේ ඔවුන්ය. එවිට කුමක් සිදු වනු ඇත්දැයි ජනධිපතිවරයාට පවා දැක ගත හැකි වනුයේ පත්‍ර මාර්ගයෙනි.

එදා ඉංග්‍රීසි පාලන සමයේ පවා අඹගමුව  ගම් සභාවට ශ්‍රී පාදය අත් කර දී තිබුණේ සෙල් ලිපියේ සඳහන් රාජ්‍ය භාරය මෙන්ම පුදපූජාවන්ද මේ පාරම්පරික සිංහල ගම් වලට අයත්ව තිබූ හෙයිනි.එය අන්සතු කිරීම මෙන්ම අවහිර කිරීමද බුද්ධ ශාසනය කෙළසීමකි. පැරණි රජ වරුන් පැනවූ ව්‍යවස්ථා උල්ලංඝණය කිරීමකි. මෙම නව සීමා නිර්ණයට අප විරුද්ධ විය යුත්තේ මූලික අයිතිවාසිම් කඩවීම ගැන පමණක් සිතා නොව එය සමස්ත ජාතියේම ජාතික අයිතිවාසිකම් කඩවීමක් සේ සලකමිනි.වයවස්ථා කඩදාසියේ අකුරු වෙනස් කරමින් කරන ජාතිවාදී බලය බෙදීම සම්පූර්ණ වනු ඇත්තේ   භූමිය තුළ සැබෑ ලෙසටම ජාතිවාදී ලෙසට කොටස් කැඩීමෙනි. එය අනාගත ජාතිවාදී ගැටුම් වලට නව ප්‍රවේශයක් වනු නියතය.

මතුගම සෙනෙවිරුවන්

Editorial Courtesy The Island

November 5, 2017, 9:23 pm
The country is experiencing a petrol shortage, which the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) has attributed to panic buying owing to the recent rejection of a substandard fuel shipment. Winding queues near fuel stations remind us of the ubiquitous paan polim (‘bread queues’) under the SLFP-led United Front government (1970-77). The CPC has rejected several fuel shipments on similar grounds during the past decade or so but such action did not trigger panic buying of this scale. The government is all at sea, unable to handle the situation.

The problem with the present administration is that its ministers are busy poking their scratchy noses into others’ affairs to the neglect of their duties and functions. Petroleum Resources Development Minister Arjuna Ranatunga is preoccupied with cricket and spends much of his time, giving unsolicited advice to Sports Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera. President Maithripala Sirisena, who is also the Minister of Environment, has taken upon himself the task of solving the private medical college issue; illicit felling, illegal sand mining other forms of environmental degradation are on the rise. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe lectures the media on ethics and promotes devolution while the economy is huffing and puffing and the cost of living is soaring with people gnashing their teeth.

The yahapalana leaders ought to get their priorities right and address the burning problems people are faced with instead of expending their time and energy on other matters that can always wait. They must at least ensure a reliable fuel supply.

There is no way the rejection of a single fuel shipment can plunge the country into chaos if the CPC maintains sufficient stocks and ensures proper distribution. The best antidote to panic buying is to release enough fuel to the market and convince the consumer that the situation is under control. The CPC’s failure to do so shows the government’s claim that it has sufficient fuel stocks is not true. Some refilling stations say they haven’t got any fuel from the CPC since Thursday.

The Petroleum Resources Development Ministry has urged the public to economise on fuel. There is no need for such an exhortation; people have been cutting corners all these years; they even economise on coconuts which cost them as much a litre of petrol each. The mere mention of onion prices is enough to cause tears to well up in their eyes. Needless to say they have reduced fuel consumption to a bare minimum.

We are informed that having rejected the substandard fuel shipment, some government pundits, in a bid to reduce the demand for petrol, until the arrival of the next fuel shipment, floated a rumour of a possible petrol price reduction. This move proved to be counterproductive. Most refilling stations drastically cut down on orders to reduce losses in the event of a price decrease, and their action created a shortage, which triggered panic buying.

A CPC trade unionist, interviewed by a television channel, said the other day, the next shipment of fuel was expected on Nov. 08 and the petrol shortage would last till then. It is hoped that the government worthies who have the same traits as Marie Antoinette won’t ask people to use diesel if petrol is not available!

Thanks to frequent water cuts, people have underground sumps and overhead tanks. Power outages have boosted the sale of generators and solar panels. It looks as if the public had to maintain private fuel dumps as well.

At least now, the government ought to realise the danger of running down the CPC in a bid to allow foreigners to gain control of the petroleum sector. The UNP-led UNF government (2001-2004) would have sold hundreds of more refilling stations to the Indian Oil Company as part of its Regaining Sri Lanka programme but for protests from the CPC trade unions. If it had succeeded in its endeavour, the country, by now, would have been given a choice between consuming substandard fuel and facing petroleum shortages. The yahapalana leaders had better give serious thought to rehabilitating some of the oil storage tanks earmarked for sale and maintaining buffer stocks of fuel.

By Dr. DAYAN JAYATILLEKA Courtesy The Island

November 5, 2017, 9:05 pm
The Government is lying to us big time and blatantly in its evangelical attempt at unethically converting Sri Lanka to a non-unitary state through a new, non-unitary Constitution, while the otherwise loudly vociferous JO did not/has so far not challenged that foundational lie in the Constitutional assembly debate. Why? Throughout the marathon debate the Government told the country that, for the first time ever, the TNA has accepted a unitary state/unitary Sri Lanka. On Wednesday Nov 8th, the pugilistic but utterly inattentive JO simply must ask “When? Where? Who?” The claim is a bluff or worse, a blatant lie. NOT ONCE in the debate – or at anytime, anywhere, in Sri Lanka or overseas–did the TNA speakers, including the eminent and eminently moderate Messrs. Sampanthan and Sumanthiran, speaking in English, say that they were willing to accept a unitary state!

What they actually said was that they were willing to live in a ‘united, undivided, indivisible’ country. That’s the oh-so-generous and gracious acceptance of “one country” and the renunciation of a separate state, having been fellow-travelers of a militia that fought for separation and was crushed, and with the Sri Lankan military and Mahinda Rajapaksa having removed separatist option from the agenda! It is NOT the acceptance of the unitarycharacter of the Sri Lankan state; NOT the acceptance of Sri Lanka as a unitary state—contrary to the Government’s dishonest, deceitful claim in the august Assembly itself. That explicit acceptance is the existential Sinhala bottom-line and redline.

Even the disgracefully slippery use of language by the Government does not commit the TNA to accept the unitary state because the term ‘unitary’ does not occur anywhere in the formulation recommended in the Interim Report. Even if the two parties agree, the TNA only commits itself to an “Orumiththanadu” in Tamil, which Douglas Devananda exposed in his assembly speech, refers to a federal state, and what the Sinhalese call an “Aekeeya rajjya”, which has no internationally accepted definition, but nowhere does the TNA accept a unitary state.

The TNA speakers explained that the earlier formulation of 1972 and 1978 i.e. ‘Otraiachchi’ referred to a state form, a form of government, while ‘Orumiththanadu’ referred to a country, and this is why they want the former usage substituted by the latter. Well, they are transparent—they accept a united country but do NOT accept the unitary form of state or government! The TNA, understandably, cannot care less what the Sinhalese call it in their language!

This dualistic trick is well within the traditions of Tamil politics. Tamil Marxists used to point out the duplicity involved in calling oneself the Federal Party in English and the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (Ceylon Tamil State/Tamil Kingdom Party) in Tamil. The only thing that has changed is that the present government has adopted such perfidy and is the vehicle for it.

This conceptual and linguistic fudging is tantamount to cheating the people and their representatives. It is rather like a bond scam or cheating at examinations. The decline of Sri Lanka state is best evidenced by the fact that a constitutional fundament, drafted and carried over by legal luminaries of the caliber of Dr. Colvin R de Silva, Felix Dias Bandaranaike, JR Jayewardene, HW Jayewardene, Lalith Athulathmudali et al, is sought to be amended by an legal non-luminary (to say the least)! This is as if one allows the neighborhood tailor down a suburban lane to alter a bespoke Saville Row suit.

The UNP-TNA-CBK-Mangala-JVP axis which calls for a new Constitution which inevitable entails a referendum, is luring the country into the trap that the Tamil nationalists have set. Even if, as is likely, the overwhelming Sinhala majority trashes the federal solution at a referendum, the North and (parts of) the East will vote massively in favor and then market the result globally as the equivalent of the Catalan and Iraqi Kurdish outcomes. That in turn will trigger the second stage of the Tamil diaspora strategy fashioned by Anton Balasingham: the argument will be advanced that since the Sinhala South has blocked ‘internal self-determination’ in the form of federalism, the Tamils have a legitimate right of external self-determination i.e. separation. This will bring them closer to an equivalent of a Balfour Declaration by the West, the centenary of which was critically remembered the world over, just last week.

That is why the majority of the island is bringing irresistible pressure on the Members of Parliament to stop the Constitutional process from reaching a point that requires a referendum. It is unlikely that President Sirisena will cross that public opinion redline, especially since he had pledged not to do so in his winning Presidential election manifesto of January 2015 (which was repeatedly quoted by his wing of the SLFP during the ongoing Constitutional Assembly debate).

If one reads between the lines of Susil Premjayanth’s impressive speech, the SLFP is clearly opposed to a new Constitution for two reasons, both to do with its vital interests including that of political survival. Any weakening of the Presidency, even the signaling of its future abolition, shifts the power balance to its detriment and towards the UNP. A quantum leap in Northern autonomy through provision of a two thirds majority in parliament for an overgenerous amendment, can devastate the SLFP electorally, when faced with a powerful rival in the JO-SLPP. A repeat of the practice of the 20th amendment, namely the smuggling in of amendments at the committee stage, would, in the highly emotive case of devolution, trigger riots and rebellion, placing the lives of legislators in danger as in the late 1980s.

A Final report or Draft Constitution of a sort that will be an accelerant for a JO victory in 2020, will be counterproductive folly for any sincere votary of autonomy through devolution. Even if all the Rajapaksas were jailed on trumped-up charges, it wouldn’t help and would only fuel an electoral backlash which will sweep the nationalist Opposition led by Dinesh Gunawardena, into office (the body language during the debate clearly showed that Dinesh is Mahinda’s deputy leader, whom the latter relies upon). Any offending Constitutional amendment will be torn up in 24 hours, and that would have been a winning election pledge and a framing of the policy agenda of the 2020 government (a la Sinhala Only in 1956).

One must recall that those ghastly legislative and policy measures, Sinhala Only in 1956 and District-wise and Media-wise Standardization in 1970-72 were majoritarian populist backlashes against the founding of the Federal Party/ITAK on the basis of Tamil national self-determination in 1949-51, and the UNP-Federal Party-Tamil Congress axis of the 1965-1970 ‘Hath Havula’. Sadly but inevitably, in Sri Lanka, Populism, which in all cases is majoritarian, degenerates into a darker Ethno-populism. And it is happening again, as we speak.

A mere two years away from national elections, what the political process now needs is a reform that not only the SLFP (MS) but also its rival the JO-SLPP and the Rajapaksas can buy into and a successor JO-reunified SLFP government can live with. Any political settlement, leave alone solution, must be the result of an all-inclusive consensus. So far, there isn’t even an intra-governmental one.

The prolonged Constitutional Assembly session was its first and almost certainly the last of its kind. Perhaps the lasting residue was Dr. Sarath Amunugama’s speech. What was highly significant was that in perhaps his only reference to a participant of the Assembly, ex-President Rajapaksa went off-script and approvingly referred to Dr. Amunugama’s factually accurate exposition of 13 Plus.It was of no little value and consequence that Mahinda Rajapaksa who is leading from the front, the battle against the new Constitution, did not, even in his hard-hitting majoritarian-populist speech to the Constitutional Assembly, back away from what he had said on the record. The cable from US Charge d’Affairs, Colombo, to Washington DC, reporting on Ambassador Robert Blake’s farewell call on President Rajapaksa, May 26th 2009 read, inter alia:

“The President [Rajapaksa] said the basis of his devolution plan would be the “13th amendment plus 1″– meaning implementation of the existing constitutional provisions for provincial councils, but adding an upper house to Parliament, modeled on the U.S. Senate…The President thought that giving police powers to the provinces, as the TNA and others were demanding, would cause problems.” (Source: WikiLeaks).

When the Presidential commission into the bond scam presents its report, the AG’s Dept. commences legal action, and the local authorities elections are done, all that will be left standing of the Constitutional assembly will be Sarath Amunugama’s ‘roadmap’ speech as the fallback option and President Sirisena’s planned trident of conclaves (all-parties, all-religions, and professionals) as the safety-net for a process of constitutional reform and political settlement.

But will the TNA agree? The Tamil nationalists must remember that every one of the proposals they now commend so vociferously and indicts the Sinhala side for not having implemented, were actually disowned by the Tamil side when they were on the agenda during the long war. When federalism was offered in exchange for de-merger by the Mangala Moonesinghe Committee report in 1993, and obtained the signature of Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike on behalf of the opposition, no Tamil party agreed; only one independent did! When President Kumaratunga moved the August 2000 Draft Constitution in parliament, Mr. Sampanthan, who had promised Lakshman Kadirgamar his support, backed out and stayed silent, much to the latter’s chagrin.

Having backed or been fellow-travelers of the wrong side in that war—the side that was separatist, fascist, terrorist and ultimately unsuccessful– it is wildly unrealistic to expect that the Greater South which prevailed in the war to protect a united and unitary state, would agree to resurrect those proposals which were meant as compromises and sacrifices to stop the war and achieve peace, but were rejected or ignored. The only structural reform that ever took place and took hold is the 13th amendment. Given the current and fast evolving balance of political forces, nothing qualitatively new is possible now or visible on the horizon (up to national elections 2020 and beyond).

The silly idea that the UNP, SLFP, JVP and TNA can prevail at a referendum, overlooks not merely the unlikelihood that with economic hardship the Sri Lankan voters will repeat 2015, but also the fact that both David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn i.e. the Conservatives and Labour, wanted people to vote against Brexit, but the people needed only two mavericks, Nigel Farrage and Boris Johnson, to catalyze a successful NO campaign. Here the JO and the rather more ultranationalist social movement with the saffron spearhead that has arisen against the new Constitution, will have an easier job of it. More: a victory for the NO campaign at a referendum will set the scene, the tone and the ultranationalist policy agenda for the national election campaigns of 2019-2020.

Will the TNA and the Tamil nationalists in general comprehend that devolution is an incremental process of evolution rather than a Big Bang or Great Leap Forward; that in some periods of history only a marginal increase on what exists (13A) can be achieved; that developmentally strong provincial councils and a prosperous North could provide the leverage for greater autonomy at a different stage of Southern consciousness and with a more propitious balance of sociopolitical forces? Will the TNA understand that President Sirisena is the last best chance, and help him to help them by accepting the Amunugama Axioms? Or will it prove that what the liberal intellectual Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban said of the Palestinians, continues to be true of the Tamil nationalist politicians, namely that they “never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity”?

Chief Minister Wigneswaran says the Tamils will get nothing from the Sinhalese and should therefore rely on international pressure and international law. At best, that’s an open-ended and very iffy prospect. At worst it sounds rather like the illogic that made Prabhakaran hold out for all or nothing. 45 years ago, a Ceylonese Communist and trained historian of Tamil ethnic origin, the only Ceylonese to have shared the podium at Tiananmen Square as a guest of Chairman Mao, wrote this from jail, as a political prisoner of Madam Bandaranaike’s regime:

“Sinhala communalism fed on Tamil communalism and vice versa…The names of GG Ponnambalam and his later day disciple SJV Chelvanayakam, would go down in history as two men who misled the Tamils into political wilderness where they are still groping. This is not to absolve the communal leaders among the Sinhalese. But being a minority, and having more to lose, the Tamil leadership should have been more responsible and far-seeing.” (N. Sanmugathasan, A Marxist Looks At the History of Ceylon, 1972, pp. 49-51)

One hopes that the historian was not also a prophet, and that his will not prove to be the unsurpassable last word on the Tamil tragedy at the heart of the larger Sri Lankan tragedy.

by P.G.Punchihewa Ph.D. Courtesy The Island

November 4, 2017, 6:18 pm

Nearly two million people in at least 22 districts out of 25 are reported to be affected by the continuing drought. Among the districts are Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Mannar, Vavuniya, Trincomalee, Kurunegala, Puttalam , Jaffna ,Kilinochchi, Mullativu ,Matale and Moneragala. Most of the large, medium and small tanks in the dry zone have partially or completely dried up and in certain instances peasants are abandoning their villages for want of water for their daily use. It is a pathetic sight to see thousands and thousands of fish wriggling, struggling for survival in the mud pools of the tank beds. The last drought experienced had been forty years ago but as it is, the present one could be unprecedented. According to the World Food Programme the water levels in reservoirs as reported in September this year was 18% compared with 47% last year.

Following are some of the large reservoirs in some of the affected districts:

Anuradhapura – Padaviya, Mahavilachchiya, Mahakandarawa, Nuwarawewa, Nachchaduwa, Huruluwewa and Rajangana; Polonnaruwa -Kaudulla, Minneriya, Giritale and Parakramasamudraya; Mannar –Yodawewa; Moneragala – Muthukandiyawewa; Mullaitivu -Muthiyankaddu; Trincomalee – Kantale; Puttalam – Inginimitiya; Kurunegala – Magallawewa, Hawatuna Oya; Kilinochchi – Iranamadu

Each of these reservoirs except Muthukandiyawewa in Moneragala District commands an area exceeding 1,000 ha.

In 2015 three districts, Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Kurunegala alone contributed nearly one third of paddy production of the island. The same year recorded a 129.5 rate of self-sufficiency in paddy production for the country.

Ancient irrigation system

There was a time when Sri Lanka took pride in its irrigation system. Judge C.G.Weeramantry in the famous Gabcikovo–Nagymaros case, quoting Arnold Toynbee refers to the ‘amazing system of water works, how hill streams were tapped and their water guided into giant storage tanks, some of them four thousand acres in extent from which channels ran to other larger tanks. Below each great tank and each great channel were hundreds of great little tanks each the nucleus of a village’. He also quotes King Parakramabahu who laid the principle that not even a drop of rain water must be allowed to flow into the ocean without being made useful to man .Justice Weeramantry adds that according to the ancient chronicles these works were undertaken for the benefit of the country and out of compassion for all living creatures .The later Brahmi inscriptions increasingly refer to the donations of tanks to the Sangha. The sites where the cave inscriptions of the period from 1st century BC to 3rd century AD surprisingly overlap where the small tanks had existed .Thus arose the concept of the tank ,the dagaba (symbolizing the Buddhist ethos) and the village; (wawai, dagabai, gamai) three village level institutions intertwined and supporting one another; the tank symbolizing the material needs and the temple providing the spiritual and educational needs of the community. While the major tanks fed the smaller tanks the main role of the small village tank was to meet the multiple requirements of the people of which the main use was to provide water needs for two cultivations, Maha and Yala. In addition, their other requirement’s included domestic use, washing and bathing and meeting the needs of livestock, religious rituals and clay extraction for pottery and other needs. Also both migrant and resident water birds found the small tanks a safe haven.

Referring to the small tanks, according to Dr.C.R.Panabokke, ‘perhaps the most important function of the small tank was to recharge the shallow phreatic water table of this hard rock. It is this recharge of the phreatic water table which throughout the dry season that sustains the fresh water supply in the domestic wells located within the gangoda of the village hamlet without which village settlers could not have maintained their quality of life.’

The traditional hand dug domestic well located in the village gangoda below the small village tank had provided the village domestic requirements for several centuries despite their relatively low yields and seasonal water level fluctuations .

The Sangha and the influence of Buddhism

The influence of the Sangha over the rulers and the masses was great. Immediately after the introduction of Buddhism, Mahinda Thera in enunciating the Buddhist principle of compassion for all living creatures advised the King Devanampiyatissa

“O great King ,the birds of the air and the beasts have as equal a right to live and move about in any part of the land as you. The land belongs to the people and all living beings. You are only the guardian of it.”

The rulers, who followed, adhered to the advice given by the Thera. ‘Kings of Sri Lanka like Amandagamini 79-89 A.D, Silakala 524-537 A.D, Aggabodhi IV 658-674 A.D. and Mahinda III 797 -801 A.D. ordered that no animals should be slaughtered,’ says Professor Dhammavihari.

Abstaining from killing is the first precept of the five which laymen are expected to observe. Rulers and the masses abhorred killing of animals. There is no reference in the Sinhala and Pali literature or in rock inscriptions where the rulers encouraged killing of animals.

The reservoirs built by the ancient rulers were not meant for fish breeding for human consumption. It is possible that the villagers living close to them would have engaged in fishing in these tanks but never did the state, patronized fishing.

Inland fisheries

But now we observe the reverse is happening .Recent Governments which are duty bound by the constitution to protect the Buddha Sasana is openly encouraging and assisting the people to break the first precept.

The Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Development is tasked with the development of marine brackish water and fresh water fisheries and the National Aquaculture Development Authority (NAQDA) under the Ministry is to contribute to the improvement of the socio-economic conditions of rural societies through alleviation of poverty by increasing freshwater and brackish water fish production .The breeding of fish is one the functions of NAQDA. The earlier slogan “wewai .dagabai and gamai” has now dropped the dagaba and stands as “wewak samaga gamak.”

The ancient rulers who built them would never have thought that a resource they gifted to the nation with compassion is being abused and is not serving the original purpose for which they were built. Whether there is a correlation between the drying up of reservoirs and their abuse is anybody’s guess.

Now the country is short of both rice and fish! The government is expected to import 500,000 M.T at around 100,000 M.T a month and the private sector from May this year has imported about 400,000 M.T.

(The writer who belonged to the former Ceylon Civil Service has served as Government Agent of Moneragala and Kalutara among other senior public service assignments. He retired as Secretary to the Ministry of Coconut Development and served in Jakarta as Executive Secretary of the Asia Pacific Coconut Community)

 A humble but magical ‘trio’ used by ancient veda mahattayas have stunned the world of modern medicine by their ‘healing’ powers right here in Sri Lanka.

The three herbal fruits — aralu, bulu and nelli — are potent fighters in the battle against high cholesterol, the Sunday Times learns. Not speculation nor rumour, but tried and tested is the aralu-bulu-nelli combo in an indisputable Clinical Trial (CT) conducted by the guru-gola (teacher-student) pair, Consultant Physician Prof. Colvin Goonaratna and Senior Consultant Cardiologist Dr. Ruvan Ekanayaka.

Thriphala is the most ancient ayurvedic prescription dating back to the time of Charaka, explains Prof. Goonaratna before launching into how the CTs were conducted at Link Natural Products (Pvt) Ltd.

He stresses that he joined this company that manufactures herbal products as its Consultant for CTs after determining that it is 100% herbal. The company’s manufacturing laboratory has got Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certification.

Giving the backdrop, Prof. Goonaratna says that reading up on aralu (Terminalia chebula), bulu (Terminalia belerica) and nelli (Phyllanthus emblica), he came across an article in an Indian journal which stated that Thriphala reduces cholesterol after some animal and human studies.

However, no CTs had been conducted and CTs are the gold standard when assessing a drug or a surgical operation,” he says, adding that he then consulted” Dr. Ekanayaka, most probably the only non-heart patient to do so.

Dr. Ekanayaka was very interested and that is how the study, from December 2014 to March 2016, became a reality, with the study being designed by Prof. R. Sooriyarachchi of the Department of Statistics of the University of Colombo, who came up with the required numbers, which they followed to the letter.

Thereafter, Dr. Ekanayaka invited patients from the National Hospital’s Institute of Cardiology who were on 10mg of the atorvastatin, as maintenance” against their cholesterol levels from rising, to take part in the study. These patients had been on an uninterrupted ‘stable dose’ of atorvastatin for six to nine months for lipid regulation.”

Lipid regulation is essential as hyperlipidaemia is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which in turn, is the leading cause of morbidity (illness) and mortality (death) in the world. (Hyperlipidaemia means raised serum levels of one or more of total cholesterol — low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides (TGs) or both total cholesterol and triglycerides.)

Combined with lifestyle modifications, lipid-regulating medication is a key component of both primary and secondary prevention, with statins being the undisputed first-line drugs for it. But they have a large number of side-effects, it is learnt.

In this double-blind randomized controlled study, there were two groups of patients:

One group of 101 patients on 10mg atorvastatin daily who were each given a Swastha Thriphala Caplet in the morning and two after dinner at night for three months. This was the treatment group.

The other group of 97 patients who were on 10mg atorvastatin daily who got placebos for three months. This was the control group.

The Sunday Times learns that in such a CT, some of the participants (those in the treatment group) are given the medical treatment which the researchers are bent on testing, while others (those in the control group) are given a fake (placebo). ‘Double-blind’, meanwhile, means that both the researchers and the participants do not know who is getting what, until the study ends.

In a CT, the primary concern is whether by giving the medication the patients will come to harm,” stresses Dr. Ekanayaka, underscoring that regular routine investigations were carried out and a watch kept whether there would be any adverse event.

The only” side-effect was loose stools and that too only in some, points out Prof. Goonaratna.

By Shivanthi Ranasinghe Courtesy Ceylon Today

How did we arrive from Nandikadaal to Orumittha Nadu? Usually, it is the victor who becomes the post-war architect. It is they who persecute the defeated, get compensated for the damages incurred during the war and decide what the problem was and the appropriate solution. However, in our case after defeating three decades of terrorism, it is the Sri Lanka military and those who gave the leadership to finally and resolutely eradicate terrorism who had become pariahs of the State. It is we who are being lectured to and pushed to reform not only our security sector, but our very Constitution. The pressure is coming from the very forces that aided, abetted and justified terrorism.

Last week, for three days Parliament debated on the Constitutional Assembly Steering Committee’s Interim Report. On the first day itself, around 75 members of the Constitutional Assembly tasked with formulating a draft Constitution were absent. The thrust of the argument Government worthies like Finance and Mass Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera, MP Dilan Perera and Health Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne made was this is the “last bus” for a lasting solution and should not repeat our “history of missing the bus, always.”

Minister Senaratne made an interesting observation. He stated that the Tamil National Alliance has already agreed to support the new Constitution. He claimed, this in itself is the biggest victory and we must make the most of this unprecedented opportunity.

This raises a number of questions. First, how can the TNA agree to support the new Constitution if it is still in its formulation stage? Was this a slip of the tongue for many Government critics have speculated that the new Constitution has already been compiled outside Sri Lanka by non-Sri Lankans. They thus accuse this whole exercise of formulating a new Constitution as a farce.

If these speculations are just that, speculations, then what specific parameters in the Interim Report captured the support of the TNA? If garnering the TNA’s support is considered an unprecedented victory, then raises the question at what cost are we going to retain it?

This is not the first time we are hearing the slogan, “last chance” (or “bus” as in this instance). In an earlier era, when the current chairperson of National Unity and Reconciliation Chandrika Kumaratunga was the President of Sri Lanka, we even heard slogans such as “peace at any cost”.

As Minister Samaraweera pointed out, it is the very ones who supported projects like the Sudu Nelum Movement who are opposing the current attempts to resuscitate the Constitutional reforms.

Reminding the assembly of MP Dullas Alahapperuma’s support to the Movement, Minister Samaraweera pointed out, “the draft Constitution that MP Alahapperuma then campaigned for was a far more progressive one than what we have proposed in terms of power sharing. That draft did not contain the word ‘unitary’ but spoke about a united country. It even agreed to offer Police and land powers to the provinces.” Yet now MP Alahapperuma is asking the House whether the country needs a new Constitution, he noted.

There is, however, a vast difference between then and now. The Movement was launched in 1995 as an ambitious project of the then newly elected People’s Alliance Government. The objective was to bring peace to a war against terrorism that had already seen more than a decade of violence. The political thinking at the time was that the war could never be won. The West led international opinion certainly endorsed and even propagated that view.

Worse, as revealed by Major General Kamal Gunaratne’s “Road to Nandikadaal”, even the then Army Commander Lt. Gen. Lionel Balagalle was not confident of a military victory. This fact was highlighted when Lt. Gen. Balagalle accompanied with the then political heavyweight Milinda Moragoda to the Nagarkovil headquarters in 2002 to resolve a disagreement between the then 55.1 Brigade Commander Gunaratne and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The then Brigade Commander Gunaratne had refused to quit the terrorists’ fortification, which was 200 metres south of Nagarkovil junction.

The Sri Lanka Army had captured this just before the signing of the infamous 2002 Cease Fire Agreement. Soon after, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam demanded the withdrawal of the Army. Moragoda at that point had been quite blunt in his assertion that this war cannot be won and the Army Commander had meekly agreed with him.

The point is, despite peace projects as the Sudu Nelum Movement and the willingness of the then political powers to consider the terrorists as a political partner, the LTTE could never be appeased. Despite the many trips to the negotiating table, there was simply no negotiating with the terrorists. They continued to terrorize.

Mavil Oya

The crucial turning point was with the closing of the sluice gates of the Mavil Oya on 26 July 2006. The humanitarian operation that began then continued until Vellupillai Prabakaran was killed on 18 May 2009 on the banks of Nandikadaal. As the guns fell silent and people’s lives began to normalize, within few short years, every Sri Lankan rejoiced and Sudu Nelum peace projects were binned.

With the end of the war, it is not only the people in the South who benefited from its victory. There is no debate that it was the people in the North who suffered the most, because of terrorism. Therefore, they were the ones who benefited the most from its elimination. They no longer had to pay taxes to a terrorist organization – failure of which for so long literally meant losing one’s head. Children can go to school without fear of abduction. The war winning administration even disarmed their own friendly paramilitary groups, so that people may exercise their franchise with absolute freedom.

NPC not trusted

The confidence the people in the North regained in the Southern people, namely the Sinhalese, was recently demonstrated. On 25 April 2017, hundreds of ex-LTTE cadres launched an unprecedented campaign against the Government from handing over military managed agricultural farms and pre-schools in the Northern Province to the Northern Provincial Council (NPC). They wanted these farms and pre-schools be kept under military supervision and they be assigned to work as servicemen of the Civil Defence Force.

They agitated that their livelihoods would be at stake if these were handed over to the NPC.

The irony is not that these same ex-LTTE cadres were engaged in fierce battles with the same military they now wish to serve under a mere eight years ago. The irony is that these ex-LTTE cadres are clearly rejecting the TNA led NPC, meaning the TNA itself. Until the annihilation of the LTTE, the TNA acknowledged that the sole representative of Tamils in Sri Lanka is the LTTE. The LTTE may be disbanded as a group, but it is still the same people and they do not want to be led by the TNA.

Therefore, the TNA’s contribution to the new Constitutional process will not be acceptable to the Tamils in the North. In fact, GG Ponnambalam who tried to push a disproportionate power sharing formula of 50 per cent of the power for the Vellalar Tamils in the North, categorically rejected federalism, denouncing it as bad for the country and worse for Tamils. He stated, that, it was “‘midsummer madness’ for the Tamils to ask for partition of the country and segregation of different communities”.

After 30 years of terrorism, the ex-LTTE cadres – once recognized as the only representatives of Tamils – have arrived at the same conclusion that Ponnambalam did in the ’50s. Then, how did we come all the way from Nandikadaal to Orumittha Nadu, which is another term for federalism, in just eight years?

ranasingheshivanthi@gmail.com

By Sugeeswara Senadhira Courtesy Ceylon Today

The three-day debate in the Constitutional Assembly may not help to adopt a new Constitution, but it has provided the much needed forum for a national debate on this vexed question. During and before the debate it became very clear that there was no possibility of a consensus leading to a draft Constitution. Furthermore, there were strong indications that a draft proposal may not get the required two-third majority in Parliament, not to talk about a ‘yes vote’ in a National Referendum.

When the issue, especially the clauses on unitary status, place for Buddhism and the executive presidency became more muddled, President Maithripala Sirisena intervened with his decision to hold an all party conference, with participation of the political parties represented in Parliament, a conference of all religious leaders and another conference of scholars and intellectuals who are interested in this national issue, thus effectively ending the utility of the debate in the Constitutional Assembly, at this stage.

“At these conferences the issues pertaining to the proposed new Constitution can be discussed and unnecessary clauses could be removed and new clauses could be included, if required,” he further said addressing the National Convention on Reconciliation, participated by associations and national civil society activists.

The four-day debate last week brought out the ground reality that without a prior agreement of different political parties on the three major issues mentioned above, prolong deliberations would not bring any positive result. In fact, the debate resulted in negative factors as speaker after speaker offering diverse views and outside the August House too, similar contradictions were aired. Buddhist monks were also divided on this issue and finally, the President seems to have decided enough was enough and called for three different conferences to seek views and suggestions.

Some critics may see this as a dilatory tactic, but the dialogue in Parliament clearly showed the imperative need for such a conference to sort out issues before a Constitutional draft could be prepared.

As some critics pointed out the history of All Party Conferences in Sri Lanka did not yield any result. One must remember that the issues before us have not changed and even today we discuss the issues of devolution and constitutional power sharing, where it was earlier called the ‘communal issue’.

In January 1984, the J R Jayewardene Government convened an All Party Conference to seek a resolution of the communal issue.

Participants included the UNP, the SLFP, the TULF, and five smaller groups. The major issue under discussion was devolution and the Government proposed the granting of autonomy to the country’s districts through the creation of district councils and other changes in Local Government. The Government also proposed establishment of a second house of Parliament.

Jayewardene called the APC mainly to use it as a buffer against the Indian pressure. At that time India was insisting early implementation of ‘Annexure C’ proposals of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s special envoy G. Parthasarathy. Even after the death of Mrs Gandhi, the Indian Government of her son Rajiv Gandhi wanted to apply pressure on President Jayewardene on this issue.

However, analysts believed that even if the JR’s All Party Conference had reached an agreement on devolution, it was unlikely that it could have been implemented because the SLFP and the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna had withdrawn from the negotiations in 1984. The proposals also were denounced by militant Sinhalese groups and politically active Buddhist monks, who viewed them as a sell out to the Tamils.

The TULF wanted setting up of Regional Councils and the Leader of the Party which commands a majority in a Regional Council would be formally appointed by the President as the Chief Minister of the Region. That was not acceptable to any national party and the APC proposals became a non-starter.

Presidents Ranasinghe Premadasa, Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa also called for all party dialogues on the communal problem and devolution proposals, but none of them succeeded; mainly due to ulterior motives of the convening parties.

In 2006, President Rajapaksa called an All Party Conference to make representatives of political parties aware of the incidents that had taken place in Mavil Aru and Muttur; perhaps to get an endorsement for an all out offensive against the LTTE.

Representatives from all invited parties, represented in Parliament, except the UNP participated. That too ended as a futile exercise.

However, one should not be pessimistic about the APC merely because of experiences in the past. As Dr. Jayampathy Wickremaratne said, there is unanimity on more than 90 per cent of the clauses of the proposed Constitution. However, it will remain deadlocked until a consensual formula is found on the three issues: Unitary status, place for Buddhism and Executive Presidency. The APC will be the best forum to iron out those issues.

“People and the country cannot progress through divisions and separations. Everybody should get together and work with understanding and find solutions. That is what is required for the country today”, President Sirisena said last week. “Many people who mess up the problems don’t have any ability to solve them. I invite the venerable Maha Sangha, and other religious leaders, scholars and intellectuals to sit around one table and discuss about this matter,” he said. “It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure that the sound of gunfire is not heard once again. Everybody should take the responsibility to build the economy of all the people in a fair society,” the President emphasized.

Holding three different conferences might take time. But rushing into a new Constitution without a proper dialogue of stakeholders would not produce a lasting solution.

Shenali D Waduge

Leaving aside arguments of ITAK/TNA links to LTTE the fact remains is that both Tamil racist leaders & LTTE fought for a separate Tamil state. Whether it is called eelam, self-autonomy, self-determination etc it all boils down to the same thing. If so it questions on what logical premise that any government would deem it necessary to weaken the country by bringing in a new constitution that not only removes the unitary character of the constitution but also sets up a confederal form of governance giving virtual asymmetrical federation to some provinces over others. Going by the aims and objectives outlined by Sampanthan in his address to the Tamil people, what is clear is that the real objective of a Tamil nation is to be sought cunningly, patiently, manipulating and aligning to the global agendas of the West and India. While all this is being spelt out clearly in black and white the Governments in Sri Lanka and their super advisors and inner circles are happy to play pied piper and virtually facilitate the hidden aims and objectives of both the Tamil separatists and the Foreign Agendas.

R.Sampanthan speaking at the 14^thITAK Convention in Batticoloa, in May 2012 made the following speech excerpts from which are being quoted with commentary to understand the relevance of it to the demands being made to the new constitution.

http://www.sangam.org/2012/06/Sampanthan_Speech.php

Our understanding and relationship with members of the international community including India and the United States that has come about by slow degrees, little by little, as a result of methodical, measured action and thinking, is becoming a source of strength for our community”

(the power of diaspora influence and using LTTE money generated illegally & legally)

We remember the Tamil youth who sacrificed their lives in armed struggle” 

(Is he implying LTTE and other militant groups? If not who are these Tamil youth?)

He mentions Tamil Nation 6

We gather here following our victory in the passage of the recent Resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, a condemnation against the Sri Lankan government by the international community”

For ITAK and all who share sentiments of this statement it seriously questions their citizenship. Can a citizen of this country be happy when the country is condemned internationally, for whatever reason?

Sri Lankan government has committed the crime of extermination against our people”

The reason for this ‘victory’ is given – as far as we know the Sri Lankan Army exterminated LTTE Terrorists not Tamils.

Ilankai Thamil Arasu Katchi was created by S.J.V. Chelvanayagam, the father of Tamil Nation, for the purpose of establishing self determination of the Tamil people on this island. This objective is evident in both the name of the party and in the manner in which it operates.”

Here Sampanthan is plainly telling why ITAK has been created.

Tamil United Liberation Front, of which our party was a member, took the historical decision to establish the separate government of Tamil Eelam in 1976. Based on this decision of our party, and the need to place ourselves in a position of strength, Tamil youth decided to oppose violence with violence and began to rise up as armed rebel groups.”

Plain and simple the quest for a separate state began officially & publicly with the Vaddukoddai Resolution in 1976 and is linked to armed militancy and given India trained these youths clandestinely it indirectly involves India in this separatist game.

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which became a great force within the Tamil community”

We have been asking the question who sides with the LTTE and obviously here is the answer!

The intervention of India has clearly taught us the lesson that whatever our aspirations may be, India will never welcome a political solution in Sri Lanka that does not accord with the interests of India.”

Clearly it is a ‘you scratch my back, I will scratch yours’ deal that India & Tamils have with each other. The rape of 3000 Tamil women by the IPKF must have been just collateral damage and part of that ‘worthy cause’. It would be interesting to know if all these women were Dalits (low caste) which is why no Tamil is interested in seeking justice for the crime!

achieving Tamil Eelam was becoming an increasingly unrealistic goal. Thus, instead of sacrificing more lives to this cause, our party, with the help of India, began supporting a solution that allowed the Tamil people to live within a united Sri Lanka”

What is being said is that without claiming the political solution to be Tamil Eelam in so many words the same objective should be sought. Who is the gullible who cannot understand this?

A most important lesson we have learnt from the past 60 years… is that we should act strategically, with the awareness that global powers will act based on their domestic interests.”

In other words the separatists have strategized their demands to align to the global agendas of those they are seeking for assistance to arm-twist the Sri Lankan Government. How come our mavericks in government & their smart alecs have not been able to come up with a similar strategy?

Further, a struggle that runs counter to the values of the international community, built only on military might, will not prevail. It is for this reason, that in the new environment created by various global influences, we have, together with the support and assistance of the international community, found new ways of continuing with our struggle”.

It is without a doubt that the armed struggle by LTTE had the silent nod of approval by the Tamil leaders who have now realized that the quest can still be achieved through aligning with global political agenda & partnering with the international community.

Our expectation for a solution to the ethnic problem of the sovereignty of the Tamil people is based on a political structure outside that of a unitary government, in a united Sri Lanka in which Tamil people have all the powers of government needed to live with self-respect and self-sufficiency.”

Why ITAK wants removal of the unitary status of Sri Lanka is simply because a constitution that is unitary cannot allow self-autonomy.

The position that the North and East of Sri Lanka are the areas of historical habitation of the Tamil speaking people cannot be compromised in this structure of government.”

It has been the fault of the UNP Govt that agreed to the insertion of this mythical clause and the inability of successive governments to negate this lie officially that has led to this lie being repeated enough to be accepted by all without challenge.

We must have unrestricted authority to govern our own land, protect our own people, and develop our own economy, culture and tradition.”

In other words what is being sought is a separate Sri Lanka (asymmetrical federalism until secession is sought)

meaningful devolution should go beyond the 13th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1987”

What exactly is devolution beyond 13a?

The above solution is also one that is likely to be acceptable to members of the international community including India and the United States”

There’s a revelation, so now we know how and why things have come this far!

Any solution to the ethnic problem concerning the sovereignty of the Tamil people must also be acceptable to the Muslim community in Sri Lanka.”

This part clearly establishes how India is twisting its agenda because Trinco is in the East and the only way that the North East can be merged is to get the Muslims on to their side, thus the continuous reference to ‘Tamil speaking people’ so that it includes both Tamils and Muslims.

Our priority now is to expose the Sri Lankan government that for so many years in the past attempted to describe the ethnic problem and a ‘terrorist problem’.”

So what is Sampanthan trying to say – that LTTE are not terrorists? Who killed Kadiragamar and so many other Tamils?

The international practice prevalent during the mid eighties, when the intervention of India occurred, has now changed. Although the issue at hand is the same, the prevailing conditions are different. The struggle is the same, but the approaches we employ are different. Our aim is the same, but our strategies are different. The players are the same, but the alliances are different. That is the nature of the Tamil people. Although we still have the same aim, the methods we use are now different.”

This part is important to gage the psyche of the Tamil leaders and to understand how they have cunningly manipulated their strategies to suit the times.

United States and India are to a great extent supporting our position. The Sri Lankan government continues to maintain friendships with those standing against them.”

We will agree wholeheartedly with this – the previous Government did not know who their friends were from the enemies and foolishly played into the hands of the enemy at the cost of jeopardizing their friends. Sampanthan says the outcome of the UNHRC Resolutions with US and India supporting ‘their cause’ is the indication of ‘future developments’.

The current practices of the international community may give us an opportunity to achieve, without the loss of life, the soaring aspirations we were unable to achieve by armed force.”

This again reiterates the connection with the Tamil leadership & the LTTE armed struggle.

if the world begins to perceive us to be extremist, or too rigid, or if they

believe that we have a hidden agenda to reignite violence, we will soon be ostracized from the diplomatic exercises in progress. We must show great care in our words and actions”

In other words what Sambanthan is asking all Tamils to do is not to reveal the connections, not to reveal the real plan but to play the ‘innocent’ card and fool the world.

We thus strongly urge the Sri Lankan government to act sincerely in this regard and take steps to release all Tamil political prisoners’

LTTE cadres are NOT political prisoners but we also want justice for every person LTTE killed since 1980s. We are still waiting for the GOSL to put LTTE cadres on trial for these deaths and others who have been indirectly and covertly supporting LTTE must also face the court and be punished for aiding and abetting terror.

Sinhalization that takes place both secretly and openly”

How dare Sambanthan complain about Sinhalese living in the North when every day there are Tamils coming to reside in Colombo and elsewhere. If North is the habitat of the Tamils why are they coming to live in the South? Just count the many flats and apartments Tamils now own and the numbers of Tamils that have increased in Colombo since 2009. Citizens have the fundamental right to live anywhere and it cannot be claimed as colonization as Sambanthan and Tamils are presently doing. The fault of the governments in power has been not to nip this lie in the butt too.

Our understanding and relationship with members of the international community including India and the United States that has come about by slow degrees, little by little, as a result of methodical, measured action and thinking”

See how well the Tamil leadership has manipulated their objectives into the international agenda of others!

Evidendly, the problem is not the problem what we are told is the problem. The answer is not the answer we believe is the answer. We are all being taken for a ride and where will this all end is anyone’s guess.

After reading the excerpts of Sampanthan the present Opposition Leader what is your own opinion of the goals and objectives of the Tamil Leaders and their co-partners the LTTE?

Shenali D Waduge

H. L. D. Mahindapala

In an impassioned speech delivered before the Steering Committee of the Parliament M. A. Sumanthiram, the spokesperson for the TNA, argued the case for federalism which is by far the most plausible presentation I have heard on the subject. And I must add that have heard some of the best and the brightest on this subject from the time I was the lobby correspondent of The Observer in the Old Parliament when outstanding political giants from both sides of the House made the inner chamber virtually a brilliant department of political science, worthy of any leading university teaching, researching and informing the public on the key issues of the day. In fact, if I did not know the other side of Sumanthiram’s narrative, particularly the parts he omitted, either deliberately or inadvertently, I could have easily accepted his version as the last word on federalism. He had marshaled the relevant data, dates, reasoning, and selected events and personalities from the 20^th century to verbalize his case persuasively. Like all good lawyer he has presented his case with the relevant material to substantiate his cause.

But, as in most cases, his entire case comes apart when the other side of his narrative is pitted against his version.  Predictably, his arguments were all tailored to blame the Sinhala-Buddhists, with S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike featured, once again, as a justification for federalism. Sumanthiram had no case to argue if he did not have the Sinhala-Buddhists to make them his scapegoat as usual.  According to him the Sinhala-Buddhist majority is to be blamed because, he says, they denied the Tamils their rights, dignity, and equality. Anyone who knows anything about Sri Lankan politics will agree that this has been the standard litany of complaints which they had been marketing even before independence, and long before Bandaranaike, their pet hate, and farthest away from 1983”.

The Sampanthan-Sumanthiran (SS) version of federalism is the latest manifestation of the perennial cry for a disproportionate share of power that first began in the 1920s. In the twenties the Tamils demanded one extra seat in the preponderant Sinhala Western Province in addition to the seats given to them in the Northern Province. In the thirties the Tamils escalated their demand to 50 per cent share of power to 11% of Tamils. In the forties the Tamils launched the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi which was loosely termed as federalism in the South though it was marketed as a separate state in the North. In a similar deceptive vein, the S-S federal formula today is not for rights, dignity and equality of the Tamils (as will be shown later) but purely to revive and pursue relentlessly the old claim for a disproportionate share of power and territory for the most privileged minority community in Sri Lanka.

No sane Sinhalese will ever refuse to give the rights, the dignity and equality to the Tamils or the Muslims. With his own life experiences, growing up in the post-Bandaranaike era, Sumanthiram should know this very well. The problem is not in giving rights, dignity and equality. The problem is in giving a disproportionate share of power to one community, depriving the other communities of their right to share every inch of Sri Lanka as their common homeland.

Sumanthiram’s main contention is that the majoritarian rule of the Sinhala-Buddhists has robbed the Tamils of their rights, dignity and equality”. When he said this in Parliament he was exposing himself as a living contradiction of his own accusation. He stood there as the embodiment of a Tamil who has been the recipient of the best of the rights, dignity and equality” bestowed on a citizen by the majoritarian state every step of the way in his career. The proof of it is in the fact that he has never complained so far that he has been discriminated or charged fees at Royal College, his alma mater.  Nor has he complained that he was forced to sit on a lower chair in the classroom to signify his lower status as a Tamil like the way the Vellalar Tamils did to the low-castes Tamils in the North. From Royal College he went to Law College and passed out as a lawyer without paying a cent. No discrimination there either. In Tamil Nadu, the one and only homeland of the Tamils, all university students, except the schedule caste, have to pay fees. I am also sure he would have enjoyed the equal status of a machang” – a term which represents a brotherhood common to all students wherever they may be in Sri Lanka. So where is  the loss of dignity and equality?

Then he practiced law in the Sinhala state” courts without fear or favour. No majoritarian discrimination obstructed his progress there too. But he gets up in Parliament and talks of Tamils not getting their rights, dignity and equality. And he was not joking either. Since he was deadly serious he should have first tested his accusation of not getting his rights, dignity and equality in the South by comparing it with the opportunities / chances he had in the one-man Tamil state of Prabhakaran in the North. As he knows only too well, no Tamil lawyer who respected his rights, dignity and equality ever went to practice in Prabhakaran’s courts – an incontrovertible fact which questions Sumathiram’s ability to honour the truth known to him. The Tamil lawyers shared equal power in the courts of the Sinhala state” with due respect and dignity. Not even the Chief Minister, V. Wigneswsaran, who was a judge in the Sinhala state”, ever complained that he was treated as an inferior judicial officer because he was a Tamil. His rights, dignity and equality” were honoured with great respect on the bench and also in the Sinhala state” and society.

Furthermore, the career paths of the Tamils in public service demonstrate amply that the best period of Tamils was when they shared their lives in the Sinhala state” as equals, despite the most detestable events of 1983” which no sensible Sinhalese would ever endorse. The  historical record states, with unquestionable clarity, that in the last 70 years the Tamils achieved a status which they had never achieved in their feeble attempts to make a history of their own from the 13^th century when they settled down permanently, abandoning their traditional role of being itinerant wanderers and explorers with no  abiding  interest in Sri Lanka to call it their home.

The liberation of the oppressed Tamil outcasts from centuries of Vellahla fascism, dating back to the pre-Dutch period, and the final liberation from the fascist rule of Tamil Tiger tyranny are two historical events that confirm the story of the Tamils coming out of their feudal and colonial past with flying colours only in the post-independence era. There were, of course, a few odd individuals that shone in the colonial period. But the Tamils as a whole rose, from all corners of the nation, to great heights only in the post- independence years. For instance, when neither the ruling Vellalar elite nor the liberal British ever went out of their way to lift the oppressed low-castes from their misery it was Bandaranaike who made the very first move in his Prevention of Social Disabilities Act of 1957, to dismantle the dehumanizing Vellalar caste structure. If  the Tamils were so committed  to rights, dignity and equality why didn’t a single Tamil leader, including S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, the self-declared Thanthai (Father) of Tamils, stand up to defend the oppressed Tamils like Gandhi?

The double standards are indefensible. When Sumanthiram stood in Parliament and pontificated on rights, dignity and equality he should have also paused and asked, before he accused the other” : What  the hell did we Tamils do  to liberate our own people from  the oppression and persecution of our  own people down the ages by our own Tamils”? The accusation against the Sinhala state” is only for their acts of commission and omission in the last 70 years. But the Tamils ruled Tamils with an iron fist from the 13^th century until the last Tamil fascist went down in Nandikadal in 2009. To be fair and balanced, shouldn’t they have compared the living conditions of the Tamils under centuries of fascist Vellalar rule and the one-man rule of Prabhakaran before they condemn the 70-year-rule of the Sinhala state”? Shouldn’t they first ask : Who gave the Tamils the better deal, if not the best deal ever, in their history?

Before passing severe judgment on the Sinhala state” Sumanthiram should have at least made a cursory glance at the Tamil past to assess the gains and losses of the Tamils under Vellalar-Prabhakaran rule and the Sinhala state”. For instance, he should have asked : How much rights, dignity and equality did he and his leader, R. Sampanthan, get when they went, with cap in hand, before their Thalaivar, bending in two as if Prabhakaran had replaced the discs in their spines with soft jelly? Didn’t they enjoy, at all times, their birth right to stand erect with dignity, respect and equality before another human being only when they came to the South – the region they love to hate? Also what were the chances of Sampanthan ever becoming the Leader of the Opposition in Prabhakaran’s regime? Or what were the chances of Wigneswaran writing a judgment defending the rights of Tamil school girls being forcibly abducted by the Tamil Boko Haram?

Besides, when were the turumbas, the lowest of the low-castes, ever given the right to walk in daylight – a basic right guaranteed to all human being, animals, birds and insects in the south? When were the low-castes given the right to sit side by side at an equal level with the Vellalars in schools, buses or temples? Shouldn’t Sumanthiram squirm in shame for what his leaders did to the oppressed Tamils before he takes the high moral ground about the missteps of the post-independent period which, he would admit, have been corrected? The Sinhala leaders also have apologized, quite rightly, for what happened in 1983”. When have the Tamil leaders apologized to their own Tamil people – forget the Muslims and the Sinhalese! — for breeding and nurturing the boys” that killed more Tamils than all the others put together, eh Mr. Sumanthiram? In what hole did he hide his passionate tongue for rights, dignity and equality when the teenage Tamil girls and boys were forcibly abducted and thrown into a futile war by the Tamil Thalaivar – the leader whom he obeyed so deferentially and obsequiously?

So under which Tamil regime of feudal, colonial and modern times did the Tamils ever enjoy better conditions than those provided by the liberal and open societies of the Sinhalese? In contrast to the welcoming liberalism of the Sinhalese, the land-owning Vellalar Tamils  even imported Tamil slaves from Malabar and reduced them to subhuman outcasts.  Can Sumanthiram now tell the world who was it who denied the Tamils their rights, their dignity and their equality? As a Christian he should know that it is not the fake gods of federalism that will save the Tamils. It is the truth. Only the truth shall set you free. (John 8:32). Until the Tamils learn to coexist in peace with their neighbours, without building federal walls to maintain their separateness and assumed  supremacy, they will never find peace. But first they must find the truth and that could be found only if they revisit their nightmarish  past and study what really happened in  their history, leaving  aside the myths in which they tend to wallow perpetually with smug self-satisfaction.

The first question they must explore is whether there was ever a time for the Tamils in  their history better than the post-independent period when they cooperated with the south and worked for the betterment of all? I can predict the answer Sumanthiram, or his fellow-federalists, will give. Invariably, they will regurgitate the post-Bandaranaike accusations to cover up their horripilating history, and, of course to justify their claim for federalism in pursuance of Chelvanyakam’s objective  of little now and more later”.  That will not feree either Sumanthirams or  his fellow-federalists. That will only drag them into the hell hole of their fascist inhuman past.

A good start for the Tamils to understand their history is to read the greatest piece of Tamil literature that came out of Jaffna. It was written by K. Daniel, a novelist who is a turumban. I don’t want to recapitulate the intense suffering of the Tamil people inflicted on them by Sumanthiram’s ancestors. All that is depicted in graphic detail by the creative pen of Daniel in his novel Mirage. My reference to this novel is purely to focus on the opening line in his preface to his masterpiece. This line contains a hidden story of its own. He wrote: The day I finished this novel was 9^th of May 1983…” Every Sri Lankan, particularly the Tamils, knows the significance of July 1983”.

All hell broke loose in July 1983. By the time Daniel put the last full stop to his novel in May 1983 the ethnic tensions, escalating rapidly toward July 1983, had reached near breaking point. Everyone, both at home and abroad, was waiting anxiously wondering what would happen next. Everyone was obsessed with the North-South crisis looming large in the horizon, except Daniel. Despite living in a world of rising ethnic tensions, there isn’t a single word about the North-South conflict in his novel. The most radicalized and intense issue of the Tamils was totally irrelevant to him. It was not the North-South issue that gripped his mind. The critical issue to him was the oppression and the persecution of Tamils by the Tamils. It is the pain and the suffering of the Tamils under Tamil fascism that hurt  him. It is the inhumanity of Tamils against their own kind that made Daniel cry his heart out  in his classic novel.

Invariably, all great historical movements are heralded by creative minds forecasting the coming events. There is nothing like that in Tamil literature to depict the Sinhala-Tamil tensions. Oddly enough, 1983”, a landmark catastrophe in the post-independence era, doesn’t even get a mention in Daniel’s novel. He  brushed aside the extremist peninsular politics of the day and focused precisely on the internal horrors of Tamils oppressing and persecuting Tamils. To him what the Tamils were doing to the Tamils were more important than the overblown  issues of Tamil language, or the Tamil public servants refusing to learn Sinhala etc., — issues that ruled the minds  of the Vellalars. In his realistic dissection of Tamil society  the crisis faced by the Tamils was rooted within its own internal systemic failure.  He raises the identical cry of Sumanthiram about basic rights, dignity and equality. The difference is that Sumanthiram cries to reclaim the power of the privileged caste/class that oppressed the Tamils. Daniel cries for the Tamils who were treated as subhumans by the Vellalar supremacists. There are no bogeymen from South oppressing or persecuting the Tamils. The oppressors and the persecutors are the ruling upper caste. When Sri Lankan was gripped with the deleterious fever of communal extremism, only Daniel had the incisive perception to look inward and grasp the meaning and the impact of the internal dynamics that were driving the Northern political culture into self-made self-destruction.

So if Sumanthiram could read that penetrating novel going deep into the inner layers of the vicious and volatile Vellalar vectors that were driving the peninsular forces into violence against its own people he may be better equipped to deliver a more balanced argument to tear down the ubiquitous cadjan curtain that separates its own people from each other. The cadjan curtains  of the upper caste kept apart perpetually by the brutal  Tamil oppressors who wrote the darkest chapter  in Sri Lanka history. Daniel delineates the dark side of peninsular culture with consummate skill of a cultured novelists who feels for his  helpless people. Though late, the Tamils deserve a new elite who can reject the Vellalar-Prabhakaran fascism that haunted their past and restore to them what they were denied for centuries by the fascist elite of Jaffna —  a new democratic political culture that could lead them to peaceful co-existence for the good of all.

By : A.A.M.NIZAM – MATARA.

TNA Leader R.Sambandan is in fact a vicious tiger terrorist.  He would undoubtedly have been a frontline hardcore tiger terrorist if not for his about to die age.  He lost in the 2000 General Election by contesting as a TULF candidate and following which the LTTE making the Tamil politicians to understand the danger of the disunity among them converged different Tamil political groups and formed the Tamil National Alliance as a political wing of the tiger terrorists.

The press communique issued on October 22nd 2001 heralding the formation of the Tamil National Alliance(TNA)was signed by four persons representing the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF)All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO) and Eelam Peoples Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF).

They were R.Sampanthan (TULF), N.Kumarakuruparan (ACTC) N. Srikantha (TELO) and K.Premachandran(EPRLF)

The formation of TNA as an appendage of the LTTE was robustly welcomed by almost all the LTTE Frontline Organizations overseas and the pro-separatist Tamils in USA, Canada and in the European countries. In many circles of the Tamil polity it is considered that the TNA are still the creatures and lackeys of the LTTE even though the tigers had been militarily defeated five years ago..

The leader of the TNA Saambandan addressing the Constitutional Assembly (Parliament meeting as the CA) blamed all past leaders of Sri Lanka for placing the Tamils in a perilous state, denying them their legitimate rights and making them second class citizens in this country.  He spoke like that the Tamils were new born babes devoid of any black spot on their part.  He said that it was the Sinhalese who unleashed brutal crimes against innocent Tamils in 1956 and intermittently thereafter in 1958, 1961, 1977, 1983 and continuously since then conveniently attempting to camouflage the guilt of initiating all these troubles by Tamils themselves through their Satyagrahas and Hartals and ambushes.  He avoided mentioning about the Sri number plate” violence in which Tamils were accused of adopting the brutal method of tarring the breasts of Sinhala women with the symbol of Tamil Shri”.

Sambaandan also blamed the former President Mr. Mahinda Rajapaaksa and Members politically affiliated to him saying that they are today taking up a position which is diametrically opposite to what Mr. Rajapaksa in his capacity as President told the APRC and the Experts Committee on 11th July, 2006, shortly after he assumed the Office of President. When he was speaking about Mr. Rajapksa his inherent envy against him for defeating his protagonists tiger terrorists and de-merging North and East were clearly evident. However, there was no criticism about their lackey Ranil Wickremasinghe.

During the course of his speech he mentioned about their 1970 Election Manifesto and said that they never demanded separation.  However, he deliberately and cunningly avoided making any mention about their 1977 Election Manifesto, which categorically stated that they would establish an independent, sovereign, secular Socialist State of Tamil Eelam Given below is extracts from their 1977 Election manifesto which this hypocrite tried to hide.

Sub Heading : One Question – Freedom or Servitude?

The General Election of 1977 is a crucial one to the Tamil Nation.  So far as the Tamil territory is concerned, this general election is a clash between the only political movement of the Tamil Nation and the representatives of the various political parties of Sinhalese imperialism that keeps that Tamil nation under its heels. The election in the Sinhala territory decides the question as to which of their parties should come to power. And in the Tamil territory, the question is whether the Tamils want their freedom or continued servitude. The Tamil United Liberation Front is to resolve the issue.

History

Though Ceylon is a single state now, yet by facts of history, by languages spoken by its inhabitants, by culture, tradition and by psychology, it is the common home of two nations and consists of two countries.

Tamil Eelam – A Secular Socialist State

Hence the Tamil United Liberation Front seeks in the General Election the mandate of the Tamil Nation to establish an independent, sovereign, secular Socialist State of Tamil Eelam that includes all the geographically contiguous areas that have been the traditional homeland of the Tamil speaking people in the country.

For full details, please surf http://www.sangam.org/FB_HIST_DOCS/TULFManifesto77.htm

Now let us see what this hypocrite terrorist did during the course of war to help his terrorist clan.

Extracts from an interview given for Sunday Leader of 13 October 2013

On military presence in the North:

We do not support an oppressive military presence as we do not want our people to be humiliated. There are families headed by females, quite a large number of whom are widows, and we do not want our young females to be inconvenienced or humiliated in any way. A large military presence is oppressive

Funds for the functioning of the Northern Provincial Council:

We would welcome funds from anywhere as we need immense funding to fulfil the requirements of our people. Everyone must realise that the Northern and Eastern provinces, particularly the Tamil areas, had been devastated and people’s lives have been shattered. People are virtually destitute. So I do not see how anyone can raise any objection to funds being required to fulfil the legitimate needs of these people, and we would welcome funds from anywhere.

On LTTE.

When the LTTE was up and around everyone had to take recognition of the LTTE, including the government of Sri Lanka. Every government of Sri Lanka was engaged in negotiations with the LTTE, and they did not regard the LTTE as untouchables.

Oneindia News Chennai  Published: Monday, June 1, 2009.

R Sambandan, a lawmaker of Sri Lanka now on a visit to India has sought amnesty for surrendered Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The leader of Tamil Nationalist Alliance said that the Tamil rebels should be provided with opportunities so that they can lead normal life in the mainstream of society. “Even the legitimate rights of these people, in a situation when the war has come to an end, have got to be seriously considered. Normally in any situation they are given amnesty, and they are granted pardon, and people will be with opportunities to return to normal life,” he added.

TRO, money to TNA?

Posted on August 27, 2013by ltteagents

Several ethical and legal questions raised by Canadians with Sri Lankan origin, on the TNA leaders’ recent visit to Toronto. Sri Lankans in Toronto claim that TNA leader R. Sambandan in their recently concluded trip to Toronto had several fundraising events organized by Pro LTTE fund raisers. Specially the one held at Jaasmine Banquet Hall, no. 90 Nolan Court, Markham, Ontario, raised more concern; as they doubt whether the fundraising was carried out by the LTTE funding arm TRO.

TNA leader withTRO President in the fundraising event

TRO, which is better known as Prabakaran’s charity is banned in Sri Lanka and USA due to its direct link to LTTE. The U.S. Department of the Treasury designated the TRO as a supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka. They claimed TRO was a fundraising front of LTTE. The US designation, authorized by Executive Order 13224, prohibit Americans from engaging in financial transactions with designated groups and freeze any assets the groups may have under U.S. jurisdiction. TRO designated under this executive order still valid in USA. TRO’s US IRS Form 990 indicates the group rose over US $1.6 million in 2006.

Also during the same time the International Leader of the TRO, Dr. Murugan Vinayagamoorthy and his wife were taken in to custody by the US authorities for master minding LTTE naval strength. US claimed he was involved with developing and the use of sea Submarines in LTTE Sea attacks.

Eating it Out

On Nov. 22, 2007; the government of Sri Lanka banned TRO also in an audit held by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) found the Canadian arm of TRO the Canadian Foundation for Tamil Refugee Rehabilitation (CAFTARR) provided more than CDN$ 700,000 to unknown organizations outside Canada. CRA also claimed both TRA and CAFTARR are part of the Tamil Tiger’s support network.

Despite these facts, TNA leaders participating in a fundraising event with Raj Guna-nathan, President and Coordinator of the Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation – Canada, raised everyone’s concern.

LTTE-TNA Imposed boycott of poll on Tamil People

(Tamilweek – November 13 – 19, 2005)

The presidential election campaign of Ranil Wickremasinghe suffered a terrific
jolt from the LTTE and its appendage the Tamil National Alliance

There was a general impression gaining ground that Rajapakse would get more
majority community votes and Wickremasinghe the bulk of minority community votes.

The  UNP alliance with the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and Ceylon Workers Congress
ensured the majority of Muslim and Plantation Tamil votes. The LTTE and TNA were
expected to deliver the  Sri Lankan Tamil votes through covert and overt means respectively.

Subsequently, the LTTE – TNA said that the Tamils will be “neutral” in the election. There was no direct appeal to the Tamils asking them  to vote against Wickremasinghe or vote for a
candidate other than Ranil but a great emphasis was laid on the “useless” nature of the
poll. There was no direct call for a Tamil boycott but indirectly it was being projected
that Tamil voters would prefer to stay away.

A decision was reached after a three hour conclave at Kilinochchi between the LTTE
and TNA. The TNA has no mind of its own but faithfully echoed the diktat laid down by
its political master the LTTE. 21 of 22 TNA Parliamentarians attended the meeting
presided over by Suppiah Paramu Thamilselvan the tiger political commissar. Only
Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam away in USA was absent.

Addressing the media was senior Tamil leader and Trincomalee district MP
Rajavarothayam Sambandan. Though present at the media meet Thamilselvan
remained pointedly silent.

“Tamil residents in NorthEast are fully aware of the conduct of the two major Sinhala
parties. They have been through and suffered through periods under these parties’
governance. We know and understand Tamil peoples’ frame of mind. We have no
doubt that they are in full agreement with our thinking,” Sampanthan told the media.

“We discussed in depth and exchanged our views on the situation related to the
elections and what historical significance our participation in the elections is going to
be for the future of our people.

“There was no doubt in any of the participants’ mind that the Presidential election will
not produce any positive shift in the Southern Polity’s thinking and approach that will
in anyway result in any progressive advance towards resolving the Tamil question.

“That is why we decided that it is a futile exercise to show any interest in the
elections,” Sampanthan told the media.

Later Thamilselvan spoke over the Tamil Eelam National Television where he
reiterated the stance outlined by Sambandan. “Our people are well – experienced in
politics and politically mature. The view gathering strength among them is that they
should keep away from the poll. That is their decision. We will be supportive of them in
this decision” said Thamilselvan.

The website said that at Kilinochchi R. Sambandan did not refer disparagingly to Rajapakse or Wickremasinghe. He emphasised a general apathy on the part of Tamils as opposed
to antipathy towards particular candidates.

India has to act in Sri Lanka, pro-LTTE group tells PM

(Indo-Asian News Service – August 2, 2008)

Manmohan Singh reportedly told the MPs from the Tamil National Alliance that any political solution would have to be largely acceptable to the Tamil people and to everyone else in Sri Lanka.

The website said that TNA sympathetic to the Tamil Tigers told Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that India has to play a role in ending the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Accusing Colombo of causing misery to civilians by relentlessly pursuing war against the Tigers, a team of MPs from the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) led by R.Sambandan has told Manmohan Singh in Colombo that the global community also expected India to act. Sambandan has said India has a role to play. India’s role (in Sri Lanka) is primary. And India should play that role,” Sambandan has said the international community, which too favours peace in Sri Lanka, was deferential to India and did not want to take any step without New Delhi’s approval. So India has to play a role,” he has said.

Sambandan has said that during the 15-20 minute meeting, the TNA briefed Manmohan Singh at length about the situation in Sri Lanka, in particular the northeastern region where the military is locked in fierce battles with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Sambandan has alleged that the Sri Lankan military offensive against the LTTE was largely affecting the civilian population, leading to deaths, serious injuries and mass displacement in the island’s northeast.

So, this is what this hypocrite has done all these years to promote Tiger terrorists throughout the world.  Having miserably failed in all his cunning attempts this hypocrite now shed crocodile tears as sympathetic to the people of Sri Lanka.  He should be immediately taken into custody for his terrorist fund raising and other terrorist activities and prosecuted for anti Sri Lankan activities after having sworn allegiance to the constitution of this country.  It is interesting to know how his recently found hubby dollar greedy JVP hooligan Anura Kumara Dissanayake reacts to these revelations.

We urge especially the patriotic UNP MPs in the government to take revenge from this hypocrite and call for his immediate arrest. This hypocrite whose hands are soaked with the blood of the innocent people of this country deserves to die banished as a traitor.