By AFP Courtesy Mailonline

By Charles.S.Perera

The people of Sri Lanka and the world are made to believe that the decision taking  leader of the government of Sri Lanka is  its President Maithripala Sirisena. But it is utterly false, even though the President may  believe that he is the President and as such he is the one on the driving seat.”

But in reality it is Ranil Wickramasinghe  the Prime Minister who really takes decisions and runs he Country. That is exactly what Ranil Wickramasinghe  did as the Prime Minister of President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s Government of 2001. It was then that Ranil Wickramasinghe  signed the CFA with Prabhakaran without consulting either the President nor the Parliament, aiding  and abetting in the terrorism in  Sri Lanka and thus also took the responsibility for the deaths of thousands of Soldiers  and Officers of the Armed Forces and the Civilians.

One would have been really amnesic of the past to have made Ranil Wickramasinghe a Prime Minister once again onb the 9^th January,2015 when Sri Lanka had been released from thirty years of  suffering by the former President Mahinda Rajapakse, and the paths were being gradually cleared and prepared  to rectify any errors of the past and take Sri Lanka towards  peace , progress and a future of hope for more success.

The Prime Minister immediately after being sworn in planned the future from then onwards  of Sri Lanka in terms of the Agenda Prompted by the USA and UN, and the West and EU. Prime Minister had his men  Ravi Karunanayake despite a still pending case against him for money laundering  to be the Minister of Finance , Mangala Samaraweera  a sworn enemy of the  President Mahinda Rajapakse as Foreign Secretary,  which office was denied to him previously by his enemy, Karu Jayasuriya who was likely to have usurped Ranil as the Leader of the UNP,  as the speaker, and Chandrika a lost sole utterly jealous of the successes of former President Mahinda Rajapâkse as a chief Consultant,  and turn coats like Champika, who was hoping to be a Presidential candidate in the future, Rajitha who can make truth look false and falsehood look the truth, as the Government Spokesman.

Ranil the PM  knew that having made Maithripala Sirisena a President, his devotion to the Prime Minster was assured  to bypass  the presidential leadership to take Sri Lanka the way  he had promised his USA and Western friends.  In order to assure the confidence of the USA and the West, he suspended China’s Colombo Port City project laying off large numbers of workers, antagonising China by suspending a project which had been declared open by none other than   the President of China Xi Jinping himself.

This matter taken up without any foresight has caused not only financial difficulties to the country but also serious diplomatic issues . Antagonising China is not in the interest of Sri Lanka.  In order to rectify this monstrous error, and win back the lost confidence of China  the Yahapalanaya is now faced with the necessity to give  the Hambantota Harbour and  large extents of Land on long lease to China.   Had the President Maithripala Sirisena been consulted on these issues or are they the decisions taken independently by the Prime Minister and his UNP followers ?

It was again an unwise move for the Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera and the Prime Minister to have decided to sponsor the US resolution against Sri Lanka putting Sri Lank’s sovereignty at jeopardy. This was again done with a view to win the friendship of  the USA and the Western countries to boast to the people that country has regained the friendshipof the West which the country lost under President Mahinda Rajapakse.

Then the  Prime Minister took over the administration of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka under his Ministry, and appointed a citizen of Singapore as its Governor, orchestrating the  Bond Scam which took place as planned on the 27 of February,2017.

When the term of office of the Governor of the Central Bank came up, the President refused to extend the appointment, requesting the Prime Minister to remove him from office.  The Prime Minister instead of removing him, appointed him as an adviser to himself, making the President Maithripala Sirisena understand that the Prime Minister has the power to challenge the decisions of the President.

Prime Minister did his best to avoid involving Arjuna Mahendran in the Bond Scam, appointing his own team of Lawyers to an Investigating Committee, and  getting his UNP loyalists to put  footnotes to the COPE report  making the report ineffective.

The President remained  silent on the issue  until  the public agitation against the Bond Scam became difficult to be ignored . It was then that he woke up to appoint a Commission. There too the Prime Minister had his say.

When two senior UNP Ministers were summoned before the Commission, a mysterious hand had moved to stop the Commission from cross examining the two Ministers. The PM has still not gone before the Commission , but will Dappula Livera and Yasantha Kodagoda SASGs be allowed to cross examine the Prime Minister ? One of the members of the panel of the Commission had criticised  SASG Dappula Livera. Will the report of the Commission see the light of the day and if so when?

Who wanted the Local Government elections postponed, the President or the Prime Minister ? How was that the Parliament was used by this Yahapalanaya Government to  ignore a verdict of the SC, and nevertheless postpone  Local Government elections ?  Wasn’t it an insult to democracy to which the Yahaplanaya Government is paying mere lip service.

Who made the President Maithripala Sirisena lay a foundation stone to a building which was only to dupe the people that the building is to set up the factory of the VolksWagen Company  ? Wasn’t the President led by the nose ?

Who was delaying taking a decision on the SATM issue ? Why did it take such a long time for the President Maithripala Sirisena to wake up  to appoint a Commission to look into it ? Who is chairing the Commission ? Is it an independent  person who has no interest on the issue or a political yes man of the PM?

President Maithripala Sirisena wakes up late to appoint Commissions when the political issues have  become serious concerns of the people and public agitation becomes impossible to be ignored.  Doesn’t it make the people wonder that the President is not consulted when important decisions are made by the Prime Minister,  and the President becomes aware of them only when public agitation becomes too serious to be ignored ?

Even about the new Constitution and the preparation of an interim report to be passed in the Parliament, the President is a late comer to an issue which has become a great concern of the people who demand the rejection of the Yahapalanaya Government’s effort to write a new Constitution. Why didn’t the President raise objection to the appointment of Lal Wijenayake and Sumanthiram to prepare the Interim Report ? Is the President ever consulted in these important political issues ?

Is the President aware of the problems caused on the question of  tenders for the construction of the Colombo Kandy Expressway ?  Here also it appears that the President had been left out or he had not been given all information with regard to the Construction of the Expressway ? Should Maithripala Sirisena remain a lamentably ineffective President getting aware of the political  messing of the Yahapalanaya Government only when the media raises the issue ?

It appears from many political issues becoming serious concerns of the people only when they are brought before the Parliament , that there is a lack  of  sufficient exchange of information on important issues discussed at Cabinet Meetings. Some information may be hidden at Cabinet meetings and included  only when the issues come as bills before the Parliament. Otherwise how can the President be unaware of them ?

It was reported that, speaking at the death anniversary of Venerable late Maduluwawe Sobitha thero, the President Maithripala Sirisena says, … even though, few people in the government leveled allegations and criticisms against him for appointing the Bond Commission, he appointed the Commission to fulfill the pledge given by him to the people to eradicate fraud and corruption from the country, while ensuring the fair justice in the society as a government of good governance.”

It would be interesting to know who these few people in the government  who levelled  allegations and criticism against him for appointing the Bond Scam…”

There are many other issues that may have been decision made  by the Prime Minister without consulting the President or without giving him all relevant information. The setting up of a missing persons office, setting up a special High Court to expedite hearing of special crimes, misuse of state resources etc.,  FCID are issues where perhaps the President had not been consulted or he had not been given sufficient information.-

It was reported in the Island of Nov.8^th  that Venerable Prof. Medagoda Abeytissa thera had :

….urged President Maithripala Sirisena to quit what he called separatist agenda pursued by the UNP administration and align with nationalist elements.

Had President felt obliged to back the UNP’s despicable project in return for fielding him at the 2015 polls, the SLFP leader should now discontinue association with the ruling party, the Ven. Thera said further said ,  the President Sirisena regardless of his affiliations with the UNP couldn’t under any circumstances shirk his responsibilities. Asserting that there was no point in blaming Premier Wickremesinghe for the current situation, Ven. thera emphasized that President Sirisena should be held responsible……”.

Recently Lord Neseby, had made a statement in the House of Lords, UK highly critical of the stance taken by the Government of UK and other European countries against Sri Lanka’s military operations against terrorism, accusing the Sri Lanka’s Armed Forces for war crimes. He had contested the war deaths estimated  at 40 000 as highly imaginative.

This Statement by Lord Neseby which is favourable to Sri Lanka has been completely ignored by the former Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera and the Prime Minister. Why has not the President Maithripala Sirisena urged the Prim Minister to take action on this issue and get his Foreign Minister  Ravi Karunanayake to take it up with the UNHuman Rights Council.

Considering all this it is questionable whether the President Maithripala Sirisena  is kept informed of all political matters  before the Prime Minister presents any of them  to the Parliament, or is the President being taken for a ride by his own Prime Minister.

 lanka C news

2001 දි පත්වු එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂ ආණ්ඩුවේ විදුලිබල හා බලශක්ති ඇමති කරු ජයසුරිය මහතායි.

එවකට සිටි අගමැති රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ ප්‍රමුඛව ආණ්ඩුව ලංකා ඛනිජ තෙල් සංස්ථාවේ 20% කොටසක් 2002 දි ඉංදිය ඔයිල් සමාගමට වසර 35 සඳහා බදු දුන්නේ ය,

අද එම ගිවිසුමේ ඇති අවාසි සහගත තත්ත්වය හමුවේ මෙරටේ ජනතාව විශාල ඉන්දන අර්බුදයකට මුහුණ දි ඇති බැව් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ දි කථානායක කරු ජයසුරිය මහතා ඉදිරියේදී සාකච්ඡා විය.

මෙහිදී හිටපු විදුලිබල හා බලශක්ති ඇමති කරු ජයසුරිය මහතාගේ කාලය තුල සිදු වු ප්‍රශ්නයක් සම්බන්ධයෙන් වාසුදේව නානයක්කාර සහ විමල් වීරවංශ යන මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් චෝදනා කරන ලදී.

අගමැතිවරයා හිටපු අමාත්‍යවරයා බේරාගැනීමට උත්සහ ගත් අතර කථානායක කරු ජයසුරිය මහතා පැවසුවේ එදා එම තීරණය හිටපු විදුලිබල හා බලශක්ති ඇමති කරු ජයසුරියගේ තනි තීරණයක් නොව එය අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩල තීරණයක් බවයි.

වීඩියෝව මෙතනින්

By Rohana R. Wasala

The opinion piece under the title Temples and noise pollution” (The Island/November 6, 2017) by a virtually anonymous writer who signs ‘HMNW’ makes some censorious remarks about Buddhist temples conducting traditional religious observances like pirith chanting and bana preaching, using amplifiers. He or she charges that pirith chanting and (by implication) bana preaching at temples on Poya days cause ‘noise’ pollution, using public address systems. According to him or her, on Poya days all temples start this sound polluting activity as early as 4 o’clock in the morning, disturbing the sleep of people, young and old, living in houses in the neighbourhood. The writer laments that the same form of sound pollution occurs now even in Sunday daham paselas, which also use loudspeakers. A few temples broadcast seth pirith using the same method everyday. He or she suggests that if they want to use a public address system they could do so maintaining a lower sound level that is loud enough to be heard only by the devotees assembled in the temple premises; they could follow the practice of Christian churches, which also use public address systems at all services without disturbing those living around.

Though there could be an element of truth in HMNW’s critical remarks, it is neutralized by his or her evident bias against Buddhists. While claiming to be a Buddhist himself or herself, the writer seems to be devoid of the kindness, humility, and equanimity that is typical of the average educated Buddhist. The last bit of unsolicited advice betrays HMNW’s disrespectful attitude towards Buddhist monks who have unintentionally annoyed him or her.

A general criticism of easily avoidable sound pollution that is caused by amplified sounds of music, chanting of hymns, pirith, etc., reciting of prayers, and delivering of sermons, that emanate from places of worship at unwelcome times would have been accepted as reasonable by everyone irrespective of their religious backgrounds. But such a discussion would not isolate the practice of a particular religious establishment for special censure. What about the daily five times repeated call for prayer (azan/adhan) of Muslims, often blared out from the minarets of mosques, once early morning, once late evening and three times in between? That ritual is not confined to areas where exclusive Muslim neighbourhoods are found. What about sounds emanating from Christian churches and Hindu Kovils on their respective festival days. On all such occasions, the Buddhist commonalty do not complain against sound pollution from those places of worship; they won’t disparagingly call it ‘noise’. They are decent enough to recognize that devotional sounds from a particular place of worship are soothing to the ears of the faithful. It is not that the average Christians, Hindus, and Muslims behave differently from Buddhists either, in similar situations, except perhaps a handful of fanatics who see no further than the end of their nose. In fact, it is a matter of common decency and common sense to make no issue of such temporary inconveniences incidentally caused by people during religious observances. On the other hand, those causing inconvenience to others who have nothing to do with their devotions or observances, ought to minimize them as much as possible. My freedom ends where your freedom starts as Martin Luther King Jr said. In our proudly multi-religious society, we have to tolerate possible minor trespasses on our individual freedom in order to allow our neighbours of different religious persuasions to manifest their beliefs in the way they like.

About a year ago, in December 2016 to be more specific, well known preacher monk Ven. Uduwe Dhammaloka Thera of Alan Mathiniyaramaya, Polhengoda was charged in court by a group of six parties including Milinda Moragoda, a former government minister, and the Centre for Environmental Justice for allegedly inconveniencing his neighbours by using loudspeakers between 5 am and 6 am. It was no doubt a sensitive case. Later, the complainants offered to withdraw the case; they later arrived at a settlement with the monk out of court. People like HMNW who feel they are inconvenienced by noisy devotional activities in Buddhist temples in their neighbourhood, should approach the responsible monks in person and find a suitable settlement through friendly dialogue.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN (Illustrated edition, 2015) is about Freedom of Religion:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

If HMNW is sufficiently well informed about the attitude of different religions towards other religions and towards the followers of those other religions, he or she will appreciate the fact that no religion accommodates the right of persons of other religious persuasions to freedom of religion as defined here more readily than Buddhism.

Among religions, Buddhism is the least regimented. No sane Buddhist would ‘haunt temples day in and day out’ (as the writer says he or she doesn’t). Actually, mandatory temple attendance (pansal yaema) is unheard of. Buddhist precepts are not commandments, but rules of conduct that need to be followed voluntarily with wisdom, not with uncomprehending faith, and not out of fear of punishment or love of reward. Buddhists need not be invited to take part in religious activities at viharas, contrary to what the writer suggests. Buddhists do not invite, nor do they expect, professors of other religions to participate in Buddhist rituals. ‘Dane’ or alms giving is a voluntary activity. No Buddhist is compelled to give ‘dane’ to monks in the temples. The writer’s apparent ignorance of such basic things about Buddhism suggests that he or she is a non-Buddhist critic taking cover behind anonymity.

යුතුකම සංවාද කවය

බෙදුම්වාදී ව්‍යවස්ථාවට එරෙහිව යුතුකම සංවාද කවය මගින් පසුගියදා පැවැත්වූ ජාතික සමුළුවේදී පැවැත්වූ සම්පූර්ණ කතා එකතුව…

අස්ගිරි පාර්ශවයේ ලේඛකාධිකාරී මැදගම ධම්මානන්ද නාහිමි

රුහුණු රට භික්ෂු පෙරමුණේ ලේකම්  ඕමාරේ කස්සප නාහිමි

නීතීඥ කණිෂ්ක විතාරණ

මහාචාර්‍ය සුසරිත් මෙන්ඩිස්

රියර් අද්මිරාල් සරත් වීරසේකර

යුතුකම සංවාද කවයේ සභාපති ගෙවිඳු කුමාරතුංග

වෛද්‍ය අනුරුද්ධ පාදෙණිය

ජ්‍යේෂ්ඨ කතිකාචාර්‍ය මාධවී හේරත්

ඛනිජ තෙල් වෘත්තීය සමිති නායක බන්දුල සමන් කුමාර

යුතුකම සංවාද කවය
www.yuthukama.com

BY MALINDA SENEVIRATNE

By : A.A.M.NIZAM – MATARA

Although the constitution hawkers consisting Ranil Wickremasinghe, a gang of treacherous UNP Ministers and Parliamentarians, the JVP hooligans and the dollar voracious NGO vultures attempt to fool the masses projecting that the new constitution proposals are something new and apposite, the origin of these proposals date back to 1997 and I am thankful to Ms. Shenali Waduge for giving some clues to the origin of these proposals in her Lankaweb Article dated 6^th November entitled ‘Main elements of New Constitution drafted by British Solicitors in 1994.’ In mere coincidence with this article there were two more articles published on 5^th November, one relating to an email interview given to Ceylon Today by the so-called self appointed Prime Minister of the self-proclaimed Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran published under the title ‘Tamils must decide their political destiny through a Referendum – TGTE will accept their verdict – Rudrakumaran’ and the other article was by the ace anti-Sri Lankan and the Doyen of dollar voracious NGO vultures  Pakyasothy Saravanamuttu under the title ‘An argument for a new Constitution’ also published in Ceylon today on 5^th November.

Rudrakumaran says that the TGTE’s position, since its inception, is that the Tamil nation, living inside the island of Sri Lanka and outside, should decide on their political destiny, through peaceful and democratic means to express their wishes, through a referendum. The referendum that they envisage, he says, is not just for a yes or no vote for an independent State, but a referendum containing options such as a unitary State, a federal State, a confederation and an independent State.

He says that there is a consensus among all the Diaspora groups that the Tamil national question should be resolved through a referendum and this referendum should be for the particular nation and not for the whole country. He points out that in respect of the Quebec referendum the Canadian Supreme Court did not say that the referendum should be held throughout Canada but only in Quebec.

Rudrakumaran points out that in the 1977 General Election, they voted overwhelmingly to support the creation of a free Tamil Eelam and refutes the assertions that that there will always be tension between Sri Lanka and Tamil Eelam pointing out that there is no tension between Norway and Sweden or between Singapore and Malaysia and adds that even if there were to be some tension, there are international legal principles and an international mechanism to manage it rather than for containing intrastate violence.

He points out that the North Eastern parts of the island constitute the traditional homeland of the Tamils, and the Tamils should be allowed to realize their inherent right to self-determination. He admits that some of the Tamil Diaspora groups believe that the Tamils’ right to self-determination can be realized within the existing borders.

Rudrakumar says that the 6^th Amendment place legal restraints on the domestic leadership to fully articulate the Tamil political aspirations and emphasizes the urgent need to repeal the 6th Amendment. He calls upon the Tamil domestic political leadership to bring this to the attention of the international community, rather than giving a wrong picture that Tamils no longer claim for an independent State. He says if anyone claims, especially after Mullivaikkal, that the Tamils have given up the call for an independent State, it is a fake claim and calls upon the domestic leadership to take some creative action similar to the referendums organized by the Venezuelan opposition parties and the referendums held in Iraqi Kurdistan and the Spanish Catalonia. He points out that these referendums were not organized by the UN or by any foreign countries but were organized by the local leadership.

With respect to the merger of the North and East which constitutes the Tamil homeland he says that the demerger occurred on technical grounds and it can simply remerge with a simple majority and a two-thirds majority is not necessary for the merger.

The ace anti-Sri Lankan and the Doyen of dollar voracious NGO vultures  Pakyasothy Saravanamuttu articulates in his article An argument for a new constitution” that there is a democratic deficit in our governance, including a political and constitutional settlement of the national question, the unfinished business following the military defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, and the need to move beyond the post-war situation which should be addressed by the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

This hypocrite who personally went to Geneva with his acolytes such as Jehan Perera, Rohan Edirisinghe, and Sunanda Deshapriya to make presentation against Sri Lanka and our war heroes awkwardly argues that the unitary state provision did not prevent a bloody civil war of almost three decades, and neither did the Executive Presidency. He says that they both presided over that civil war and another bloody insurgency in the south of the country – both of which have delayed peace and prosperity in this country for decades. He also states that the primacy of Buddhism is surely at odds with the equality accorded to all citizens, and it is surely a key objective in the movement from the post-war to the post-conflict and in the light of recent attacks on minority religions.

It is this hypocrite’s outfit the Centre for Policy Alternatives (Sri Lanka’s worst foreign slavish NGO) under its umbrella organization ‘Sri Lanka Peace Support Group’ which has requested in 1997 the British Firm Bates, Wells & Braithwaite, at 138 Cheapside, London to draw up a new constitution for Sri Lanka.

The letter sent by the so-called Peace Support Group says that the unitary constitutional arrangement which was left in place by the withdrawing colonial power has frustrated and distorted the natural and legitimate wishes of both parties, Sinhalese people as well as the Tamil people, to express and promote their distinct identity and nationhood, and has been the primary cause of the large scale and sustained civil war in the Island. It says that their proposals, ‘the framework document’, enclosed for a resolution of the conflict as stated therein will truly give both parties their just rights and enable them to live without fear and hatred in their traditional homelands.

The letter dated 10^th January 1997 says that the framework document is drafted with the conviction that fundamental and far reaching changes to the constitutional arrangement are essential for conflict resolution and cessation of military activities in Sri Lanka and to pave the way for a peaceful co-existence in the Island.

This despicable NGO outfit, the so-called Peace Support Group published a lengthy appeal to the Sri Lankan voters in the Island newspaper on 4^th November 2001 signed by Sunilla Abeysekera, Sunil Bastian, Radhika Coomaraswamy, Sunanda Deshapriya, Rohan Edrisinha, Ketheshwaran Loganathan, Jehan Perera, Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Jeevan Thiagarajah, Joe William and Javid Yusuf under the caption An Agenda for Peace (General Election 2001) – An open letter to all Political Parties”. An abridged version of the appeal is given below:

This appeal under the subheading No Military Solution” stated that there is no military solution to the present conflict. This is based on the empirical reality that countless military campaigns by both sides have ravaged the country and not resulted in any side achieving decisive victory.

Under the subheading Cessation of hostilities and an effective  monitoring mechanism” it stated that what the country needs most is a cessation of hostilities so that peace talks may commence in a congenial atmosphere. An international monitoring team including military personnel who are aware of ground realities, is a solution that should be explored. It is time to move from the battlefield to the negotiating table. Only a cessation of hostilities with an effective monitoring mechanism can create an atmosphere that will sustain peace talks.

Sub heading Lift the embargo on essential items with an effective monitoring mechanism” It says the embargo that has severely restricted the flow of food, drugs and other essential items to the Vanni, chronic malnutrition is on the rise, health facilities are barely available, restrictions placed on the transport of essential items and on the free movement of persons affects civilians in other areas of the North and East as well, the fear of abuse should not result in untold misery for the civilian population and the dignity of the people of the North and East must be restored and their quality of life be improved.

Sub heading – Stop human rights violations and forcible recruitment of children” It says that the war has resulted in widespread human rights abuses. Under the guise of the PTA and emergency regulations, scores of individuals are detained every day by the Sri Lankan security forces. Cases of torture and disappearances by the security forces are very common and perpetrators are rarely punished. In addition, the LTTE and members of para military groups are also responsible for violations of human rights including assassinations. It states that the war creates a climate of impunity and gives legitimacy to many acts one will never tolerate in peace time. Rape, custodial rape and the sexual abuse of women are a serious concern. Militarization of society, in particular, the growing number of armed deserters and the easy availability of firearms have resulted in an escalation in crime and violence. Only peace will allow bring justice to the victims and an end to this cycle of crime and violence. Maximum pressure should be brought on the LTTE at the local, national, and international level to ensure that the forcible recruitment of children ceases.

Sub-heading Negotiate a political solution to the ethnic conflict with third party international involvement” The appeal says the present stalemate makes it clear that any solution to the ethnic conflict will have to be based on negotiations between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE. It says that since the Sri Lankan polity has failed to solve the ethnic conflict internally it welcomes the good offices and facilitation process offered by the Norwegian government and such a process is the only way forward and the international community should also be called upon to give encouragement and support to the Norwegian effort.

Sub-heading An agreement based on power sharing in the North and East” it says that the devolution of power is not a privilege but a right of a territorially placed people and the Tamil political leadership considers the Tamils living in the North and the East as a people having the right to self-determination. The appeal adds that all Tamil political parties from the TULF to the LTTE are united in the belief that the Thimpu principles that recognise Tamil nationality and a traditional Tamil homeland should form the basis of a final settlement to the ethnic conflict, the Thimpu Principles may pose problems for some sections of the political mainstream in the south of Sri Lanka, the recognition of the Tamil community, as a people with a distinct language, culture, tradition and identity who have for centuries lived in historically identifiable areas must underpin the negotiating process and a final political settlement.

Sub-heading The Primacy of Fundamental Rights and Democracy”. The appeal stresses that any political solution to the ethnic conflict must include necessary safeguards in the North and East for a democratic process, free and fair elections and the right to dissent. In addition, special measures should be taken to guarantee the fundamental rights of local minorities living all over Sri Lanka, in particular to protect them from discrimination and displacement.

Sub-heading Equality and non-discrimination” It says the initial grievances of the Tamil people were related to the denial of equality at the national level. The disenfranchisement of the Hill Country Tamils, the Sinhala Only Act, standardisation of university marks, and other acts of discrimination culminated in the Tamil national movement for autonomy and secession. It adds that since the 1980s, Sri Lankan Tamil recruitment into the public services has barely been above 1%, it is totally unacceptable and it compounds the feeling of discrimination and alienation experienced by Tamil speaking people, and says that the time to include quotas and action programmes to ensure that there are sufficient Tamil public servants. It also adds that any settlement must reflect the pluralistic nature of Sri Lankan society and give a multi-ethnic character to the Sri Lankan state.

Sub-heading Comprehensive programmes for reconstruction and rehabilitation” The appeal states that the devastation and destruction caused by the war calls for large scale programmes for relief rehabilitation and reconstruction and it is a matter of urgent necessity to devise a comprehensive and participatory strategy for reconstruction and rehabilitation in the North and East. It also points out that reconstruction of the country does not only involve material reconstruction, there must be a process of reconciliation and healing as well and the terrible crimes committed during this war must be acknowledged and justice must be done. It also proposes that the South African model or the model in El Salvador may be considered to help relieve the cruelty and inhumanity that has characterised the war.

Sub Heading Remembering the dead”. The appeal says that Tens of thousands of people have died during this war and it is also important to remember the dead and this remembrance should be part of the search for healing and reconciliation. It proposes to acknowledge and support artists organizations and civil society groups who engage in acts of commemoration in order to create and sustain a climate for peace.

All these initiatives and acts shows that these NGO culprits were continuously engaged in since 1990s to impose a federal constitution on Sri Lanka, make the country a secular state, enforce Thimpu principles and make North and East a self governing autonomous territory.  The shameless foreign slavish puppet Ranil Wickremasinghe who signed the infamous ceasefire agreement with Prabhakaran and now seems to have afflicted with lunacy the accidentally born Sinhala old hag Chandrika who unconditionally offered North and East to Prabhakaran have collaborated together to fulfil the objectives of these NGO hoodlums.

Now they are attempting to thrust upon us the Bates, Wells & Braithwaite constitution prepared in the 1990s under the guise of a new constitution drawn up locally.  The time has come for all the patriotic masses together with the Maha Sangha and other religious leaders to come out to the streets, hold anti-constitution demonstrations and rallies, to hold even death-fast, self-immolation and force abandon the proposed dreadful constitution and topple this Tamil slavish treacherous and inept government and compel Ranil, Sirina, Chandrika and their cabal to flee the country as Dudley fled in 1953..

For further enlightenment please find appended below the following documents :

1. Peace Support Group letter to London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
2.  Framework for the Constitution of the Union of Ceylon” drafted by the Peace Support Group
3. Letter sent to Chandrika by London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
4. Letter sent to Prabhakaran by London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwaite

No. 1 – Peace Support Group letter to London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwa

Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
Solicitors
Cheapside House
138 Cheapside
London EC2V 6BB.

10 January 1997

A PROPOSAL FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE
NATIONAL CONFLICT IN SRI LANKA

The framework document enclosed has been prepared by a team of constitutional lawyers at the initiative of a group of concerned academics, professionals and the clergy from the international community, with the purpose of providing a basis for the parties in the current conflict in Sri Lanka to negotiate a political settlement.

Copies of the document were sent to the President of Sri Lanka and to the Leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. [TEXT OF LETTERS]

Throughout their long history, the destinies of the two peoples of Sri Lanka have been closely entwined. Though distinct in culture, language, nationhood and in the possession of their own established homelands, and though there has been much rivalry and conflict in both ancient and recent times, there is also much in common in their heritage by virtue of the shared encounter with European colonialism and the long shared experience in the many institutions which evolved under the colonial aegis.

The unitary constitutional arrangement which was left in place by the withdrawing colonial power has frustrated and distorted the natural and legitimate wishes of both parties, Sinhalese people as well as the Tamil people, to express and promote their distinct identity and nationhood, and has been the primary cause of the large scale and sustained civil war in the Island. Our proposals for a resolution of the conflict as stated herein will truly give both parties their just rights and enable them to live without fear and hatred in their traditional homelands.

This document is therefore drafted with the conviction that fundamental and far reaching changes to the constitutional arrangement are essential for conflict resolution and cessation of military activities in Sri Lanka and to pave the way for a peaceful co-existence in the Island.

The co-operation and support of all concerned is welcome.

Sri Lanka Peace Support Group

10th January, 1997

No. 2 –  A PROPOSAL FROM THE SRI LANKA PEACE SUPPORT GROUP

• – Letter sent to Chandrika by London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwaite

LETTER SENT TO CHANDRIKA KUMARATUNGE, PRESIDENT OF SRI LANKA

20th December, 1995. Mrs. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga HE The President The Republic of Sri Lanka Colombo 1 Sri Lanka Dear excellency, A Proposal for Peace with a Framework for the Constitution of the Union of Ceylon We enclose the Proposal referred to above which we have been requested to submit to you on behalf of an international group of concerned persons. The document provides a framework for the peaceful reconciliation of the interests of the parties to the current conflict. In view of the seriousness of the situation prevailing in the Republic and the need to avoid further loss of life and human suffering we should be grateful if you would consider and respond to these proposals as a matter of urgency. A copy of this document has been forwarded to Mr. V. Prabakaran, Leader – Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Yours faithfully, Bates, Wells & Braithwaite

• – LETTER TO Mr. V. PIRABAKARAN, LEADER OF LTTE

20th December, 1995. Mr. V. Prabakaran Leader – Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Jaffna SriLanka Dear Sir, A Proposal for Peace with a Framework for the Constitution of the Union of Ceylon We enclose the Proposal referred to above which we have been requested to submit to you on behalf of an international group of concerned persons. The document provides a framework for the. peaceful reconciliation of the interests of the parties to the current conflict. In view of the seriousness of the situation prevailing in the Republic and the need to avoid further loss of life and human suffering we should be grateful if you would consider and respond to these proposals as a matter of urgency. A copy of this document has been forwarded to Mrs. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaranatunga, HE The President of Sri Lanka. Yours faithfully, Bates, Wells & Braithwaite

(End)

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

The Medical Faculty Students’ Parents Association (MFSPA) launched the fast unto death a short while ago in front of the University Grant Commission (UGC) premises at Ward place, Colombo 7.

During our younger days our parents ( headed often by the father ) never encouraged the children to evade classes or resort to any activity which can be detrimental to their education .I was surprised when the President of the Medical Students’- Parents’ association ( himself is a medical doctor ?) announced that they will be fasting unto death until government abolishes SAITM.

Is this the example a father wants to show to the children?

If he fasts unto death ,millions of rupees spent  by the state with tax payers’ money to make him a doctor will be wasted?

I was told by a friend of mine who studied in Russia during communist regime that ,when he was travelling by bus in Sri Lanka ,few medical students walked into the bus and asked money for their movement against SAITM and to stop propagating UPHADI KADA” ( shops for Degree Awarding )

My friend was bold enough to ask them Did all of you go tuition  before you were selected to medcial school ?” They Said yes .He asked whether they had to pay the tuition master .They confirmed that it was not free .

Then he posed the question ,”Then tuition master was also running a shop” selling education ? Then they were dumbfounded and quickly retreated.

He told me that many local medical students do fear that their places may be taken over by more English Speaking,  Effluent SAITM students and they will not be able to become consultants or start Private Medical Clinics >That may be the reason why they want  to be abolished as they are jealous ?

These parents should somehow push the children to get education rather ruining the future .They need to more kind  and compassionate .

Fathers who are fasting until death may be waiting  for a President or Ex-president to bring a glass , of king coconut like the drama unfolded in front of UN office in Colombo  some time back ?

God bless who want to give life for a just cause, but not these idiotic parents

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Dr Sarath Obeysekera  

Arrest of Britisher over Buddha tattoo -FR reserved for judgment

Lakmal Sooriyagoda

After procedural delays, the Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on a Fundamental Rights Petition filed by a British tourist who challenged the infringement of her fundamental rights.She was arrested and detained for allegedly displaying a Buddha tattoo on her upper limb at Katunayake in 2014.In her petition, the British tourist Naomi Coleman had sought a compensation of Rs.10 million from the respondents and further sought a declaration that her detention was null and void and contrary to Articles 13(2) and 12 of the Constitution.The petitioner Naomi Coleman, (37) a nurse by profession at the Hawkesbury Lodge, Rehabilitation Mental Health Services, had filed the petition through President’s Counsel J.C. Weliamuna and Pulasthi Hewamanne on the instructions of counsel Vishwa De Livera Tennakoon on Pro Bono”. In her petition, she had cited the Attorney General, Police Sergeant and OIC of Katunayake police station, Controller General of Immigration and Emigration, Inspector General of Police and OIC of Negombo Prison as respondents.The petitioner stated that she is a devout practising Buddhist, who has attended meditation retreats in Nepal, Thailand, Cambodia and India.”

We have a three wheeler stand near Jayawardane Gama . Three wheeler driver have installed loudspeaker powered by the small hut underneath. run by their duty Officers” of three wheel drivers   where early morning pirith is  chanted .This hut runs  Horse racing/gambling  hut and most probably sells Kassippu” .I called that this act is against Buddh’as preaching’s and police should charge them. We see that three wheelers carrying stickers with words like Budu Saranai” or fly Budda;s flag . I have seen Sri Lankan men and women having Tattoos with Buddha and preaching .At every junction they place Buddhist statues and install loudspeakers ,Crows land on Buddha;s head and spread their excreta. I call this is a chargeable insult .Rogue private bus drivers  carry buddha’s picture and words like Buddham Saranam” .It may be for himself but not the passengers .People who are involved in various nefarious activities go to Kataragama to preach growth of their business ,Before attending devalaya” they visit kiriWehera and preach ,This is insult to Buddha .

All temples by main roads try to build highest Buddhist Statue to attract customers” Some priests hardly practice Buddha;s preaching ,Yestrday I saw a unshaven ,long haired young Buddhist monk walking along Galle Face carrying a fashionable odel” shoulder bag looking around ,I consider that this is insult to Buddhism .I watch pirith chanted in every TV channel where young monks with grown hair and beard ( groomed by Ramani’s and pretending that they chant pirith ,Recently a Salone was openned in my area and I saw a Buddhist monk getting down from a Tuk Tuk and walking into the Salone .He was going for a pedicure before attending a Dana” where devotees who wash their feet prior to Dana” want to see clean feet ?

This is insult to Buddhism .

All these things have become more and more after Hela Urumaya brought and enticed monks to come to dirty game of politics. I remember a Buddhist monk who used by a highly regarded as a skilled sculptor visiting Russia ,going around with a Mongolian yound lass as his Abbittaya” .He used to sit with friends and gulp whole bottle of Armenian Koniack ( Brandy He once wanted icons which are the ancient pictures of Christ  To be taken to Rome to present to the Pope !! When Russia was considering Religion as a Abin” ( narcotic ) Communist Russians would have been laughing. .

You see people wearing underwear’s and swimming trunks with Buddha’s pictures. You see liquor bars with name Buddha;s Bar”

To become a real Buddhist ,people should stick 5 or 8 sil” and behave with compassion ,We Sri Lankans try to show that we are real Buddhist and try to arrest a British who may have wanted a statue on her body ,presumable arrested by a Cop who violates and norms on Buddhist Preaching’s.  like taking bribes and behave like animals .

Let us be more sensible please

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

By Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

November 7, 2017, 12:00 pm

April 5, 2012: Lord Naseby, PC, Baron of Sandy and Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group in UK meets wartime Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa at the Temple Trees

Lord Naseby has challenged the UN Panel of Experts (PoE) findings pertaining to Sri Lanka’s war against terrorism soon after the head of that panel, former Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, received another key appointment. In late July, 2017, Darusman received appointment as head of a fact-finding mission on Myanmar where violence caused thousands to flee. Darusman’s team includes Radhika Coomaraswamy and Australian Christopher Dominic Sidoti.

Their mission has received a mandate set out by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 34/22, adopted on 24 March 2017, to “establish facts and circumstances of the alleged recent human rights violations by the military and security forces, and abuses, in Myanmar, in particular in the Rakhine State”.

The outcome of their investigation is not too difficult to comprehend.

A brief but powerful WION exclusive with Lord Naseby (Michael Wolfgang Laurence Morris) couldn’t have been telecast at a better time for Sri Lanka.

The WION report dealt with Lord Naseby’s significant statement in the House of Lords, on Oct 12, 2017, made in respect of the Geneva Resolution 30/1, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka. Lord Naseby challenged the Report of the Secretary General’s Panel of Experts (PoE) on Accountability in Sri Lanka, the foundation for the Geneva Resolution.

The PoE comprised former Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, South African civil society activist Yasmin Sooka and US attorney-at-law Stevan Ratner.

Responding to Mandy Clark, of Uttar Pradesh headquartered WION, Lord Naseby declared that one-fourth of the 7,000 Tamils killed, in military operations on the Vanni front, were members of the LTTE. The veteran Conservative politician based his claim on US and British wartime diplomatic dispatches from Colombo. Lord Naseby named the then US Ambassador Robert O. Blake and UK Defence Attaché Lt. Col. Anton Gash as the authors of those reports.

Blake and Gash hadn’t so far challenged Lord Naseby’s claims. In fact, the PoE should respond to Lord Naseby’s challenge as it cannot remain silent in the face of such a serious allegation.

Lord Naseby didn’t mince his words when he explained how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) repeatedly denied his requests, since 2014, to secure the entire set of dispatches from Lt. Col. Gash.

The former CBS News war correspondent and the winner of the Richard R. Snell Award for investigative journalism, Mandy had covered the war in Afghanistan and was among those who entered Libya at the onset of the US caused conflict in Libya.

Having had dealt with the accountability issues, Lord Naseby criticized the UK for accommodating LTTE cadres and turning a blind eye to Tamil Diaspora still promoting the group, nine years after the conclusion of the war. Lord Naseby explained how the LTTE had eliminated the rival Tamil leadership to clear its leader Velupillai Prabhakaran’s path.

Against the backdrop of Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure to decisively and swiftly act on Lord Naseby’s Oct 12, 2017 statement, WION’s Special Report, titled ‘UN fudged Lanka casualties: Lord Naseby found 7,000, not 40,000 correct estimate of civilian casualties’, certainly embarrassed those hell-bent on forcing Sri Lanka to admit mass scale massacre during the final phase of the offensive on the Vanni east front.

In his Oct 12, 2017 statement, in the House of Lords, during debate on Sri Lanka, Lord Naseby urged the Theresa May government to request Geneva to lower casualty figure from 40,000 to 7,000 taking into consideration Sri Lanka never willfully targeted civilians.

A glaring omission, perhaps the only shortcoming in the Emmy-nominated Clark’s exclusive, was her failure to mention how New Delhi, in the early 80s, had caused terrorism here for geo-political reasons. Clark couldn’t have refrained from referring to New Delhi’s role, especially after Lord Naseby recalled the LTTE assassination of former Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi, in May 1991.

No less a person than the late Indian Foreign Secretary J.N. Dixit, who had been New Delhi’s top envoy in Colombo at the time of the Indian Army deployment here, in July 1987, acknowledged in his memoirs ‘Makers of India’s Foreign Policy’, released in 2004, that India was responsible for causing terrorism here. Obviously, India’s decision to subvert Sri Lanka had been part of her overall security and political strategy in the wake of the growing threat posed by the US-Pakistan and Israel alliance. Although China hadn’t been aligned with the alliance, Dixit asserted that China worked closely with Pakistan to undermine India in response to Indians’ backing for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. India made the destabilization of Sri Lanka an integral part of a security project to safeguard Indian national interests.

UN responds to Lord Naseby

Lord Nasebys bombshell really undermined the despicable UN strategy here. The House of Lords statement obviously placed UN Special Rapporteur (on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees) Pablo de Greiff in a difficult position. Greiff, having concluded his two-week long visit to Sri Lanka, called a media briefing at the UN compound, in Colombo, on Oct 23, 2017, where the Colombian warned Sri Lanka of dire consequences unless Colombo fulfill its obligations to the international community.

The visit was Greiff’s second since the change of government, in January 2015.

However, the Colombian had no option but to refer to the situation that had been caused by Lord Naseby. Obviously, UN Colombo had been embarrassed. The Colombo briefing took place before Clark’s interview with Lord Naseby.

“As I write this statement, the debate continues in the newspapers concerning the number of victims, at the end of the conflict, whether it was 40,000 or ‘merely’ 8,000. While the final number may be impossible to determine, with absolute precision, there is of course a lot that has been learned in the last 30 years about forensics and other methods offering reliability that political opinions cannot,” the Colombian told the Colombo media. The Island, however, didn’t receive an invitation from UN Colombo, though the writer was invited for a press conference given by Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism, Ben Emmerson, in July this year.

Unfortunately, those who had been invited by UN Colombo didn’t raise Lord Naseby’s statement with Greiff even after he made reference to the debate in respect of the number of victims.

Wartime Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, in an exclusive interview, headlined ‘War Crimes: GR highlights confusion over civilian death toll’ (The Island, Oct 21, 2017), with the writer, discussed the implications of Lord Naseby’s statement. The writer dealt with the government’s lukewarm response to Lord Naseby’s statement, in a front-page lead story, headlined ‘Govt yet to capitalize on Lord Naseby’s call to UK parliament’ (The Island, Oct 26, 2017). The writer also obtained Lord Naseby’s comment in respect of a meeting he had with Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Mark Field, following his statement (FCO to study Naseby’s proposals-The Island, Oct 26, 2017)

Had The Island received an invitation, the writer would have certainly asked Greiff whether any Sri Lankan government representative had sought an explanation in respect of Lord Naseby’s statement. The House of Lords revelation should be examined against the backdrop of those who had the opportunity, to take it up with the UN official, failing to do so. In addition to President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, the UN Special Rapporteur is on record as having said that he had very productive discussions with other high level government officials, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister Marapana; the Minister of Finance and Media Mangala Samaraweera; the Minister of Law and Order and Southern Development Sagala Ratnayake; the Minister of National Co-existence, Dialogue and Official Languages Mano Ganesan; the Minister of Prison Reforms, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs D.M. Swaminathan; the Minister of Justice Thalatha Atukorale; the Minister of Education Akila Viraj Kariyawasam; the Secretary to the President Austin Fernando; the Secretary of Defense Kapila Waidyaratne; Speaker of Parliament Karu Jayasuriya; the Sectoral Oversight Committees on Legal Affairs and Media, and on Reconciliation and North and East Reconstruction; the Chief Justice; the Attorney General; the Chief of Defense Staff, the Commander of the Army; the Commander of the Air Force and the Commander of the Navy; the Chief of National Intelligence; the Inspector General of Police; the Chairperson of the Victim and Witness Protection Authority; the Secretary-General of the Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms; the Director-General of the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation; the Human Rights Commission, the National Police Commission, members of religious communities, political parties, and representatives of the diplomatic community, academics, civil society organizations, victims groups and many others who have shared their insights. At the local level, the UN official had the opportunity to exchange views with the Governors of the Northern Province and the Eastern Province.

Strangely, The Island didn’t receive a response from Army headquarters as to what action they intended taking in respect of Lord Naseby’s statement. Unfortunately, the Army as an institution hadn’t sought to explore ways and means of using the only favourable statement made, on Sri Lanka’s behalf, in a key foreign parliament, to clear its name.

Repudiation of Gaza war report

Lord Naseby’s call to Geneva to revisit the Panel of Experts allegation, pertaining to the death toll, should be examined with the US reaction to South African justice Richard Goldstone contradicting his own report on Israeli invasion of Gaza (2008-2009) keeping in mind.

In July 2011 the US Senate voted unanimously in favour of calling the UN to revoke the Gaza war report, prepared by a four-member UN Panel, headed by Goldstone. The Obama administration made its move in the wake of Goldstone retracting the report’s findings.

The US went to the extent of calling on the Human Rights Council to repair the damage caused to the Jewish State.

The US, while stepping up pressure on Sri Lanka, to adhere with the Panel of Experts report, had sought to nullify Goldstone’s report.

Goldstone on Sept 15, 2009 declared both Israeli Defence Forces and Palestinian militants committed serious war crimes and breaches of humanitarian law, which may amount to crimes against humanity.

“We came to the conclusion, on the basis of the facts we found, that there was strong evidence to establish that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian law and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza,” international wire services quoted Goldstone as saying.

The US Senate vote was initiated by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator James Risch. While the decision has no legal binding, it is significant as the US is the UN’s largest contributor.

The US said that contrary to the report’s findings, Israel did not embrace a deliberate policy of hurting civilians in Gaza. It is also noted that Judge Goldstone himself admitted that the number of civilian casualties in Gaza was smaller than claimed in the report and recognized that Israel, like any other sovereign state, has the right to defend itself and its civilians.

In the wake of Goldstone’s move, followed by the US reaction, Geneva conveniently dropped the matter, quietly, though other members of the Goldstone panel firmly stood by the report.

An opportunity for Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka should now request Geneva to review unsubstantiated allegations directed against Sri Lanka by the Panel of Experts. On the basis of scurrilous claims, the UN triggered an investigation under the direction of Sandra Beidas, formerly of the Amnesty International. That led to Geneva Resolution 30/1 on Oct 2015, though Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative there, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, strongly objected to it, just over a week before.

The Panel of Experts, having had placed the number of civilian deaths at 40,000 on the basis of information provided by what the panel called credible sources, ruled they couldn’t be verified under any circumstances, until 2031.

Whatever the declarations made by the Panel of Experts, Geneva, as well as Theresa May’s government, cannot turn a blind eye to Lord Naseby’s statement. Having defended Sri Lanka, Lord Naseby should expect the UK-based Channel 4 that pushed for an international war crimes probe against Sri Lanka to pounce on him. Channel 4 cannot ignore Lord Naseby’s bid to clear Sri Lanka of unsubstantiated allegations, especially after Mandy Clark’s exclusive. In fact none of those who had contributed to the Geneva exercise, as well as the project to defeat President Mahinda Rajapaksa at two presidential polls in 2010 and 2015 too cannot remain silent.

Lord Naseby has challenged the VERY BASIS of political grouping formed by the US in the run up to the 2010 presidential poll. The US brought in the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) led by the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) into the UNP-led political grouping. The TNA threw its weight behind wartime Army Chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka on the basis that President Rajapaksa gave political leadership to the war that annihilated the LTTE and caused massive loss of civilian life. They implemented, basically the same anti-Rajapaksa strategy at the 2015 presidential poll.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government’s reluctance to act on Lord Naseby’s statement is obvious. When the writer raised the issue with co-cabinet spokesman and Sports Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera, the Minister acknowledged that it hadn’t been discussed at the cabinet. Can there be anything as important as defeating trumped-up war crimes charges. In fact, the Foreign Ministry should have had brought the matter to the notice of the cabinet immediately after Sri Lanka High Commission in London alerted Colombo as to the House of Lords statement.

Unenthusiastic Foreign Ministry’s response

Did Sri Lanka High Commission bring Lord Naseby’s statement to the Foreign Ministry’s attention? For want of Foreign Ministry response to Lord Naseby’s very important statement, even a week after it was made, the writer, on Oct 20, 2017, sought an explanation from the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry response really disappointed a vast majority of people, who expected the government to counter lies that had been propagated by various interested parties. Instead of taking advantage of Lord Naseby’s statement, issued on behalf of Sri Lanka, the Foreign Ministry declared: “The Government of Sri Lanka remains committed to the national processes, aimed at realizing the vision of a reconciled, stable, peaceful and prosperous nation. Engaging in arguments and debates in the international domain over the number of civilians who may have died at a particular time in the country will not help resolve any issues, in a meaningful manner, locally, except a feel good factor for a few individuals who may think that they have won a debate or scored points over someone or the other.”

The Foreign Ministry, obviously, decided to ignore the fact that such debates in the international domain over a period of time led to Geneva Resolution 30/1. Those responsible for counter malicious propaganda directed against Sri Lanka had been exposed. Those in power remained silent as it is obviously detrimental for them to admit, in any way, Geneva forced Sri Lanka to accept massacre of over 40,000 Tamils during the last phase of the offensive. The failure on the part of the UK, Geneva as well as civil society groups to thwart Lord Naseby’s offensive must have shocked those who really believed in the UN claims.

Civil society responsibility

Those who had been engaged in costly exercises to promote post-war national reconciliation should realize the main obstacle to amity between the Sinhalese and the Tamils is the unsubstantiated allegation that the military massacred over 40,000 on the Vanni east front.

Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion in May 2009.

Civil society groups that had contributed to an expensive campaign meant to defeat Rajapaksa received substantial benefits. Now, their main allegation has been challenged on the basis of information that had been furnished during the war by UK and US diplomatic missions in Colombo. Civil society groups, such as the National Peace Council, perhaps the largest recipient of Norway undoing over the years, should request Indian, Japanese and other missions to furnish diplomatic cables pertaining to Sri Lanka casualties to Geneva. Their primary objective should be to establish the truth. The UN can release its own confidential report that placed the number of dead, between 2008 August to May 13, 2009, to be compared with dispatches from diplomatic missions.

On the basis of unproved allegations, Geneva has recommended change of Sri Lanka’s Constitution. Parliament last week debated recommendations made by PM Wickremesinghe-led Steering Committee in respect of constitutional reforms. Members of the government as well as the Joint Opposition refrained from commenting on Lord Naseby’s statement. Perhaps, some cannot comprehend the very basis for Western intervention in constitutional making process is unproved war crimes allegations that paved the way for Geneva Resolution 30/1. But, on the other hand, those, who had been spearheading the constitutional making process and aware of fraudulent means employed to ensure foreign intervention for regime change, are in a dilemma.

Unfortunately, those loyal to former President Rajapakse seemed a thoroughly disorganized lot not capable of exploiting the situation to Sri Lanka’s advantage.

(To be continued on Nov 15)

By Dr. DAYAN JAYATILLEKA Courtesy The Island

November 7, 2017, 8:59 pm

The curtain falls today on the Constitutional Assembly debate on the Interim Report of the Steering Committee. So what happens now?

It doesn’t look good. The curious coincidence that the curtain falls roughly on the centenary of the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia should remind us, especially those Constitution makers of a left background, that what is happening on the street is quite as or even more important than what happens in the chambers. ‘The Street’ is as important or at certain points of time, more important than ‘The Suits’. As anyone who watches TV news knows, the mood on the street is of barely suppressed rage.

For a government that boasts of having won over the whole world, it is pathetic that none of its many friends, near and far, frequent visitors to our ports, have or can be counted upon to rush a tanker filled with good quality fuel, to ease the travails of a friendly administration in a mounting social emergency!

The Street is mad at the preoccupation of the government with Constitution making and focusing on the needs of ‘the Other’—pro-UNP big business and the assertively autonomy demanding, politically ‘pushy’ Tamil minority– rather than on the everyday existential needs (as Anton Balasingham used to put it) of the people; the provision of basic goods and services to the majority of the citizenry.

Anything can set off a riot which can turn rebellious. A push too far in the wrong direction at the wrong time on the controversial Constitution can be the single spark (‘Iskra’). Having a tame, semi-gentrified JVP as quasi-ally on the Constitution won’t help the government or stop a quick slide back to the late 1980s.

Unfortunately, it is clear from the latest statement of the main drafter of the new Constitution that the UNP-led United National Front is going to keep on moving recklessly forward towards the precipice.

In an iconoclastic and whistle blowing interview on Derana 360, Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, former Minister of Justice and Buddha Sasana, named Dr. Jayampathy Wickremaratne and MA Sumanthiran as the co-framers/drafters of the new constitution, and assumed full responsibility for his revelation.

The next morning (Nov 7th) The Daily Mirror carried an interview with Jayampathy Wickremaratne (http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/-President-must-be-elected-by-Parliament–139926.html) in which he displayed a sad and faded caricature of a trait which characterized his old party the LSSP in its heyday. The party’s theoreticians such as Doric de Souza and Hector Abhayavardhana were accused by detractors of “Trotskyist intellectual arrogance”. Jayampathy Wickremaratne displays the arrogance without the intellect. That utterly unwarranted and misplaced insouciant arrogance is dangerous in the current context of social anger, rising majoritarian hyper-nationalism and imminent electoral warfare including within the ruling coalition.

Jayampathy commences his interview graciously granting that he has “no issue”with President Sirisena’s proposed all-parties conclave “so long” as it doesn’t interfere with the Constitutional Assembly process. In other words, the Constitution is being drafted by someone whose support for the President’s political decision-making is overtly conditional!

Q: You are involved in constitution making through the Steering Committee. Now, President Maithripala Sirisena has proposed to call for an All Party Conference (APC). How do you view this?

A: It’s very important that there is the widest possible discourse on this subject. I will support any initiative taken to discuss the constitution making process, without undermining the process that has been initiated in Parliament. I have no issue as long as it doesn’t undermine the parliamentary process.”

So he, Jayampathy Wickremaratne has “no issue” with the President’s planned move “so long as it doesn’t undermine the parliamentary process”. That’s real big of him.Who on earth does Jayampathy think he is and who does he think is the leader of country– Ranil Wickremesinghe, Chandrika Kumaratunga or Mangala Samaraweera? Does he think the President doesn’t know enough to make that decision and even if he decides to act in a manner that Jayampathy thinks “undermines the parliamentary process”, what on earth is Jayampathy going to do about it?

He then goes on to pontificate and obfuscate the situation about Swiss federalism.

Q: There is an argument that Sri Lanka is too small to have a Federal structure. What is your response?

A: That is an old argument. It is probably older than your whole journalistic career. Then, what about Switzerland? In such a small country, you have strong Federal features. Switzerland is much smaller than Sri Lanka…”

As President Rajapaksa said to a spokesperson of the Tamil Diaspora who made the same point as Jayampathy at a meeting in Geneva (at which I was present), Switzerland has 23 communes and Sri Lanka has 23 districts. If the Tamil politicians are willing to have the district as the unit of devolution rather than the province, then we in Sri Lanka too can consider the example of Swiss federalism, but otherwise it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion and should not be brought up as an example.

What is most significant are his remarks on the Executive Presidency, coming AFTER and NOTWITHSTANDING the detailed statements in the Constitutional Assembly debate by SLFP seniors Nimal Siripala de Silva and Susil Premjayanth, representing the main partners of the UNP in the Yahapalana coalition. Jayampathy pontificates:

A: “…What will happen if the Executive Presidency isn’t abolished? On the Executive Presidency, they will be two power centres- the President and the Prime Minister. There won’t be a problem as long the relationship between the present President and the Prime Minister continues. If that relationship is soured under a new President and a new Prime Minister, there will be clashes between the executive and Parliament. This has to be resolved.”

Q. How do you view the abolition of the Executive Presidency?

A: People have been discussing it for 40 years. People gave a clear verdict on January 8, 2015. Now, it is up to us to implement that.

Q. But, the party headed by President Sirisena himself is opposed to it. What is your response?

A: It is unfortunate. But, then, I heard Ministers Dilan Perera and Dayasiri Jayasekara saying that the parties shouldn’t ask for the pound of flesh from the stomach. We need to find a formula, a win-win situation. I have no doubt that Maithripala Sirisena is of the same view that the Executive Presidency should be abolished; that there won’t be another presidential election. That is what he said on every platform during the last Presidential Elections. We, in the United Left Front, have proposed. In fact, our party instructed me to go public regarding this. We propose a win-win situation. We pass the Constitution on the basis that the President is elected by Parliament. We, or the parties agreeing on the constitution, should also agree on electing President Sirisena for a second term.”

Jayampathy Wickremaratne doubtless thinks that President Sirisena, the SLFP and the people of the country are fools.Firstly, he doesn’t say if the President elected by parliament will be an Executive President, as in South Africa.

Secondly, he forgets that devolving much more power to already semi-autonomous Provinces (as he proposes) while there is an overarching Executive Presidency is quite different—and much safer—than such devolution once the Presidency is downsized and elected by parliament rather than deriving its power and legitimacy from the people of the country as a whole. Let alone a generous replacement, even the present 13th amendment without the overarching Executive Presidency, will be tantamount to federalism, or in our case, a dangerously centrifugal ethno-federalism!

Thirdly, Jayampathy’s abolitionist formula eliminates any political office being elected by the whole of the country and thereby from representing the whole of the country. Instead all we shall have are representatives of parts of the country. The whole will be undermined and atomized.

Fourthly, Jayampathy deliberately overlooks the fact that a President elected by the Parliament will be dependent upon and the captive of the minority parties, especially the Tamil nationalist parties in that Parliament.

Fifthly, his formula undermines economic stability and rapid growth which was JR Jayewardene’s rationale for the introduction of a nationally elected executive Presidency “free from the whims and fancies of the legislature”.

Sixthly, he ignores the possibility/probability that the UNP and its minority allies in Parliament will double-cross President Sirisena and the SLFP, and pick their own candidate.

We must know where all this dangerous nonsense comes from: the insidious Singapore Principles of 2013. The recent incarnation of the idea of abolishing the executive Presidency does not date back to the Maithripala Sirisena candidacy. His was an utterly ambiguous pledge. The recent revival of the ‘abolitionist’ slogan dates back to a conclave and a document dating from 2013, when Maithripala Sirisena was a loyal Minister of the Rajapaksa administration with no idea of breaking away and running for the country’s top post. The abolition of the Executive Presidency is in actuality, a vital part of an agreement between Mangala Samaraweera, MA Sumanthiran, Jayampathy Wickramaratne and representatives of the Global Tamil Forum (GTF), arrived at in Singapore in 2013. TamilNet (Thursday, 22 January 2015) released the text.The abolition of the Executive Presidency was a top priority, probably because Sumanthiran and the GTF knew that without it, any devolution including the existing 13A, would automatically federalize the country.

“Mangala Samaraweera came as a ‘beggar’ urging Tamil support for regime change and abolition of the executive presidency. It was 2013,” said one of the participants, reflecting on the Singapore meeting.’ revealed the TamilNet report.

The Interim Report as well as the points reiterated by Jayampathy Wickremaratne in his latest newspaper interview clearly reflect the agreed upon 10 point Singapore text, of which I reproduce what is most obviously salient to the Constitutional drafting today:

“In describing the nature of the State what is important is the substance; the labels are secondary.

The Constitution shall be based on basic constitutional principles and values including sovereignty of the people, participatory democracy and supremacy of the Constitution which shall form an unalterable basic structure.

Power sharing shall be on the basis of self-rule and shared-rule within an undivided Sri Lanka.

The Executive Presidency shall be abolished and the form of government shall be Parliamentary.

The Republic of Sri Lanka shall be a secular state. The Foremost place to Buddhism and equal status to other religions shall be assured.”

So, is this the philosophy and concepts and are these the objectives of the proposed new Constitution?And is Jayampathy Wickremaratne who holds thesenational/state-debilitating views, to remain the main drafter after tomorrow’s final session?

What is made crystal clear by the latest Jayampathy interview is that this key drafter of the new Constitution reflects the views of those who regard the main partnership in the reform process, and the direction of the country, as NOT that between the UNP and the SLFP, but that between the UNP and the TNA!

Shouldn’t the drafting exercise from here on in, be handled by the only ‘third/intermediate force’ and therefore ‘balancer’ in the Assembly, the centrist-moderate SLFP-MS, which is also the formation closest to the President? Shouldn’t the drafting be only of a workable modification of the 13th amendment and the existing system of Provincial Councils? And for the sake of safety, stability and sanity, shouldn’t the actual negotiations and drafting of a revised 13th amendment be handed over from the poseur and adventurist wrecker Jayampathy Wickremaratne, to the most educated and literate man in the Constitutional Assembly, an internationally acknowledged scholar and intellectual who has been closely involved as Gamini Dissanaike’s top official, in intricate negotiations on the ethno-constitutional reform issue since the 1980s:Dr. Sarath Amunugama?

By Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

Former Deputy Minister and retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera yesterday said that a recent statement made by Lord Naseby in the House of Lords pertaining to the Vanni war death toll could be the basis for Sri Lanka’s defence at the Geneva based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

Addressing the media on behalf of Eliya, an organization backed by wartime Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, Weerasekera said Conservative Lord Naseby’s declaration that the death toll couldn’t have been more than 8,000 and one fourth of them terrorists had contradicted the UN accusations of 40,000 civilian deaths.

The revelation was made at a debate on Sri Lanka on Oct 12.

The former navy Chief of Staff was flanked by Prof. Ven Medagoda Abhayatissa and The Island political columnist C.A. Chandraprema.

The then UNSG Ban Ki-moon’s three-member Panel of Experts (PoE) in its much quoted report issued in March 2011 placed the death toll at 40,000, Weerasekera said, adding the UN and UNHRC hadn’t so far disputed Lord Naseby’s assertion.

Pointing out that Lord Naseby’s statement based on military dispatches from Colombo during the Vanni offensive had completely wildly dampened the exaggerated allegations against the country, Weerasekera emphasized that the UNHRC should revisit the circumstances under which Sri Lanka was compelled to co-sponsor Geneva Resolution 30/1 in Oct 2015.

The former Digamadulla district MP said the ongoing constitution making process had been driven by the Geneva Resolution, hence regular visits by UN and EU delegations to examine progress and remind Sri Lanka of its obligations in terms of the Resolution 30/1.

Responding to a query by The Island, Weerasekera said that soon after Lord Naseby’s statement he sought a meeting with President Maithripala Sirisena to discuss ways and means of using the latest development to Sri Lanka’s advantage.

The former MP said that it would be the responsibility of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government to seek clarification from Geneva without further delay. Sri Lanka couldn’t remain silent when Lord Naseby on behalf of Sri Lanka had requested Theresa May’s government to convince the UN and UNHRC to revise the death toll.

Recalling the dismissal of Gaza war report in 2011 following its author and the US clearing Israel of alleged war crimes, Weerasekera urged the government to bring the latest developments to the notice of all 47 members of the UNHRC. Now that some sections of British military dispatches from Colombo had been released following Lord Naseby’s intervention, the government should request India, the US, UN, ICRC and other key foreign missions to make available their dispatches for examination, Weerasekera said.

Weerasekera said the country couldn’t be allowed to be divided on ethnic lines on the pretext of post-war national reconciliation. The naval veteran said President Maithripala Sirisena and the government hadn’t received mandates at presidential and parliamentary polls in 2015 to bring in a new Constitution. In fact, those pursuing an agenda severely inimical to Sri Lanka had conveniently forgotten close on the heels of triumph over the LTTE, the UNHRC recognized the previous administration’s achievement. “We were able to thwart Germany led Resolution and then secure endorsement of our own at Geneva before the US intervened leading to consecutive defeats followed by 30/1,” Weerasekerra said.

The former Deputy Minister faulted political parties for not exploiting the House of Lords development to Sri Lanka’s advantage during four day debate on the interim report of the Steering Committee spearheading the new constitution making process. Weerasekera refrained from commenting when The Island pointed out that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, too, didn’t take advantage of the debate.

Weerasekera warned of dire consequences unless political parties sank their differences to adopt a common stand against unsubstantiated war crimes accusations. There couldn’t be a dispute over Sri Lanka’s policy towards the accountability issue, Weerasekera said, pointing out that Lord Naseby was on record as having said Sri Lanka never intentionally targeted the Tamil civilian population.

 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)