This is a very important YouTube clip for circulation, to create awareness of underlying and background realities. This is not the usual You Tube made by people. It is backed up by carefully researched supporting information.
Listening to it and analysing the facts presented gives a good understanding of this entire Aragalaya and where it is coming from – and where it is going. The Sri Lankan people need to be aware that their country is being made use of for the US geopolitical agenda of world hegemony. Is that what Sri Lanka wishes? – to give up its sovereignty and independence as a nation?
One Response to ඊනියානිදහසලැබීවසර 71 ක්ගතවීඇතත්තවමත්යටත්විජිතවාදීමානසිකත්වග්රහණයෙන්මුදාගෙනනැතිමහනුවරශ්රීදළදාපෙරහැර”
dhane Says:
August 26th, 2019 at 5:06 pm
We Sri Lankan should be very grateful that in 1853 දීඉන්ග්රීසිආණ්ඩුවවිසින්දළදාවහන්සේගේභාරකාරත්වයඅස්ගිරිහාමල්වතුනාහිම්වරුන්ටසහදියවඩනනිලමේටභාරදීමෙන්සිදුකොටඇත්තේඅමිලසේවයකි. මන්දඑසේනොකොටයම්ලෙසකින්අපේදේසපාලකයින්අතටඑයත්ලැබුණේනම්මේඋතුම්රටට 1948 සිටඔවුන්විසින්සිදුකොටඇතිවිනාශයදෙසබලනවිටමේවනවිටත්දළදාවහන්සේදලෝකබැන්කුවටහෝවෙනත්රටකටවිකුනාගෙනකාඅවසන්වීමටසෑමඉඩක්මතිබුණනිසාය.Hopefully this Bank Robbery Chief Ranil & Malik will not get idea on this.
Americans are especially likely to say politicians are corrupt
Protesters chant and demonstrate outside the French Senate in Paris, opposing a new law they say would consolidate police power and restrict civil liberties, on March 16, 2021. (Kiran Ridley/Getty Images)
How we did this
As they continue to struggle with a public health crisis and ongoing economic challenges, many people in the United States and Western Europe are also frustrated with politics.
A four-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in November and December of 2020 finds that roughly two-thirds of adults in France and the U.S., as well as about half in the United Kingdom, believe their political system needs major changes or needs to be completely reformed. Calls for significant reform are less common in Germany, where about four-in-ten express this view.
Of course, there are important differences across these countries’ political systems. But the four nations also share some important democratic principles, and all have recently experienced political upheaval in different ways, as rising populist leaders and movements and emerging new forces across the ideological spectrum have challenged traditional parties and leaders.
Some of the frustrations people feel about their political systems are tied to their opinions about political elites. In the U.S., concerns about political corruption are especially widespread, with two-in-three Americans agreeing that the phrase most politicians are corrupt” describes their country well. Nearly half say the same in France and the UK. Young people, in particular, generally tend to see politicians as corrupt. And those who say most politicians are corrupt are much more likely to think their political systems need serious reform.
A belief that politicians are out of touch is also common. In France, the U.S. and the UK, roughly half or more say elected officials do not care what ordinary people think. Still, in both France and Germany, the share of the public who believe elected officials do care has increased since 2018.
Since 2017, the French and German publics have also become more trusting of government. In France, just 20% said they trusted the government to do what is right for the country in 2017, compared with 55% in the new survey. Trust is especially high among supporters of President Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche party, but it has risen across the partisan spectrum. Similarly, trust is up among supporters of parties on the right, left and center in Germany.
Trust in government has also increased slightly in the UK, although while it has risen among supporters of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party, is has actually declined among those who identify with the opposition Labour Party.
How Pew Research Center measures public trust in government, globally and domestically
For several years, Pew Research Center has been committed to researching issues of trust, facts and democracy. And for decades, the Center has studied Americans’ attitudes about federal, state and local government in the United States.
In this survey, the Center compares the attitudes of the publics in four nations – the U.S., France, the UK and Germany – toward democracy and their countries’ political systems. The survey also includes a measure of trust in the four countries’ national governments: How much do respondents trust the government to do what is right for their country?”
This is different from the question that has been asked for more than six decades by Pew Research Center and other survey organizations in the U.S.: How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right?
In the United States, the measures yield very different results: Last August, just 20% of the public said they trusted the government in Washington to do what is right always” or most of the time.” Americans’ trust in the federal government has been mired at that low level for longer than a decade.
In the four-nation survey, which was conducted in the U.S. in November – after Joe Biden had been declared the winner of the presidential election, but when large shares of Donald Trump’s supporters expressed skepticism about the result and the voting process – 54% of Americans said they trust the government a lot or somewhat to do what is right for the country. This is little changed from 51% who said this in 2017.
The four-nation survey provides a valuable comparative examination of views of government, the political system and the state of democracy. In the coming months, the Center will update its long-standing measures of Americans’ trust in their government, as well as attitudes on the scope and size of government.
In the U.S., the overall level of trust in the government has remained largely unchanged since 2017, but who trusts the government shifted substantially. In 2017, only months after Donald Trump was elected president, Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party were more likely to trust the government than Democrats and those who lean Democratic. In the current survey, fielded in November and December 2020 – after major media outlets had called the election for now-President Joe Biden – Democrats express higher levels of trust.
The state of U.S. politics during this survey period
In France, Germany and the UK, trust in government tends to be higher among those who think their country has done a good job of handling the coronavirus pandemic. This is particularly true in France, where 80% of those who say the country is handling the outbreak well trust the government, compared with only 27% of those who say the country is doing a poor job.
Trust is also linked to views about the economy. People who think the national economy is currently in good shape express higher levels of trust in government, as do those who believe they have a good chance to improve their own standard of living.
While more than half of Americans say they generally trust the government to do what is right, fewer than half (45%) are satisfied with the way democracy is working in their country. (The survey took place before the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 by a mob of Trump’s supporters.) In contrast, majorities in France (55%) and the UK (60%), as well as eight-in-ten Germans, say they are satisfied with how democracy is functioning.
These four publics are divided over how much impact ordinary people can have on government: 54% of Germans, 53% of Americans, 50% of Britons and 47% of the French say the statement ordinary people can do a lot to influence the government” describes their country well.
In all four countries, there is considerable interest in political reforms that would potentially allow ordinary citizens to have more power over policymaking. Citizen assemblies, or forums where citizens chosen at random debate issues of national importance and make recommendations about what should be done, are overwhelmingly popular. Around three-quarters or more in each country say it is very or somewhat important for the national government to create citizen assemblies. About four-in-ten say it’s very important. Such processes are in use nationally in France and the UK to debate climate change policy, and they have become increasingly common in nations around the world in recent years.
Citizen assemblies are popular across the ideological spectrum but are especially so among people who place themselves on the political left.1 Those who think their political system needs significant reform are also particularly likely to say it is important to create citizen assemblies.
There are also high levels of support for allowing citizens to vote directly to decide what becomes law for some key issues. About seven-in-ten in the U.S., Germany and France say it is important, in line with previous findings about support for direct democracy. In the UK, where crucial issues such as Scottish independence and Brexit were decided by referendum, support is somewhat lower – 63% say it is important for the government to use referendums to decide some key issues, and just 27% rate this as very important.
These are among the findings of a new Pew Research Center survey conducted from Nov. 10 to Dec. 23, 2020, among 4,069 adults in the France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. This report also includes findings from 26 focus groups conducted in 2019 in the U.S. and UK.
How the focus groups were conducted
Across the four countries surveyed, more trust the government than not
Half of adults or more trust the national government to do what is right in each of the four countries surveyed. But, whereas only a slim majority trust the government in the United States (54%), France (55%) and the United Kingdom (55%), 80% in Germany express this view. And, in Germany, 47% say they trust the national government a lot – more than twice as many as say the same in any of the other surveyed countries and more than three times as many as in the U.S., where only 13% have a lot of faith in the government.
In the U.S., trust in the government has remained largely unchanged since the question was last posed in 2017. But who trusts the government shifted notably over this period. In 2017, when Donald Trump was the newly inaugurated president, Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party were more likely to trust the government than Democrats and leaners toward that party (66% vs. 42%, respectively). In the most recent survey, fielded in November 2020 after the election was called for now President Joe Biden, Democrats trust the government at higher rates than Republicans, 59% vs. 49%.
Trust in the government has increased in each of the three European countries surveyed since 2017, the largest change being in France (55% today, up from 20%). The 2017 French survey was fielded in the month prior to the first round of the national elections – a particularly contentious election in which nontraditional parties, including the now-governing En Marche, were vying for leadership.2 Trust has grown most precipitously among En Marche supporters: Today, 92% trust the government, compared with 37% who said the same before the 2017 election that brought Emmanuel Macron to power. Supporters of the Republicans (LR) and the Socialist Party (PS) – two parties that had long governed in France prior to 2017 – also have more trust in the government now. And, while only around half of those with a favorable view of the right-wing populist National Rally trust the government (53%), trust among this group has gone up 44 percentage points since 2017.
In Germany, trust in the government is up 11 percentage points since 2017, and the share who trust the government a lot has nearly doubled during this same period. But, while supporters of the ruling CDU are among the most trusting of the government (92%), trust has increased comparably since 2017 among most of the major parties. And, while those who have a favorable view of Alternative for Germany (AfD) tend to be much less trusting than those who have an unfavorable view of the party (52% vs. 85%), even this group is more trusting of the government now than in 2017, when only 33% trusted the government.3
In the UK, the share who trust the government a lot has risen 7 points since 2017 (to 21%), and overall trust has increased 6 points. For supporters of the Conservative Party – which was governing in 2017 but had a change of prime minister in 2019 – trust in the government has gone up from 76% to 84%. On the other hand, Labour Party supporters are less likely to trust the government now than they were in 2017 (34%, down from 42%). Trust is significantly higher among those who identify as Leavers (72%) than those who identify as Remainers (45%), as well as among those who have a favorable view of the right-wing populist Brexit Party, now called Reform UK (76%) compared with those who have an unfavorable view of the party (46%).4
Across all four of the countries surveyed, trust in the government is higher among those who say the economy is in good shape and those who say they have adequate opportunities to improve their own standard of living. For example, in the UK, those who say their current economic situation is good are about two times as likely to say they trust the government as those who say it’s bad.
In France, Germany and the UK, those who think their country is doing well handling COVID-19 are much more likely to trust the government than those who think their country is handling the pandemic poorly. The difference is largest in France, where 80% of those who think the country is doing well handling the outbreak trust the government, compared with only 27% of those who think the country is not doing a good job.
Trust is higher among people who believe elected officials care what ordinary people think. Also, those with at least a university degree and those with higher incomes are more likely to trust the government in France and Germany, though not in the U.S. or UK.
Democratic satisfaction lower in U.S. than European countries surveyed
Satisfaction with democracy varies widely across the four countries surveyed. In the U.S., only 45% of people say they are satisfied with the way democracy is working (the survey in the U.S. took place Nov. 10 to Dec. 7, 2020, which was before the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 by a mob of President Trump’s supporters). In contrast, in each of the three European countries surveyed, a majority holds this view: 55% in France, 60% in the UK and 80% in Germany. And, in Germany, around four-in-ten are very satisfied (39%). No more than one-in-five in the other three countries surveyed reach this level of satisfaction.
Across all three European countries surveyed, satisfaction with democracy has increased substantially: up 14 points in France, 15 points in Germany and 29 points in the UK between 2019 and 2020. In contrast, in the U.S., the percentage of people who say they are satisfied with democracy has remained relatively consistent in recent years.
But, in the U.S., who is satisfied has changed substantially over the past year. Between 2017 and 2019, Republicans were more than twice as satisfied with democracy as were Democrats. In 2019, for example, 57% of Republicans and 26% of Democrats said they were satisfied. But, in 2020, after Biden’s election, this relationship inverted, and today, 50% of Democrats are satisfied with democracy while only 39% of Republicans say the same.
In each of the European countries surveyed, supporters of the party or parties that are currently in government tend to be among the most satisfied with democracy. While En Marche supporters are the most approving of the way democracy is working in France, their opinions have shifted little since a 2018 survey, which was the first Pew Research Center poll in France following their party’s electoral victory. Rather, much of the 14-point increase in democratic satisfaction between 2019 and 2020 in France has come from supporters of other parties. For example, 60% of the supporters of the Socialist Party now report satisfaction with democracy, up from 50% in 2019. The growth among Republicans is even larger, going from 40% in 2019 to 68% in 2020. Satisfaction is even up among those who hold favorable views of the right-wing populist party National Rally (49% in 2020, up from 30% in 2019) and the left-leaning populist party La France Insoumise (54% in 2020, up from 40% in 2019).
The increase in democratic satisfaction is evident among supporters of most large German political parties in the country. For example, supporters of SPD (up 17 points), the Greens/Alliance 90 (16 points) and CDU (11 points) as well as those with a favorable view of Die Linke (16 points) all are more satisfied with democracy now than in 2019. But those with a favorable view of the right-wing AfD have not changed over the past year and continue to have relatively low democratic satisfaction (51%).
In the UK, supporters of the Conservative Party (79%) are more satisfied with democracy than Labour Party (50%) supporters. But this comes as partisans in both camps are more satisfied than they were in 2019, with increases of 35 and 17 points, respectively. Those who identify as Leavers and Remainers are equally satisfied with how democracy is working in their country.
Leavers and Remainers both saw Brexit as a failure of democracy in focus groups
Focus groups conducted in August 2019 in the UK were dominated by discussions of Brexit. At the time, around three years had passed since voters had approved a referendum to leave the European Union. Boris Johnson had just taken over as prime minster from Theresa May, and invocation of Article 50 – the start of formal withdrawal – had been delayed until at least October, meaning the UK was still in the EU and still consumed by debates about Brexit. Both Leavers and Remainers saw the aftermath of the referendum as a gross failure of democracy. Although Brexit was not an explicit topic for guiding focus group discussion, it came up in several groups as something that made people feel ashamed to be British.
For Leavers, complaints centered around frustrations that, despite their vote to leave, the country had made no forward progress on the issue, thus highlight[ing] clearly how little our opinion matters.” Leavers bemoaned calls for a second referendum that were percolating at the time, arguing that overturning the will of the people, which they thought had been fully expressed in the 2016 vote, would be a miscarriage of democracy.
For Remainers, frustrations often hinged on the process. People felt that misinformation was rampant in advance of the 2016 vote, and many who voted to leave may not have done so had they understood the implications of their vote. Others highlighted how it would have made more sense to negotiate a deal and put that to the people in a referendum, rather than voting first on whether to leave when there was no clear plan on how to execute it. Remainers also noted that Brexit has diverted all other issues,” distracting” the government away from running the country,” which one participant even blamed for an increase in crime.
Despite wanting wildly different outcomes with regard to Brexit, what united Leavers and Remainers were a few core complaints and their general dissatisfaction with their politicians and the political process. Both Leavers and Remainers lamented how much time Brexit was taking and suggested just getting on with it.” People highlighted how it was difficult to plan for the future with such a major decision in limbo. Some emphasized how the whole thing made Britain look weak, the politicians seem ineffective, and the country was becoming a global laughing stock.”
There are few age or gender differences across these countries when it comes to satisfaction with democracy. But those who have completed at least a university degree tend to be more satisfied with democracy than those who have completed only some university schooling or less.
Across all four countries surveyed, people who think the economy is in good shape are significantly more content with the functioning of their political system than those who think the economy is in poor shape. In France, for example, those who think the economy is in good shape are more than twice as likely to be satisfied with democracy (70% vs. 33%). Similarly, those who think they have opportunities to improve their own standard of living are also more satisfied with democracy.
Those who think elected officials care what ordinary people think are also more likely to be satisfied with democracy.
In France, Germany and the UK, people who think their country has done well handling COVID-19 are also around twice as likely to be satisfied with democracy as those who think their country has handled the pandemic poorly. But, in the U.S., those who think the country has done well and those who think it has done poorly when dealing with the global health crisis are equally satisfied with democracy.
Outside of Germany, many see need for major changes to their political systems
Across the four countries surveyed, few say they live in a political system that does not need to be changed at all: 6% in France, 7% in the U.S., 11% in Germany and 12% in the UK. But what degree of change they seek – minor, major or complete reformation – varies.
In both France and the U.S., a majority say dramatic change is needed, with a plurality in each country saying the system requires major changes (47% in each country). In the UK, fewer seek substantial changes (14% complete reform, 33% major changes), and the largest share of people report the system needs minor changes (38%). Only in Germany do substantially fewer than half seek serious changes.
In the U.S., Democrats and independents who lean toward the party tend to be slightly more supportive of major systemic overhaul than Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party – 70% vs. 58%, respectively. This is consistent with results of other recent surveys showing that Democrats are more supportive of reforms like moving away from the electoral college or doing everything possible to make it easier for every citizen to vote. Democrats are also less likely than Republicans to describe America as a country where people are free to peacefully protest or where the rights and freedoms of all people are respected.
Supporters of the party currently in power in France – En Marche – are slightly less likely to support major systemic overhauls (51%) than are supporters of the two major traditional political parties: the Republicans (59%) and the Socialist Party (70%). But those with favorable views of the populist right-wing National Rally and left-wing La France Insoumise are no more likely to call for major changes or complete reform to the French political system than are those with unfavorable views of those parties.
In the UK, support for at least major changes is higher among Labour Party supporters (57%) than among Conservative Party supporters (29%). Those who identify as Remainers are also more supportive of significant changes to the political system than those who identify as Leavers. Similarly, those who have an unfavorable view of the right-wing Brexit Party (Reform UK) tend to be more likely to want systemic reforms than those who have a favorable view of the party (56% vs. 30%, respectively).
In Germany, where the overall desire for change is relatively low, there are few differences along partisan lines.
Across all four countries surveyed, those who think most politicians in their country are corrupt are more likely to favor systemic reforms. For example, in the UK, 60% of those who say most politicians are corrupt” describes their country well think the system needs significant changes, compared with 39% who say it does not describe the country well. Those who are less satisfied with the way democracy is working and less trusting of the government are more likely to call for significant changes. On the other hand, those who think elected officials care what ordinary people think are less likely to think large-scale reforms are required.
Views of how well COVID-19 has been handled also play a role: People who think their government has done a poor job dealing with the pandemic are also more likely to call for major reforms. In Germany, for example, 70% of those who think the government has done a poor job think the system needs complete or major reforms, compared with just 29% of those who think the government has dealt with the pandemic well.
Those who believe their country is doing poorly economically are also more likely to call for substantial reforms to the political system. The same is true of those who say they lack opportunities to improve their standard of living. But opinions don’t differ across age groups in any of these countries, with younger and older people equally likely to support calls for reform.
Outside of Germany, there are no significant differences across income groups on this question (in Germany, the less affluent are more likely to support changes). In Germany, the U.S. and France, those with secondary degrees or less schooling are also more likely to call for major political system reform than those with more education.
Elected officials seen as out of touch in U.S., France and UK
Nearly two-thirds of Germans (65%) say the statement elected officials care what ordinary people think” describes their country well. However, fewer than half of those surveyed in France, the U.S. and the UK express this opinion.
The share of Germans who say elected officials care what ordinary people think has risen precipitously since 2018, when only 44% held this view. In France, too, the share saying elected officials care has risen 9 points (from 32% to 41%). Indeed, all partisan groups in France studied registered an increase in the percentage who say this.
In the UK and U.S., however, the share who say elected officials care about ordinary people has remained largely unchanged since 2018, although it has risen in the UK among those who identify with Conservative Party and decreased among those who identify with the Labour Party. Today, Conservatives are more likely (61%) to say elected officials care than are Labour Party (41%) supporters. Those who have a favorable view of the Brexit Party (Reform UK) are also more likely than those who have an unfavorable view of the party to say elected officials care what ordinary people think (56% vs. 43%, respectively).
Partisan identity colors opinion about whether elected officials are seen as caring in each of the countries surveyed except for Germany. For example, in France, about two-thirds (67%) of those who identify with President Emmanuel Macron’s party En Marche say elected officials care, compared with fewer than half of supporters of the Socialist Party (43%) and the Republicans (39%).
In the U.S., Democrats are more likely than their Republican counterparts to describe elected officials as caring. Only one-third of Republicans say elected officials care what ordinary people think, compared with about half (52%) of Democrats. This difference in opinion between partisans has flipped since 2018, when Donald Trump was president. At that time, 50% of Republicans said elected officials care, compared with only 36% of Democrats.
There are few differences on this question by age, gender, income or education. However, French men (46%) are 10 percentage points more likely than women (36%) to say that elected officials care what ordinary people think. In Germany, those in the highest income group are more likely than those in the lowest income group to say elected officials care. While in the U.S., those with more education are more likely to agree that elected officials care than those with less education.
Americans largely describe politicians as corrupt, fewer Europeans agree
Two-thirds of Americans say the statement most politicians are corrupt” describes their country well. However, in France and the UK, publics are more split on the matter, with slightly fewer than half saying most politicians are corrupt. Germans are much less likely to express this opinion.
And in the U.S., while large majorities in both parties believe most politicians are corrupt, Republicans are more likely (78%) to say this than are Democrats (60%).
Partisan differences are relatively muted in the UK, Germany and France, although French supporters of the Republicans (49%) are more likely than En Marche supporters (32%) to describe politicians as corrupt.
In focus groups, Americans and Britons both gave examples of politicians being corrupt
In focus groups conducted in both the U.S. and UK in the fall of 2019, when participants were asked about things that made them embarrassed to be American or British, national politicians often came up.
This was especially true in the UK, as it came up in discussions with groups comprised of both Conservative and Labour supporters as well as those who had voted leave” or remain” in the EU referendum. Some Britons cited expenses scandals” among members of Parliament (MPs) as reasons for why they were embarrassed about politicians. One 33-year-old woman in Edinburgh said that all MPs are pocketing everyone else’s money.”
In the U.S., discussion of corruption among politicians was related to the notion that politicians can be bought” by corporations through the lobbying process. In Seattle, participants discussed how they were ashamed of corruption in America, with one participant saying that it seems like politics are being bought and sold” due to lobbyists and the special interest groups and all that kind of thing.”
Attitudes about politicians being corrupt or not have not changed significantly in any of the four countries surveyed since the question was last asked in 2018.
Younger people in the UK, France and U.S. are more likely to say most politicians are corrupt. The difference is largest in the UK, where 61% of people ages 18 to 29 say that politicians are corrupt, compared with only one-third of people 65 and older, a 28 percentage point difference.
Respondents in the lowest income group in Germany, the UK and France are more likely to say politicians are corrupt than those in the highest income group in these countries. However, about two-thirds of Americans of all income groups express this view.
Publics largely split on whether ordinary people can do a lot to influence the government
When asked about how much impact ordinary citizens can have on politics, these four publics are somewhat divided. Germans and Americans lean slightly toward the view that ordinary people can do a lot to influence the government,” while the British and French publics are more closely divided. In France, about one-quarter (24%) say that the statement describes their country not well at all,” while one-in-five say the same in the U.S. and UK.
In each country surveyed, those who say that they personally have a good chance to improve their standard of living are more likely to say that ordinary people can influence the government.
Only in the U.S. does partisanship play a role in shaping this belief: 58% of Democrats think that ordinary citizens can influence the government, compared with 46% of Republicans.
Citizen assemblies popular, especially among those who want major change to the political system
In all four countries, there is considerable support for the creation of citizen assemblies where citizens debate issues and make recommendations about national laws. Citizen assemblies have become increasingly common in nations around the world in recent years and have been used, for example, in Ireland to decide such contentious issues as abortion and gay marriage.
Citizen assemblies have already been used nationally in France and the UK to debate environmental policy. The French Citizens’ Assembly on Climate, initially convened in October 2019 in response to the Yellow Vest Movement, concluded last year with the release of 149 proposals, though many remain to be implemented.
The country with the largest share of respondents who say such reforms are very or somewhat important is the United States, though about three-quarters or more in each country say it is important to create citizen assemblies. A plurality of Americans say it is very important for the national government to create citizen assemblies; only 21% say it is not too or not at all important.
There are significant ideological differences on the question of how important it is to create citizen assemblies. In France and the UK, those on the ideological left are significantly more likely than those on the right to say creating citizen assemblies is very important.
Respondents who say their country’s political system needs major changes or needs to be completely reformed are also warmer toward citizen assemblies than those who say it only needs minor changes or no changes at all. For example, 46% of French respondents who say France needs systemic political change say it is very important for the government to create citizen assemblies, while about three-in-ten who say the political system needs minor changes or no changes say creating citizen assemblies is very important.
In the UK, where citizen assemblies have been used to debate Scottish independence, Brexit and climate change policy, there are significant political differences on this question. For instance, 83% of Labour supporters think it is very or somewhat important for the government to create citizen assemblies, while 66% of Conservative supporters say the same. Those who identify as Remainers are also more likely than those who identify as Leavers to support citizen assemblies.
Majorities say it’s important for voters to decide key issues
In each of the four countries surveyed, majorities believe it is very or somewhat important for the national government to allow citizens to vote directly to decide what becomes law for some key issues rather than letting members of the legislature decide.
A plurality (42%) of Americans say it is very important to decide some key issues by referendum. Views on this question are linked to perceptions of political corruption: 45% of Americans who think most government officials are corrupt say it is very important for the national government to allow citizens to vote directly on key issues, compared with 35% of those who think the phrase most government officials are corrupt” does not describe the country well. There are similar divides in Germany and the UK.
While the ghosts of referendums past may influence British opinions on this question today, there are no significant differences between those in the UK who identify as Remainers and those who identify as Leavers. However, there are differences based on age. Nearly four-in-ten Britons ages 18 to 29 – some of whom were too young to vote in the Scottish independence and Brexit referendums – hold the view that it is very important for the national government to allow citizens to vote directly to decide what becomes law. This is a higher share than among those ages 30 to 49 (23%), 50 to 64 (27%) or 65 and older (24%).
In the U.S. and Germany, those with less education are especially likely to think it is very important for the national government to decide key issues by referendum. About one-quarter of Germans (24%) with a university education or higher hold that opinion, compared with 43% of those with a secondary education or less. A similar pattern appears in the U.S., with a 14 percentage point gap between those with a secondary education or less (48%) and those with a university degree or higher (34%).
Those with lower incomes are also significantly more likely than those with higher incomes to say it is very important to have referendums. In the U.S., this income gap is 24 points, with about half of lower-income Americans and about three-in-ten higher-income Americans holding that view. There are also significant income gaps of 21 points and 11 points in Germany and France, respectively.
In the three European countries, larger shares of those with favorable views of populist parties think it is very or somewhat important for their government to allow citizens to decide what becomes law for some key issues. This pattern transcends ideology, with more favorable views toward referendums among supporters of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) and Brexit Party (Reform UK) and the left-wing La France Insoumise.
In the U.S., the question about ideology asked respondents to place themselves on a spectrum from liberal to conservative while in Europe the question asked them to place themselves on a spectrum from left to right.
The 2017 survey was fielded March 6–April 1 and the first-round election took place April 23.
Because only 7% of Germans identify as Die Linke supporters and 3% as AfD supporters in an open-ended question asking which party people feel closest to, we are unable to examine change in opinion among Die Linke or AfD supporters. As a result, this analysis reflects the change among those who said they had a favorable view of each of these parties in 2017 and in 2020, respectively. We also use favorable views of National Rally and La France Insoumise in France and the Brexit Party (Reform UK) in the UK for our analyses for the same reason.
Because the Brexit vote about whether to leave the European Union took place in 2016, many people surveyed in 2020 who may have opinions about the issue may not have been eligible to vote. As a result, we have changed our question away from asking about how people voted and instead are asking: Thinking about Britain’s relationship with the European Union, do you think of yourself as a ‘Remainer,’ a ‘Leaver’ or do you not think of yourself in that way?”
In a major revelation in a case pertaining to the seizure of a huge quantity of narcotic drugs along with five AK-47 rifles and 9mm ammunition numbering 1,000 from Sri Lankan fishing boats, the NIA has stated that an accused had been involved in activities of proscribed terrorist organisation LTTE within India and abroad.
The accused had also plotted to procure prohibited arms and ammunition, besides contraband articles. The NIA filed the report in the Kerala High Court in response to the bail plea filed by Ramesh, a Sri Lankan native and eighth accused in the case, the Indian Express reported.
The Indian Coast Guard intercepted the boat, ‘Ravihansi’, near Minicoy Island, Lakshadweep, on March 18, 2021. There were no proper documents and six Sri Lankan nationals found on board were arrested by the Kochi sub zone of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on their arrival at Vizhinjam port in Thiruvananthapuram.
The Central government directed the NIA to take over the probe and later the seventh and his brother and eighth accused were taken into custody, allegedly for being members of the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Ramesh revealed that he had stayed in India without a visa violating the provisions of the Foreigners Act.
According to NIA, Ramesh and the other accused, including his brother being a core cadre of the LTTE, held secret meetings and conspired to carry out illegal activities of trafficking in drugs and also arms and ammunition with the intention of raising funds to revive and further the activities of the LTTE, both in India and Sri Lanka, They formed a terrorist gang and transferred money through hawala channels for the procurement of drugs, arms and ammunition.
A witness in the case also spoke of the drug and hawala business carried out by the brothers and specifically referred to Ramesh having collected hawala money from a person named Faseel Bhai. While dismissing Ramesh’s bail plea, the court noted that the statements of the witnesses show not only his inextricable connection with the illegal activities but also his definite link with LTTE, with full knowledge and complicity in the attempt to smuggle heroin, arms and ammunition in the boat, intercepted before its entry into the port.
Archbishop of Colombo Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith today requests President Ranil Wickremesinghe to investigate whether there was a political conspiracy behind the Easter Sunday terror attack.
He expressed these views while participating in the second phase of the distribution of the financial donation given to the victims of the Easter Sunday attack by His Holiness Pope Francis.
The second phase of distribution of the financial donation of 100,000 Euros made by the Pope Francis, for the welfare of the victims of the Easter Sunday terror attacks, was carried out today at St. Anthony’s Shrine in Kochchikade.
Speaking during the event, Cardinal Ranjith said that they will continue their struggle seeking justice for the victims of the Easter Sunday attacks and also urged the incumbent President to probe allegations of a political conspiracy behind the attacks.
Even though the Galle Face struggle has stopped, this struggle will continue. We will not give up,” he said.
He said that authorities must thoroughly investigate everything behind the Easter attack, including who carried it out, who aided and abetted, and who did not prevent it when it could have been prevented.
He said the current president should find out about these things as the report of the parliamentary selection committee appointed by him at the time says that there is a semblance of a political conspiracy behind it.
If so, this president is bound to analyze what the parliamentary committee appointed by the president said. Therefore, I request the president to please be honest about what the select committee you appointed said. Don’t hesitate to analyze.”
The Government of Sri Lanka has lifted the ban imposed on six international Tamil organisations.
This is through an Amendment to the List of Designated Persons under Regulation 4(7) of the United Nations Regulations No. 1 of 2012.
According to the Defence Ministry, a total of 577 persons and 18 entities were Listed under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.
Accordingly, 316 persons and 06 entities have been De Listed from the Designated List.
Entities De Listed from the Designated List:
01. Australian Tamil Congress (ATC) 02. Global Tamil Forum (GTF) 03. World Tamil Coordinating Committee (WTCC) 04. Tamil Eelam Peoples Assembly (TEPA) 05. Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC) 06. British Tamil Forum (BTF)
The List of Designated Persons published in the Gazette Extraordinary No. 1992/25 of November 9, 2016, is hereby amended.
To: Sima Sami Bahous, UN Women Executive Director, Åsa Regnér, UN Women Deputy Executive Director for Policy, Programme, Civil Society and Intergovernmental Support; Anita Bhatia, Deputy Executive Director for UN Coordination, Partnerships, Resources and Sustainability
Subject: UN Women’s MoU with BlackRock
Dear Ms Bahous, Ms Regnér, Ms Bhatia,
We write to you on behalf of the undersigned feminist organizations, networks, constituencies and individuals, all of whom are committed to ensuring that the United Nations delivers on international agreements on gender equality, SDG 5 and women’s human rights. We are dismayed to hear that on May 25th, 2022, UN Women announced that it signed a Memorandum of Understanding with BlackRock, Inc. to cooperate in promoting the growth of gender lens investing”. The declaration is dissonant, in view of BlackRock’s well-known record of prioritizing profits over human rights or environmental integrity, to a degree that meets precisely the Secretary-General’s characterisation of ‘morally bankrupt’ global finance institutions as being amongst the chief threats to human equality and planetary integrity. Gendered historical and structural inequalities ensure that women and people who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination are the ones who suffer the harshest consequences of the social, economic, ecological and political impact of the work of asset management firms that concentrate the world’s wealth into investments in fossil fuels, military and civilian weapons, and sovereign debt. In a time of climate, environmental, health, political and economic crises, a partnership with an entity that is actively undermining international commitments to advance sustainable development, is a serious aberration. It departs from the human rights principles of the UN, from the SDGs priorities of building equality, peace, and sustainable development, and from UN Women’s mandate to promote gender equality. Civil society watchdog groups consistently identify BlackRock as among the worst performers on corporate accountability. Its climate and socially-destructive investments — particularly significant in impact because of the massive component they represent of BlackRock’s portfolio — have been called out by activists, including Indigenous leaders. Aware of the optics, BlackRock has attempted to ‘greenwash’ itself by acknowledging the seriousness of 2 climate change – in a move that the New York Times has condemned as ‘climate hypocrisy’ that is intentionally misleading; worse than climate denial. The recently-announced partnership with UN Women suggests that UN Women has been recruited to BlackRock’s image-cleansing efforts – this time it is seeking to ‘pinkwash’ itself. It is hard to reach any other conclusion from the May 25 press release. A joint interest in ‘gender lens investment’ is offered to explain the partnership with no explanation of what this means, nor why BlackRock is the best interlocutor for this effort, nor whether it would require BlackRock to divest from the many industries it supports that exacerbate gender inequality (through, for instance, gendered job segregation and segmentation, gendered pay gaps, let alone gender-specific impacts of small arms proliferation and ecological destruction). If this is a ‘partnership’, it looks like it works in just one direction. It gives BlackRock a veneer of feminist approval that it clearly does not merit. Given BlackRock’s phenomenal size and influence (reportedly managing ten trillion USD) in assets, it is not unreasonable to assert that this UN Women partnership also gives a feminist imprimateur to the version of neoliberal global capitalism that is condemned by the SG. This crisis-prone speculation-based capitalism, spawning grotesque income inequalities, has also been linked to misogynistic neo-populism and entrenched poverty for many women, particularly those from ethnic or racial minorities, marginalized sexualities, and female-headed households. To substantiate our concerns, we list here just a few examples of BlackRock practices of extreme concern that directly contradict feminist social and economic change agendas: Fossil fuels In 2021, contradicting declarations that BlackRock would divest from fossil fuels (it is one of the world’s biggest investors in the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel companies), it put $85bn of assets managed into coal companies, including those seeking to identify and exploit new coal assets, breaching the decisive climate action required by the Paris Agreement. The Working Group III report, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released on 4 April 2022, highlighted the need for a dramatic shift away from fossil-fuels, gas and coal-based economies. Just one month later, UN Women’s partnership with BlackRock was announced, with no reference to BlackRock’s massive fossil fuel portfolio, nor of the differentiated impacts the environmental crises have on the human rights of women and other marginalized groups who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. In a wider manner, BlackRock also invests in projects that are harmful to environmental integrity as a whole. For instance, BlackRock is a major investor in deforestation projects, destroying the tropical rainforests to invest in palm oil plantations in Papua New Guinea, while human rights abuses have been documented in parallel. 3 External private debt BlackRock is the leading known holder of external private debt in the global South. In Zambia, it is the largest private bondholder, but it refused a request by Zambia to suspend debt payments in 2020 and has not offered to restructure the debt. BlackRock’s holdings of Zambia’s bonds were $220 million as of February 2022, over half of which were purchased during the high stress first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. It could make a 110% profit on this debt, if it is fully paid. Meanwhile, cuts planned by the government of Zambia in 2022–26 are equivalent to five times its annual health budget, putting women and other marginalized groups at risk as they depend on public health services and also form a large portion of frontline health workers. Private creditors such as Blackrock and Ashmore hold 47% of Sri Lanka’s debt via bonds that were issued post Sri Lanka’s civil war; the bondholder, Hamilton Reserve Bank, has sued Sri Lanka in the state of New York for the full payment of principal and interest, as it considers that the recent debt default has been orchestrated by the government. New York State’s legislature recently passed a bill to ensure that private creditors can’t use courts to get better settlements than bilateral government creditors. Blackrock is now part of a bondholder group that is negotiating a restructuring with the Sri Lankan government. Sri Lanka is currently in a severe crisis, with food shortages and fuel rationing, both of which impact women and girls disproportionately, with women and other marginalized groups experiencing job losses first. This takes place in a context where male household members’ food and health needs tend to be prioritized, while care and domestic work burdens increase. Labor rights BlackRock has voted against every single shareholder resolution relating to labor rights where it has shareholdings, including resolutions relating to corporate accountability for sexual harassment and closing the gender pay gap as well as against 47% of climate resolutions. In contrast, it has voted for every resolution that the Committee for Workers Capital (the global committee representing workers interests in pension funds), has advised voting against. BlackRock has investments where child labour has been exposed. Militarization Through its investment strategies, BlackRock is also a major supporter of the military industrial complex. It has major investments with civilian gun manufacturers such as Smith and Wesson and Sturm, Ruger, & Company (which produces the Ruger mini-semi automatic 14 rifle among other weapons). It has holdings in Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman (these are identified by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) as among the largest weapons sales companies globally), Axon (which produces tasers), and Elbit (which provides logistical support for weapons delivery). High level executives in BlackRock serve on the corporate boards of various military suppliers and vice versa. These investments build a gruesome connection 4 between BlackRock and wartime violence and displacement, which have severe and highly gendered consequences, as well as with civilian gun deaths and the militarization of the police. UN Women’s mandate includes a focus on building sustainable peace” and working to prevent armed conflicts, as well as a central concern with ending the global pandemic of violence against women, violence that is significantly amplified by small arms proliferation. For UN Women to partner with a corporation that is so extensively involved in profiting from militarism seems contradictory at best, and potentially highly damaging to its credibility in the Women Peace and Security arena. Moving forward: Rescind the BlackRock partnership, set standards for future private sector partnerships, involve feminist civil society in UN Women governance The partnership between BlackRock and UN Women presents serious and potentially irreparable risks to UN Women’s reputation. It gives UN Women the job of sanitizing the reputation of an asset management institution whose investments have contributed to some degree to climate catastrophe, the economic immiseration of women and other groups marginalized because of sexuality, gender, race, and class, and the proliferation of weapons and by association, the increased recourse to political violence in unstable politics. To see the world’s leading institution for the defense of women’s rights in league with an enabler of patriarchal dominance, violence, and ecological collapse, with not a word directed to critiquing or reforming BlackRock, could spell the end of UN Women’s credibility as a gender equality institution. We urge UN Women immediately to rescind and repudiate this partnership, to honor its mandate to promote the highest standards of human rights, gender equality, environmental integrity and the wellbeing of people, as outlined in the SDGs targets. We are aware that Member States are not fulfilling their financial commitments to fund the UN, or, even worse, orienting their contributions to serve narrow political purposes. This is a driver of the corporate capture of the UN, weakening its capacity to face the multilateral crises of our times. UN Women has made attempts in the past to partner with the private sector, with companies such as Uber or Coca Cola, with poor results. Other parts of the UN have been tempted to do the same; OHCHR for instance, made an agreement with Microsoft. These efforts have failed to deliver either for the UN or for the populations they ostensibly serve. In a larger manner, the trend of a corporate capture of the UN is largely seen in the Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda, which places priority on a networked multilateralism” with several multi-stakeholder proposals. Although more stakeholders participate in various processes, responsibility of governance and accountability to advancing the goals of the UN 5 must remain with Member States. While the UN welcomes private donors, their influence is carried to shape program priorities. Multistakeholderism and networked multilateralism assert duty bearers, rights holders, and corporate interests are all equal stakeholders and in doing so, obscures the power imbalances that exist among these groups. Corporations, unlike governments, are accountable to their shareholders with a view to increase profit. This, in many cases, is directly in conflict with the transformation needed to protect people and the planet. One example of this in Our Common Agenda is the proposal for a multistakeholder digital technology track in preparation for the 2023 Summit for the Future to agree on a Global Digital Compact to be informed by the existing High Level Panel of Experts on Digital Cooperation, co-chaired by Melinda Gates and Jack Ma – two members of the corporate sector that have conflicting interests with the public good. How can global corporations be trusted to recommend the strict regulation needed of digital technologies? The UN should not need to be reminded of its mandate by observers. Its governance systems should incorporate civil society leaders to help prevent these mistakes. For this reason, we recommend that feminist organizations should have formal seats in UN’s advisory groups and leadership (including to its Executive Board). It is essential and urgent that across the United Nations System, as entities turn to the private sector for funding and services, standards are set for transparency and accountability, based on human rights principles and aligned with the UN’s normative goals and standards. Moreover, all partnerships should be underpinned by an understanding of the UN as the primary duty bearer internationally, and Member States as duty bearers first and foremost. Any partner whose operations undermine human rights and planetary integrity is inherently in conflict with the interests and mission of the United Nations at large. In solidarity,
#Whispers
Abibinsroma Foundation
ACADHOSHA
ACTG
ActionAid France
ActionAid International
ActionAid Cambodia
Actionaid Senegal
ActionAid Tanzania
Adéquations
African Centre for Biodiversity
African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD)
African Women’s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET)
Agroecology Research Action Collective 6
Aid/Watch
Aidos
AIDS-Free World
Akina Mama wa Afrika
Alliance for Future Generations – Fiji
Almena Cooperativa Feminista,SCCL
AMECE
American Jewish World Service
Amigos da Terra Brasil /Friends of the Earth Brazil
ANND
Asia Development Alliance
Asia Indigenous Women’s Network
Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy
Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD)
Asia Pacific Women’s Watch (APWW)
Asociacion Ciudadana por los Derechos Humanos
ASOCIACIÓN SALUD Y FAMILIA
Associació de Drets Sexuals i Reproductius
Association Equality – Wardah Boutros
Association for Middle East Women’s Studies (AMEWS)
Association For Promotion Sustainable Development
Association Jeunes Agriculteurs (AJA)
Association of Women of Southern Europe AFEM
Association pour la Conservation et la Protection des Ecosystèmes des Lacs et l”Agriculture Durable
Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance
Avtonomi Akadimia
AWID (Association for Women’s Rights in Development)
Bangladesh Indigenous Women’s Network
Bangladesh Nari Progati Sangha (BNPS)
Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad
Barguna nari Jagoran kormochuchi JAGO NARI
Beautiful Hearts Against Sexual Violence NGO
Beijing-SDG 5 Facilitating Group
Beyond Beijing Committee Nepal
BIMBA Inc.
Biowatch South Africa
Biswas Nepal
Black Sea Women’s Club
Bootblack
Bretton Woods Project
Campaign of Campaigns 7
Canadian Voice of Women for Peace
CCFD-Terre Solidaire
Centre des Dames Mouride (CDM)
Center for Advancement of Public Policy
Center for Climate Change & Sustainable Development (3CSD)
Center for Legislative Development
Center for Women’s Global Leadership
CENWOR – Centre for Women’s Research
Chirapaq, Center of Inidgenous Cultures of Peru and Continental Network of Indigenous Women of the Americas- ECMIA
CHOICE for Youth and Sexuality
CIEDUR
Civil Society FfD Group
Civil Society SDGs Campaign GCAP Zambia
Climate Families NYC
CLRA
CNCD-11.11.11
Citizen News Service (CNS)
Coastal Development Partnership
Comité de América Latina y el Caribe para la Defensa de los Derechos de las Mujeres CLADEM
COMMUNITY AND FAMILY AID FOUNDATION-GHANA
Community Development Services (CDS)
Community Initiatives for Development in Pakistan
Confédération paysanne
Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd
Consumidores Conscientes
Coordinadora de la Mujer
Corporate Europe Observatory
CREA
Creación Positiva
CSO Youth FfD Constituency
Cultivate!
Czech Social Watch Coalition
Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN)
Debt Justice Norway
Debt Justice UK
DECA, EQUIPO PUEBLO, AC
Dhaatri Trust
Diálogo 2000-Jubileo Sur Argentina
Diverse Voices and Action (DIVA) for Equality
Dones No Estàndards 8
Eategrity
Ecojustice Ireland Community Interest Company
Ekumenická akademie (Ecumenical Academy)
Ekvilib Institute
Elige Red de Jóvenes por los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos, A. C.
EMPOWER INDIA
ENABLE THE DISABLE ACTION, EDA DPO
EnGen Collaborative
Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria
Equidad de Género: Ciudadanía, Trabajo y Familia
ERA – LGBTI Equal Rights Association for Western Balkans and Turkey
Eurodad – European Network on Debt and Development
EXTINCTION REBELLION CAMEROON (XR CAMEROON)
Feminist Dalit Organization
Feministas en Holanda
FIAN International
FIAN Belgium
FIAN Germany
FIAN Switzerland
Financial Transparency Coalition
Focus Association for Sustainable Development
Focus on the Global South
Fokupers (Forum Komunikasaun ba Feto Timor Lorosa’e)
FOKUS – Forum for Women and Development
Fondation Eboko
Food Sovereignty Alliance, India
FORO DE MUJERES POR LA IGUALDAD DE OPORTUNIDADES
Forum for Equitable Development
Fós Feminista
Franciscans International
Fresh Eyes
Friends of the Earth Africa
Friends of The Earth Australia
Friends of the Earth International
Friends of the Earth US
FUNDACIÓ ASSISTÈNCIA I GESTIÓ INTEGRAL
Fundacion Arcoiris por el respeto a la diversidad sexual
Fundacion para Estudio e investigacion de la Mujer
Fundeps
GABRIELA
Gender and Development in Practice (GADIP)
GCAP Italia 9
Gender Action
Gender and Development for Cambodia
Gender and Development Network (GADN)
Gender at Work
GenderCC SA
GESTOS
Global Alliance for Tax Justice
Global Alliance for Tax Justice, Tax and Gender Working Group
Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP)
Global Forest Coalition
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Global Justice Now
GLOBAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
Global Migration and Health Initiative
Global Network of Sex Work Projects
Global Social Justice
Global Women’s Institute
Good Citizenry
Good Health Community Programmes
Gramya Resource Centre for Women
Grassroots Global Justice Alliance
Green Advocates International (Liberia)
GroundWork Trust
Haki Nawiri Afrika
Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers
Halley Movement Coaliion
Health and Environment Justice Support (HEJSupport)
Heñói – Centro de Estudios y Promoción de la Democracia, los Derechos Humanos yla Sostenibilidad Socio-ambiental
Himalayan Community Resource Development Center
Hope for Kenya Slum Adolescents Initiative
Housing and Land Rights Network – Habitat International Coalition (HIC-HLRN)
Human Rights Focus Pakistan (HRFP)
IBON International
ICW-CIF
ILGA Asia
ILGA World
Indian Christian Women’s Movement
Indian Confederation of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples North East Zone (ICITP-NEZ)
Indigenous Environmental Network
Indigenous Women Empowerment Network 10
Indigenous Women’s Network of Thailand (IWNT)
Indigenous Youth Exchange Africa
Iniciativas para la Mujer Oaxaqueña
Initiative for Right View (IRV)
Institut Vinetum so.p.Etri group
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Institute for International Women’s Rights Manitoba
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Regional (ICTER)
Integrated Social Development Effort (ISDE) Bangladesh
International Accountability Project
International Federation of Business and Professional Women
International IPMSDL
International Service for Human Rights
International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific
Ipas Ethiopia
Ipas
IPPF
IWDA
JPIC KALIMANTAN
Justiça Ambiental – JA!
Justice Institute Guyana
Keepers of the Circle
Khpal Kore Organization
Kolektiv Z
Kopila-Nepal
KOTHOWAIN (Vulnerable Peoples Development Organization) Bandarban Hill Tract, BANGLADESH
KULU-Women and Development (KULU)
L’ Associacio de Drets Sexuals i Reproductius
Ladlad Caraga Inc
Landless Peoples Movement SA
LASNET (Latino American Solidarity Network)
LATINDADD
La Via Campesina
Les Amis de la Terre Togo
Let’s Do It Kenya
Like Mountains
Lithuanian NGDO Platform
Lumiere Synergie pour le Developpement
Ma’al Center for Consultations,Training and Human Development
Madhira Institute
MAELA México 11
Main_Network
Major Group for Children and Youth
MAKAAM
Marie-Schlei-Verein e. V.
Mazingira Institute
Mecanismo Sicuedad Civil CEPAL
MenEngage Global Alliance
MY World Mexico
MYSU- Mujer y Salud en Uruguay
Nagorik Uddyog
National Campaign for Sustainable Development Nepal
National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights
National Council of Women of Canada
National Indigenous Women Forum
Nawi Collective
NeverEndingFood Permaculture
New Hope For The Poor
Fiji Women Rights Movement (FWRM)
NGO Forum on ADB
Nigerian Women Agro Allied Farmers Association
North-East Affected Area Development Society (NEADS)
EnrDHadas – Tejiendo feminismos por el Mundo
observatorio universitario de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional del estado de guanajuato (OUSANEG)
Action for youth development uganda
Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum
Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee (PKRC)
Pariwartankhabar.com
Paropakar Primary Health Care Centre PPUK
Participatory Research & Action Network- PRAAN
People’s Health Movement
People’s Health Movement-Canada
People’s Working Group on Multistakeholderism
Persons Against Non-State Torture
Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (PANAP)
Pesticide Action Network International
Pesticide Action Network North America
PHM Kenya
PILUPU
Plataforma Bolivia Libre de Transgenicos
PROGRESS
Project Organising Development Education and Research 12
Public Services International
RAÍCES, Análisis de Género para el Desarrollo
Raise Your Voice Saint Lucia Inc
Rapad Maroc
Reacción Climática
Red por los derechos sexuales y reproductivos en México
ReFocus Consulting
Regions Refocus
REMAC
RITES Forum
RUIDO Photo
Rural Area Development Programme (RADP)
RURAL WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION ALGA”
SACBTA
SAFIGI Outreach Foundation (Safety First for Girls)
Sanklapa Darchula Nepal (Sankalpa)
SCIAF
SEDRA-FPFE
Shirkat Gah – Women’s Resource Centre
Siempre ong
SILAKA CAMBODIA
Sisters of Charity Federation
Social Watch
Society for International Development
Solidarité des Femmes pour le Développement intégral (SOFEDI)
Solution Research Point
Soroptimist International
South Asia Forum for Human Rights
South Feminist Futures
Stop the Bleeding Campaign
SUHODE Foundation
SUKAAR WELFARE ORGANIZATION
Sustainable Development Council
Tamazight Women’s Movement
Tanggol Bayi
Tax Justice Network Africa
Temple of Understanding
The European Women’s Lobby
The New Environmental Justice Solutions
The Scottish Womens Convention
Third World Network
TORANG TRUST 13
Transnational Institute
Trócaire
Turkish Council of Women
UBINIG (Policy Research for Development Alternative)
UFAP
University of Sindh
UnPoison
Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights
Vereda Themis
Vienna Institute for International Dialogue and Cooperation (VIDC)
Wada Na Todo Abhiyan
War Resisters League
Water Justice and Gender
WECF International
WEDO
Wemos
WIDE Austria – Network for Women´s Rights and Feminist Perspectives in Development
WIDE+ (Women In Development Europe+)
Witness Radio
Womankind Worldwide
Women and Gender Constituency of the UNFCCC
Women and Law in Southern Africa
Women and Modern World Social Charitable Center
Women committee in general federation of Jordanian trade unions
Women Deliver
Women for Women’s Human Rights – New Ways
Women with Disabilities Development Foundation (WDDF)
Women Working Group (WWG)
Women’s Budget Group
Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN)
Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR)
Women’s Health and Equal Rights Initiative
Women’s Health in Women’s Hands CHC
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
Women’s International Peace Centre
Women’s Leadership and Training Programme
Women’s Major Group on Sustainable Development
Women’s Rights Caucus (WRC)
Women’s Support and Information Centre NPO
Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development
Women’s Intercultural Network 14
Women´s Major Group UNEA-UNEP
Women’s Intercultural Network
WOMENVAI
WoMin African Alliance
World Economy, Ecology and Development – WEED
WO=MEN
WREPA
Y+ Global
Young Feminist Europe
Young Peace Builders – YPB
Youth and Women for Opportunities Uganda
Youth Coalition for Sexual and Reproductive Rights Individuals:
Import Substitution does not ring a bell with the IMF, The talk today is to privatize. However what we need today in order to tackle the economic meltdown is import substitution. My mind travels to an older Paper of mine which offers the solution to provide the production that we need which we earlier imported which we cannot get now due to the dearth of dollars and also in that process find employment and incomes to the people.
Colombo, August 12 (Counterpoint): The geopolitical controversy over Sri Lanka’s granting permission to the Chinese survey and tracking vessel YuanWag 5 at the Hambantota port from August 11 to 17, has blown over with India and the US finally taking an accommodative stance.
The vessel, which was in the vicinity of the Hambantota port in South Sri Lanka, is likely to dock soon.
India had delivered a demarche to the Sri Lankan government expressing its objections to the docking of the vessel on the grounds that it could spy on vital Indian installations in South India. But on Friday, India’s External Affairs Ministry categorically rejected insinuations that it had mounted pressure on Sri Lanka regarding the said vessel. Speaking during the weekly media briefing held by the Ministry, Spokesperson Arindam Bagchi emphasized that Sri Lanka is a sovereign nation, which can make its own independent decisions.”
According to www.timesonline.lk the Sri Lankan government had sought from the Indian High Commission and the US embassy, concrete reasons” for objecting to the docking of the vessel. When they could not give such reasons, the Lankan government decided to grant permission to the vessel to berth at the harbor.
Earlier, due to the concerns raised by the Indian and US embassies, the Lankan Foreign Ministry had asked the Chinese Ambassador to defer” the arrival of the vessel to give time for consultations”.
The Chinese came back to say that the demand for deferment was unacceptable as the vessel was on a perfectly legitimate scientific mission and was wanting to docking at the port only for replenishment. China suggested that Sri Lanka was being pressured to deny permission by a third party” in violation of Sri Lankan sovereignty. The objection was senseless”, China said in a communique released in Beijing.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs thinks that Sri Lanka is a transport hub in the Indian ocean. Many scientific exploration ships including those from China have stopped at the ports of Sri Lanka for resupplies. China has always exercised freedom of navigation in the high seas and fully respects the jurisdiction of coastal states in respect of scientific exploration activities within their jurisdictional waters.”
Sri Lanka is a sovereign state. It can develop relations with other countries, in light of its own development interest. Cooperation between Sri Lanka and China are independently chosen by the two countries based on common interests. It doesn’t target a third party. Citing security concerns is senseless, to pressure Sri Lanka.”
China urges the relevant parties to see China’s scientific exploration in a reasonable and sensible way and stop disturbing normal exchange of cooperation between China and Sri Lanka,” the communique said.
India’s grievance was that Sri Lanka had not kept it informed about the arrival of the vessel. India and Sri Lanka are part of an institution called Security and Growth for All in the Region” or SAGAR, that is meant to build an inclusive and cooperative approach to regional security. India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives are part of a scheme to keep track of movements in the Indian Ocean Region under the rubric of Maritime Domain Awareness”. Sri Lanka ought to have informed India about the permission given to the vessel to dock in Hambantota, but it did not. India came to know about it independently. Hence the demarche.
Sri Lanka’s reasoning that the vessel is on a harmless scientific mission and not on an intelligence-gathering mission did not convince New Delhi and Washington. Colombo was felt constrained to ask China to defer the arrival of the vessel to allow time for consultations.
China’s subsequent rejection of the objections put Colombo in a fix. It needed India’s financial support to tide over the economic crisis. India had already loaned US$ 3.8 billion. On the other hand, Colombo could also not alienate China, which had to cooperate to enable Sri Lanka to get an IMF bailout. The West, Japan and the IMF, had all said that China would have to take a haircut” like Sri Lanka’s other creditors so that a collective loan repayment schedule could be worked out. In other words, Sri Lanka could not alienate any of the parties involved in the Sri Lankan imbroglio.
However, none of the parties wanted Sri Lanka to sink. Therefore, a compromise was worked out so that the vessel could dock. Since the Sri Lanka navy is in charge of security in Hambantota port (though a Chinese company had taken it on a 99-year lease), Lankan naval officers could board the ship at any time they want.
President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is working under tremendous pressure to shore up the ailing economy amidst stiff political opposition, would have heaved a sigh of relief that the imbroglio over the ship finally turned out to be a storm in a teacup.
Sri Lanka’s death toll from Covid-19 climbed to 16,619 today after the Director General of Health Services confirmed 09 more Covid-19 related deaths in the country for yesterday (Aug 12).
According to the Govt. Information Department, all five victims were aged 60 years and above. Three were males and the remaining two were females.
Meanwhile, another 181 new Covid-19 infections have been identified in the country today (Aug. 13).
This brings the total number of Covid-19 cases detected in the country thus far to 667,916.
On 12 August 2022 the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China had informed the Foreign Affairs via Diplomatic Note that the Vessel YUAN WANG 5 was scheduled to arrive in the port of Hambantota on 16 August, 2022 and applied for clearance for replenishment purposes for the new dates 16 to 22 August, 2022.
Having considered all material in place, on 13 August, 2022 the clearance to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China was conveyed for the deferred arrival of the vessel from 16-22 August, 2022 by the Foreign Affairs.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated the following regarding the Chinese vessel YUAN WANG 5.
Full statement;
On 28 June, 2022, the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Colombo informed the Ministry via Diplomatic Note that the Chinese Scientific Research Ship YUAN WANG 5 is scheduled to pay a port call at the port of Hambantota from 11-17 August, 2022 for replenishment purposes.
While no rotation of personnel were to take place during the call, the Government of Sri Lanka was requested to provide necessary assistance and positive consideration to the request by the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China.
The Ministry, as per accepted practice related to such requests for ‘diplomatic clearance’, circulated the said request among relevant stakeholders in Government for approval – the Ministry of Defence, the Sri Lanka Navy and the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka(TRCSL).
Following receipt on 7 July, 2022 of security clearance from the Ministry of Defence for the visit of the vessel for replenishment purposes during the stipulated period, as well as a No Objection Letter from the TRCSL for the use of frequencies and communication equipment subject to noninterference and non-protection basis, diplomatic clearance was conveyed to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China by the Ministry on 12 July, 2022 for the said vessel to make a port call at the port of Hambantota for replenishment purposes. The following conditions highlighted by the Ministry of Defence were also stated – keeping the Automatic Identification System (AIS) switched on within the EEZ of Sri Lanka and no scientific research to be conducted in Sri Lankan waters.
Subsequently, in light of certain concerns raised with the Ministry, the Government of Sri Lanka requested the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, by Diplomatic Note dated 05 August 2022, to defer the visit of the vessel to Hambantota port until the conduct of further consultations on the matter.
The Government has since engaged in extensive consultations at a high level through diplomatic channels with all parties concerned, with a view to resolving the matter in a spirit of friendship, mutual trust and constructive dialogue, taking into account the interests of all parties concerned, and in line with the principle of sovereign equality of states. In light of concerns raised, the Ministry also sought further information and material that could assist in consultations on the matter.
On 12 August 2022 the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China informed the Ministry via Diplomatic Note that the Vessel YUAN WANG 5 was scheduled to arrive in the port of Hambantota on 16 August, 2022 and applied for clearance for replenishment purposes for the new dates 16 to 22 August, 2022.
Having considered all material in place, on 13 August, 2022 the clearance to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China was conveyed for the deferred arrival of the vessel from 16-22 August, 2022.
The Ministry wishes to reiterate Sri Lanka’s policy of cooperation and friendship with all countries. Security and cooperation in the neighbourhood is of utmost priority.
It is Sri Lanka ;intention to safeguard the legitimate interests of all countries, in keeping with its international;obligations. The Ministry is deeply appreciative of the support, solidarity and understanding of all countries, especially in the current juncture when the country is in the process of addressing severe ;economic challenges and engaging in multiple domestic processes to ensure the welfare of the Sri ;Lankan people.
Justice and Prison Reforms Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe says that he will work with any group willing to support the formation of an all-party government.
He stated that today (13) while speaking to the media in Kandy.
The minister further said that if it is not possible to gather all the political parties representing the parliament, obtaining the support of a majority of parties is the next best option.
The minister also said that there is no connection between the formation of an all-party government and the introduction of a new constitution.
He recalled how the idea of an all-party government was presented in the first week of April to solve the country’s problems, and the minister noted that the problems in the country got worse due to the political groups not being able to reach a consensus on the formation of an all-party government.
The Minister of Justice also said that the government is still hoping to form an all-party government under the leadership of President Ranil Wickremesinghe.
Yuan Wang 5’s docking was delayed after India cited security concerns, but New Delhi and Washington “failed to give concrete reasons” for why they opposed its arrival, Colombo said.
New Delhi: Sri Lanka on Friday, August 12, granted permission for the high-tech Chinese tracking vessel Yuan Wang 5 to dock at the Hambantota Port after India and US failed to give concrete reasons” for why they opposed its arrival, according to local media reports.
According to the Sri Lankan newspaper Sunday Times, the ship will dock at the Hambantota International Port on August 16, five days later than originally scheduled. Sri Lanka had asked the docking to be deferred after India raised strong concerns citing national security.
The report says Colombo requested China to defer the visit until further consultations” were held on the matter. The vessel abruptly changed track earlier this week. However, it is now heading towards Hambantota again,” it added.
US Ambassador Julie Chung also raised concerns about the ship in a meeting with President Ranil Wickremesinghe on Monday.
The Sri Lankan government asked India and the US to explain their opposition to the ship docking but neither party offered concrete reasons” and the government granted the go-ahead, according to the Sunday Times.
Foreign security analysts describe the Yuan Wang 5 as one of China’s latest generation space-tracking ships, used to monitor satellite, rocket and intercontinental ballistic missile launches. The Pentagon says Yuan Wang ships are operated by the Strategic Support Force of the People’s Liberation Army.
While China on August 8 slammed India for its completely unjustified” citing of security concerns” to pressure Colombo and grossly interfere” in its internal affairs. We urge the relevant parties to see China’s marine scientific research activities in a rational light and stop disrupting normal exchange and cooperation between China and Sri Lanka,” a Chinese foreign ministry official said.
On Friday, India rejected China’s allegation that Colombo was pressured by New Delhi to delay the docking. Sri Lanka is a sovereign country and makes its own independent decisions,” the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson said.
On July 12, amidst the political turmoil in Sri Lanka, the previous government approved the Chinese vessel’s docking at the Hambantota Port.
The Chinese vessel was expected to dock at the Sri Lankan port for refuelling and replenishment’ and to conduct satellite control and research tracking in the northwestern part of the Indian Ocean region through August and September.
The southern deep-sea port of Hambantota is considered strategically important for its location. The port, located in the hometown of the Rajapaksa family, has been developed largely with Chinese loans.
The ties between India and Sri Lanka came under strain after Colombo gave permission to a Chinese nuclear-powered submarine to dock in one of its ports in 2014.
In 2017, Colombo leased the Hambantota port to China Merchant Port Holdings for 99 years, after Sri Lanka was unable to keep its loan repayment commitments, fanning fears in India over the potential use of the port for military purposes.
China is the main creditor of Sri Lanka with investment in infrastructure. Debt restructuring of Chinese loans would be key to the island’s success in the ongoing talks with the International Monetary Fund for a bailout.
India, on the other hand, has been Sri Lanka’s lifeline in the ongoing economic crisis. It has been at the forefront of extending economic assistance of nearly $4 billion to Sri Lanka during the year as the island nation is grappling with the worst economic crisis since independence in 1948.
There are some people who sit on cushy taxpayer paid platforms & promote privatization while others also mandated to function as a government body accepts foreign funds compromising their ‘advice’ to the state. If entities are not working for the state, do the tax payers require to pay for them? Are these entities not better off being privatized first?
The Central Bank of Sri Lanka was established in 1950 as a semi-autonomous body & is governed by a 5 member Monetary Board. CBSL is the sole authority allowed to print currency (notes & coins) CBSL is the economic advisor and Banker of the Government of Sri Lanka.
Though CBSL was created after independence its first governor was a Britisher (John Exeter) who served from 1950-58. N U Jayawardena became the 1st Sri Lankan Governor in 1958. Ironically the 13thGovernor was also a foreigner by virtue of his passport and not being a dual citizen (A Mahendran)
The two main objectives of the CBSL is to maintain financial system stability & to maintain economic price stability.
The CBSL is a body staffed with over 2000 – all paid by the Sri Lankan taxpayer. Their salaries and remunerations far exceed that of normal public sector.
When international bodies infer local bodies have to be ‘independent’ they actually mean independent of the govt but dependent on these international bodies. This is the same format used when they refer & demand ‘independence’ for other local bodies.
Why are CBSL top management protecting their seats & disallowing room for inclusion of new private sector professionals (at least middle management) to pool in their ideas for the country?
Leaving aside what the international bodies demand – how far are the local entities like CBSL independent of influence by these international bodies. In other words do they listen to the dictates of the international bodies or do they function in the interest of those from whom they are given their salaries & perks?
If a local body paid by locals is more interested in pleasing the demands of external parties resulting in the demands of the external parties prevailing but given the notion that it is for local interest, do we need to have the taxpayer pay for such hypocritic advice? We may as well privatize this function as well – if the solutions being offered are not in the interest of the country. Why should locals have to pay for such?
Next we move on to another state entity – the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) is supposed to be the premier economic think tank in Sri Lanka established by an Act of Parliament in 1988.
How far is the IPS ‘independent’ if since inception it has been collaborating with the Dutch govt?
IPS Chairman is a member of many foreign neoliberal think tanks funded by foreign governments to advance economic policies advantageous to them. How does that make IPS ‘independent’. The chairman was Senior Advisor to late Mangala Samaraweera in 2017 and was promoting the sale of state enterprises & proposing deceitful strategies to justify its sale.
This IPS Chairman proposed privatization of public utilities by first replacing Board members of the Public Utilities Commission with ‘independent’ directors implying foreign ones or locals doing the dirty work of the foreign parties.
How much of their ‘research’ is independent or funded by foreign govts or think tanks to be advantageous for their decision making. If research is not in Sri Lanka’s interest does the tax payer need to pay for such?
IPS former Board members have been Indrajit Coomaraswamy who proposed to take $12.5b international sovereign bonds as governor, Dr. Rajapathirana who was economic advisor to yahapalana President & was a member of the neoliberal think tank American Enterprise Institute, M Rafeek former secretary to Ministry of National Policies & Economic Affairs, S Mudalige DG National Planning Dept
Do we need a government think tank which is also funded by the Sri Lankan tax payer if they are collaborating with foreign think tanks & who funds IPS ‘endowment fund’?
How ‘autonomous’ is IPS when its donors are UK, US corporations, banks & equity funds like Bill Gates Foundation, or the govts of Norway, Canada, Netherlands?
IPS drafted VISION 2025 & organized the Sri Lanka Economic Forum in 2016 that invited George Soros the architect of ‘coloured revolutions’ to Sri Lanka. It was at this forum that Ricardo Hausmann of the Harvard Centre who had an office in the Yahapalana PM’s office & handled the land privatization Bill linked to the MCC Land project.
Do the tax payers need to fund govt created institutes that pretend to provide fiscal, agriculture & energy policy of Sri Lanka but are actually spying for external sources?
Why do we need to have a tax payer funded think tank if it is working in foreign interests. We may as well have them fund it openly & privatize this entity as well.
In the name of development Sri Lanka has seen enormous changes. How far development was not planned considering the environment is seen by many environment-related catastrophes across the island. The geopolitical position of Sri Lanka impacts every issue Sri Lanka faces be it local or international. The efforts to control Sri Lanka by any other means & the modus operandi used has to be considered by the government – policy advisors especially the general public. In such a scenario, when local NGOs function as lobbyists for foreign governments canvassing conferences to ‘privatize state enterprises’ it means more than their desire to offer a service to the public. This is why it is important to look at privatization from the perspective of the objective that being transfer of power, goods & services held with a government into the control of private parties (local & foreign). How will this impact geopolitical, internal politics, governance & the people’s sovereignty!
The term privatization cannot mean to simply hand over a state asset to the private sector ignoring the associated outcomes & who would shoulder accountability over them. This is often an issue ignored & sidelined. Ex: privatizing a state asset to a foreign investor who puts profits before people may consider layoffs – when large numbers of people become jobless & without a livelihood – does a government have the power or means to take up their welfare? What happens thereafter?
What is often untold is the ulterior motive behind the quest to privatize. The aim of privatization is to shift not only powers from public to private hands but shift public goods & services as well. The experiment with state-sovereignty appears to be slowly waning & with limited resources the preferred option appears to be to hand control of the limited resources to a limited group of people & away from public access. This ulterior motive is shrouded behind a well-funded campaign, no doubt with some truth that public sector is corrupt & full of waste. Other sugar-coated propaganda include: private sector is efficient & offers quality & greater customer satisfaction.
While part of that narrative is true, what is omitted is that it is the private sector that corrupts the public sector to create a notion that private sector is better than public sector.
Keep this thought in mind.
Globally governments have given management of public sector to private entities – electric utilities, prisons, railroads, telephones etc. Privatization is always on top of all economic agendas of developing nations & is a catalyst for international loans.
The initial euphoria over privatization has however waned and contrary to the quality & quantity service the private sector assured to provide, countries are seeing that what was affordable are becoming unaffordable to large segments of the population.
The crux of the issue is actually MANAGEMENT – thus whether it is private or public it does not matter, it is the MANAGEMENT of the resource that matters & if the resources are under Public, then the Govt must be made to manage it properly. Private sector are no magicians. Public sector can & should be able to provide a superior service without political interference & unnecessary bureaucracy. Removal of red-tape should not be to give private sector a carte blanche to do as they like.
When it comes to privatization private entities are unlikely to compromise profits for public interest. The takeaway is that simply transferring from public to private will not necessarily reduce the cost or enhance the quality of service.
Privatization or the sale of public assets to private owners, put simply is the cessation of government programs, contracting out services that was previously by state organizations. Private producers enter markets under public monopolies & private own the monopoly. While state apparatus can be publicly influenced – public have no control once state assets fall into private hands.
The other ignored fact is the need to consider fundamentals of privatization in the economy or its purpose.
In 1987 the Thatcher government sold British Airways, British Telecom & British Gas for $20b. What is the advantage to Britain today? UK’s privatization drive in the 1980s resulted in major social inequalities – creating a wider rich & poor gap.
Size also matters – privatization of entities with less employees as against privatization against entities that have large employees will definitely result in issues. What invariably happens is that when government workers begin to reduce, the power of the government also shrinks. When the government’s powers shrinks it subtly becomes irrelevant. This objective is aligned to the new emerging initiative of transferring national governance to corporate hands building the image that political framework is corrupt. Thus, we must view the present initiatives by local parties promoting privatization who are funded by foreign bodies using privatization as phase one of project to remove sovereign powers from the government to transnational companies. With companies interfering and corrupting governance & politicians for their deals, imagine the context when these very companies grab control of the assets?
Essentially simply transferring hands is not enough to make a difference. This is a key factor that people need to wake up to.
A few changes including non-interference by politicians together with monitoring mechanisms as well as remunerations based on targets are ways Public Sector can be motivated to do what privatization claims it can do.
Exactly who wants to transfer ownership, property, business from the government to the private sector & why? To whose advantage is this transfer & who benefits?
What happens when the Govt ceases to be the owner of the state entity & its operations?
Privatization creates wealth – but for whom? Is it the country or is it the parties that own it?
What entities should the govt open up to competition that benefits the market & consumer?
Privatization becomes profitable because the owners want profits. Why stops the public sector adopting same mentality?
Why can’t the govt channel excess staff to more profit-oriented ventures given the need to raise Sri Lanka’s revenue. Foreign investors can be transferred these access public staff who would have to work with new targets & challenges.
Contrary to what is commonly promoted – private sector is more corrupt than public sector. Their corruptions are less transparent. Not many wish to highlight the private monopolies that emerge. Who regulates the monopoly power? The Government eventually has to intervene but at what cost? Once in private hands, is there price control? Flour monopoly of Sri Lanka is a good example. The prices are never reduced even on humanitarian grounds.
Privatizing essential services means the public has to pay as a taxpayer & for service offered. Look at your phone bill – the add on’s are far more than the calls you make!
Profits of the privatized state entity will be shared with shareholders not reinvested for public. Every additional service has a price.
The most undebated fact is that private companies are not accountable to the people. Individuals may take a company to court – but what is the price he/she has to pay for lawyers while the corporate lawyers have ways and means to win.
Companies are not subject to Freedom of Information – all agreements cover their confidentiality. What companies promise the government behind closed doors for contracts is never disclosed. Look at the private schools – how many were human enough to consider the financial status of parents unable to afford school fees. Imagine if all schools were privatized – how many of the poor would have to give up schooling because their parents could not pay their fees. Transport is another sector, privatization of public transport means the private bus operators dictate the price and decide to ply or not if price hikes are refused. They can also cherry pick busy areas that provide bigger profits & reduce areas where profits are few. In such a scenario where does that leave the general public?
Private monopolies are worse than state monopolies in particular when all essentials fall under private control. The power as a citizen is rarely democratically available. This is an area that people must give thought to prior to parroting privatization simply because of their anger with politicians.
While people can hold a government accountable, the same cannot be said of multiple private companies foreign & local who are tasked to deliver public services. In such a scenario it creates a fragmented system where people end up having to ‘grin & bear’ what they had opted for.
The ethics of private companies can also be factored in via the manner outsourcing contract companies demand huge amounts for any changes or improvements requested by the government. These extras are all piled on the public. Lands that are privatized often end up exclusive zones out of bounds for public. This with time limits the freedom that public have to move in their own land of birth. Let us also not forget how failed private companies end up footing the bill on the public to get back on its feet.
These are some areas that people need to consider without getting caught to the bandwagon that are paid by their foreign funding bodies to promote privatization of Sri Lanka.
‘Human Rights’ mercenaries are those who unceasingly vilify the ethnic majority until almost the last pound of flesh is extracted, and are constantly promoting the anti-majoritarian propaganda rhetoric of Multi-Culturalism, Secularism, Reconciliation, and whatnot, and now the Division of the country on Ethnic and Religious lines.
The greatest victory in recent times was achieved by the Security Forces on the battlefield after a huge sacrifice of life and limb by the heroic soldiers. About 30, 000 personnel from the security forces perished.
It must be noted that when the Allies beat Germany and Japan in 1945, they (the allies) engaged in a full-scale de – Nazification programme and established War Crimes Tribunals to try the leaders of the two defeated countries.
In Sri Lanka, the reverse happened. The winner was placed in the dock for alleged war crimes while the defeated Terrorists, with blood-stained hands for ruthlessly killing innocent civilians in several incidents of mass murder, were hailed as liberators and victims by the international community.
When the Western colonial countries started invading countries outside Europe they found that the greatest resistance to their plans for conquest came from people who they described as savages, for example, the ethnic majority i.e. Sinhala Buddhists, Hindus (in INDIA), Burmese in Burma, Malays in Indonesia, etc.
In order to overcome the stiff resistance from the locals, they used propaganda both from outside and assistance from within i.e., local collaborators.
An Englishman calls the Sinhalese ‘ a very highly civilized race ‘
Sinhala Buddhists are one of the most demonized ethnic groups in South Asia, despite their tolerance of other races and religions.
The following is an account written by an Englishman named Campbell in 1932, on his trip to Australia from Ceylon, accompanying a group of about 500 (largely Sinhalese), on the ship SS Devonshire, in 1882:
” The Cingalese were a very highly civilised race…. They have deep pride of the Island’s historical and spiritual continuity. They burn with enthusiasm in their religious devotion and live up to it.. they are a race of primitive simplicity, know no malice, are hospitable, peaceful and cheerful minded. The rich Cingalese in Ceylon can say as Job said I was eyes to the blind and feet was I to the lame; I was father to the poor, and the cause which I knew not I searched out
Every traveller to Ceylon cannot help but notice the friendliness of the natives; everything looks clean and bright as if to show off before strangers that they felt it was good to be alive…They have left their footsteps in sands of time over a century as loyal British subjects.
Over 50 years ago, the hymn from Greenland’s icy mountains was composed by Bishop Heber, the suffragan bishop of Madras, India, after paying a short visit to Colombo. The hymn contains the two following lines: ”Where every prospect pleaseth, but only man is vile” As a matter of fact, the native of Ceylon was never vile” to any one, in any way. It is a subject on which extreme exaggerations have prevailed. It is an obvious criticism that if they were as bad as some writers imagined they never could have subsisted if this view of their human nature had been a just one. Ceylon would have been like a cage full of wild beasts, and the inhabitants would have soon perished in constant internecine war.
Vile” was in the spirit of poetry” in rhythm with Isle” but lacked the spirit of truth and piety”. Evangelists use the hymn in their so-called missionary services and Sunday Schools composed of white people in the fervent hope it will give nourishment to the spiritual life of those who sing it and enlarge the collection of the Almighty Dollar”.
According to the most recent statistics there are no fewer than 187 sects of Christians, and they all more or less, bear very strange names. Some must flout the Bible in their numerous complex faiths. Some make a religious taboo of the Lord’s Supper, some of infant baptism, some of mixed marriages, and they are all antagonistic to each other theologically and overlap each other with churches, therefore the heathen in his blindness” is not safe getting into theological holts with their would-be saviours.”
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa made mistakes as President. However, he should not be treated like a Pariah. There are other opportunists riding the wave of discontentment, who should wear the hat of a Pariah before Gotabhaya.
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa made mistakes as the President of the country, and grave ones at that too. Some of his decisions were ill timed and ill informed. Some decisions he should have taken, were not taken. The country is witnessing the aftermath of these decisions and non-decisions.
However, he cannot be held solely responsible for the disastrous economic situation in the country. He did inherit a nation in debt and low GDP growth. His predecessors too are at fault for the economic policies they followed. One of them has now become a pontificator of good governance although he did not even offer an apology to the country and to the families of hundreds who died a preventable death, let alone taking responsibility for a major security lapse that he, as President and Defense minister, should have taken responsibility for. That President, along with the current President who was then the Prime Minister, presided over a decline in economic growth from around 7% to 2.7% during their tenure, and a rise in foreign debt from 70% of GDP, which itself was a very high figure, to 96% of GDP at the end of their tenure.
Many in Sri Lanka have now become experts in politics, economics, budget management, and you name it, virtually everything and anything. Mostly with the benefit of hindsight. Some of these expert voices were not heard when the country progressively hurtled down the path of unsustainable debt. There was no sign of an Aragalaya then, although the issues that were brought to the forefront by the various shades of Aragalaya, were there then, as they are there now.
Not many questioned the unaffordable availability of luxury consumables, all imported with borrowed money. Not many complained about the avalanche of vehicles imports. Not many seemed to mind the loss-making State enterprises like Sri Lankan Airlines and the Petroleum Corporation, as long as the planes flew, and subsidized fuel was provided in abundance. There weren’t many who voiced concern about the huge amounts spent to provide subsidized inorganic fertilizer. All these were funded with debt, foreign and local.
It is not one leader, whether in politics or business or academia, or in civic society, who failed the country. It was a collective failing on the part of many. It is the political system, the governance system, and the leaders it produced that failed the country.
In this context, it is unworthy of Sri Lanka to label Gotabhaya Rajapaksa as the sole villain who allowed the country to fall into the abyss it has fallen. While other contributors roam free, some, somewhat disgraced, others have risen as saviors.
In this context, it is a sad reflection on the part of Sri Lankans in particular the media, to provide headline grabbing news items portraying the former President as having nowhere to go. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa must come back to Sri Lanka and be afforded the security and facilities that an ex-President of the country is entitled to. If as alleged, he has committed other misdemeanors, whoever who is accusing him of such misdemeanors should take legal action and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa should face the court decisions. However, he is innocent until he is proven guilty, and it is an insult to Sri Lanka and all Sri Lankans if he cannot return to the country and be protected as a former President.
He should be afforded the opportunity to provide his own defense against accusations of misuse of power, mismanagement, and any other misdemeanors.
Many seem to have short memories. They have forgotten that the country is free of terrorism and a separatist war thanks to the contribution made by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to end terrorism and war. His task was a Military one, which he achieved. Others had the task of introducing peace and reconciliation, and they were not able to achieve that lasting peace amongst the communities.
There is no question that family politics and all the negatives that come with power drunkenness reached its zenith with the Rajapaksa political family. The people and the system allowed this to happen. It is time that all Sri Lankans questioned the political system that has prevailed since independence, and perhaps find answers to some questions and find the way forward.
1. Have the constitutions that the country has had so far, including the current one with its amendments, been beneficial to the country and its progress, economically and socially.
2. Economically, the country is nearly bankrupt with debt levels suffocating it, with income streams severely impacted due to COVID. Do the readers think this situation is only account of COVID? If not what else?
3. Socially, minority issues, especially aspirational issues, equality and equity, women’s rights, language issues, accountability issues, corruption, unethical conduct, etc., etc., still beset the country. Is it the constitution that is at fault or the politicians which the constitution produces?
4. In reality, while one can boast that people, through their representatives, decide on policies that successive governments have introduced, is this so or is it a fallacy? Except at the time of casting their votes, at what point till the next election do people participate in policy determination? Even during elections, do people really discuss, debate, and decide on policies contained in manifesto’s or are they purely looking for some immediate benefit from one side or another?
5. Do people have a choice in who is standing for elections from a political party?
6. Are political parties democratic and is there a people-oriented process to elect their leaders?
7. Does the system in place facilitate the effective participation of experts in economics, business, agriculture, health, education, fisheries, and other key areas of the economy in policy formulation, or is this process limited to a few yes” men and women who say what politicians wish to hear?
8. The cost of conducting elections is very high, with the last Presidential Election costing around Rs. 5 billion and the General Election around Rs. 10 billion. To this cost one has to add what candidates and their supporters spend on elections. The issue is not necessarily the overall cost, but whether there has been a justifiable return to the country on the investment made because of the elections, and whether the return has been more for the candidates and their sponsors.
9. Buddhism, as defined more and more by the Buddhist institution from cultural practices rather than by the doctrinal practices introduced by Buddha, has been given pride pf place in the constitutions while other religions have been more or less accommodated” in them. One should ask whether societal values, ethical behaviour on the part of the people as well as the elected leaders, and indeed on the part of some members of the Buddhist institution have progressed to towards the Buddha’s doctrinal teachings. The question to be asked is whether the State should be secular, and all religions treated equally, and their role limited essentially for spiritual practices as per their respective religions.
10.Finally, while there would be many more questions that are bound to posted, challenges to what has been stated here, the objective behind posing these questions is for one to contemplate whether, despite whatever achievements of the past, the coming generations will be served well in years to come with a constitution more or less in the same vein and only cosmetically changed, or whether it is time to think outside the box as it were, and consider a constitution that will produce better outcomes rather than what 70 years of independence has delivered to Sri Lankans, then and now.
The author posed these questions in an article titled Contours for a new constitution with a difference, for the future, not the past” (https://www.ft.lk/columns/Contours-for-a-new-constitution-with-a-difference-for-the-future-not-the-past/4-723830)
I read content in many publications that Sri Lanka has an economic crisis (2022) that is unimaginable to the government’s economic advisors what should do to get out of the problem. If the government economic advisors knew about this situation before 2022, why didn’t they educate the policymaking process of the country?
Sri Lanka had various economic plans and the most successful plan that contained the best policies was the Six Years Program of Investments (1954-1960) by the Planning Secretariat of the government of Mr Sir John Katalawela. This program was not implemented as a result of electing a socialist government in 1956 and I believe that the most successful development policy program was the plan, the Six Years Program of Investment. The main purpose of the program was economic diversification, import substitution and mobilization of domestic savings. The policy direction of the Six Year Program of Investment considered three main criteria when approving economic projects in the country.
Use of Human and National Resources. This policy direction was a broader expectation as the national resources of the country was limited and human resources had good control, the total population was less than 12 million and the government was in a situation to employ all members in the public and private sectors.
Considering the economic feasibility of a particular venture, which was a broader area
Policy design to help the private sector. The government had not developed policies for this purpose and the government would have been concerned about the behaviour of trade unions
The third criterion is designed to promote more private own economic entities to compose economic dynamism in the country.
What was the reason to ignore this investment program? Nobody can give a successful answer, but if this program had been implemented, Sri Lanka would have been promoted to a developed nation at the end of 1960 and my honest feeling is the program must reintroduce and economic recovery should achieve through this investment program.
The Six Years Program of Investments anticipated implementing the following effective additional policy actions to broaden the ownership of public and private investments.
Establishment of government-sponsored corporations under act 19 of 1955. In terms of this act, many public corporations have been established with low capital and they became white elephants by mismanagement.
The transfer of Government enterprises to the private sector in three stages (a) the government business undertakings will be transferred to the corporation with capital provided by the government. (b) the sale of government shares to private sectors and finally the government holds less than 20% of share capital (c) establishment of public companies under the company law act.
The vision of the Six Years Investment program focused on the privatization of economic activities management by giving stimulus for new private investments and selling more than 20% of shares in government business enterprises to the public. It could be called public offerings as implemented in the 1990 decade in Western countries.
The reintroduction of the Six Years Investment program requires to get economic recovery than conducting an unproductive ARAGALAYA.
It was probably two decades back, when a group of journalists and Guwahati-based patriots marched on a street of Guwahati to celebrate the Independence Day. As a number of separatist armed militant outfits imposed a general strike on the day (that was the way the ethnic insurgents made them visible in the public domain continuing their decades long armed struggle against New Delhi) the entire city wore a deserted look. Markets, business centers, private vehicles and even the roads were empty as the militants, through their media statements (which were published with special focus in the local morning newspapers), threatened the people not to join the observation.
The group raising a single national flag (Tri-colours were unavailable at that time in the market and even the people did not keep the flag in residences as it was then assumed as a volatile article to procure from any sources) marched from Ambari to the bank of historic Dighalipukhuri. A photojournalist took a snap of the march and it was then sent to a Delhi-based editor for use. The editor, who might have had no idea of the then trouble-torn northeast India, asked a strange question, why there was so little number of participants in the march.
In reality, the editor missed the valid point that the small group of people came to the street defying the diktat of armed militants, who were trying to run a parallel administration in the alienated region.
One may raise an intriguing question, were the editors of Assam sensitive and responsible enough. The newspapers (private news channels were yet to fully bloom in the region) in Guwahati probably were sensitive but not responsible. Prior to I-Day or Republic Day, as if the editor (or concerned reporters) were eagerly waiting for the statement from separatist militants boycotting the auspicious days. It always made newspaper headlines, but when the brave and patriotic citizens tried to raise voices against the militants’ diktat, the same editors behaved as unwanted items. So when the small group of patriots started observing the sacred days by hoisting & unfurling the Tri-colour, most of the editors either avoided the news or gave it an insignificant space.
The situation did not improve, even when the Assamese satellite news channels entered into the scenario after some years. Rather they started often misrepresenting and disrespecting the spirit. As usual, the news channels repeated the militant’s version ‘why celebration of I-Day and R-Day was useless’ prior to both the revered occasions. Many news channels later made it possible for some top militant leaders to address their audience ‘live’. The reporters, equipped with high resolution cameras, callously asked the students what were their programs on I-Day and R-Day (as those were simple holidays because of the militant’s imposed total shut down), but they did not simply remember that one Assamese young girl sacrificed her life for the same Tri-colour. The reporters (from both the print and electronic media) and their editors hardly formulate a simple question to those young people, had they not heard of Birbala Kanaklata!
For some times, it was a large number of outlawed militant outfits including United Liberation Front of Assam, National Democratic Front of Bodoland, Kamtapur Liberation Organisation, Manipur People’s Liberation Front, Kanglei Yaol Kanna Lup, Kangleipak Communist Party, People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak/Progressive, Revolutionary People’s Front, United People’s Party of Kangleipak, United National Liberation Front of Manipur, Tripura People’s Democratic Front, National Liberation Front of Twipra, Hynniewtrep National Liberation Front of Meghalaya, Garo National Liberation Army, etc which declared the general strike across northeast India on both the national days on 15 August and 26 January and called upon the people to boycott as well as prevent the celebration as a mark of solidarity against New Delhi.
But braving the gun-toting militants and their threats, Journalists’
Forum Assam (JFA) appealed to the north-eastern people to celebrate both the days defying the militants’ decree. JFA argued that a number of martyrs from Assam including Piyali Phukan, Maniram Dewan, Piyali Barua, etc stepped up movements against British domination.
Extraordinarily brave Kanaklata Barua, Mukunda Kakoti, Kushal Konwar, Tilak Deka, Bhogeswari Phukanani, Nidhanu Rajbangshi, Kamala Miri, Lerela Boro, Madan Barman, Rauta Kachari, Hemoram Patar, Gunavi Bordoloi, Thagi Sut, Balaram Sut, etc laid down their lives for the honour of Tri-colour. JFA president Rupam Barua, who conceptualized the model to oppose the rebel’s diktats, asserted that Tri-colour is the symbol of our common strength. If we ignore the sacrifice of martyrs it would only indicate our ungratefulness to them. Once started with a small group of journalists (including this writer), the celebration at the city-based press club premises slowly attracted more like-minded fellow Guwahatians, including many children, to join in the occasion (simultaneously with the government celebrations), where the Tri-colour continues to be hoisted and participants taken out the processions raising the flags in hands with fanfare.
Patriotic and courageous citizens like Ajay Dutta, Nirmal Choudhury, Dhiren Barua, Jagadindra Raychoudhury, JP Saikia, Jaharlal Saha, Uttam Barthakur, Kishor Giri, Dibas Phukan, Jeemoni Choudhury, Kailash Sarma, Mrinal Ali Hazarika, Pradip Thakuria, Ujjal Saikia, Ranjan Dutta, Apurba Sarma, Pramod Kalita, Basistha Bujarbaruah, Khagen Saikia, Sankar Das, Jogeswar Goswami, Ranjib Sarma, Abhijit Sarma, Bitu Talukder, Sanjib Puri, Utpal Dutta, Namrata Dutta, Pranab Sarma, Basanta Barthakur, Nabanita Mazumdar, Bhaskar Medhi, Ravi Ajitacharya, Anjali Kumar, Utpal Das, Purabi Barua, Rubi Barthakur, Md Farid, Nekib Kazi, BR Das, Hydar Bora, Chandana Doloi, Tarali Chakrabarty, Purabi Gogoi, Mrinmoy Bhuyan, Jayanta Gogoi, Azlina Khanam, Kuntala Chakrabarty, Kartik Choudhury, etc also energised the mission paying homage to those freedom fighters who fought against the colonial British forces during the freedom movement.
But gone are those days. Now everyone (or majority of in the society) prefers to celebrate both the auspicious days with utmost conviction to pay tributes to hundreds of thousands of known & unknown martyrs who laid their lives for a sovereign nation. The ethnic insurgents have lost their support bases in the last few years and their mentors in the media have also disappeared, thanks to the aggressive social media outbursts against those self-centered intellectuals in the recent past. As we are observing the 75 years of India’s independence and the forthcoming I-Day is going to witness millions of Tri-colours hoisted across Bharat, the small group of Guwahatians today deserve appreciations as their dream has turned into reality and hundred thousand proud residents in the alienated north-eastern region are also eagerly waiting to salute the Tri-colour and pay heartfelt admiration to the martyrs.
The author is a Guwahati-based journalist and a vivid appreciator of Tri-colour, who along with a section of working journalists once faced the wrath from separatist militants
JVP ragging in the University started in the 1970s. G.R.Morrel recalls that at University of Kelaniya where he taught as an instructor in the late 70’s, the Students’ Council was in the hands of the JVP. They ran the campus mainly through intimidation.
New students were ragged mercilessly, and staff members who opposed the ragging were threatened. in 1974 A group of young mathematics teachers who were admitted to campus for a diploma course were dragged to the dark basement of the Science faculty and brutalized. Ragging is too polite a word for the violence that was enacted.
JVP took over the Inter University Student Federation (IUSF) in 1976. The home page of the IUSF says the Inter-University Student Union was created by the student unions in the state University which delivered free education says IUSF in its website. IUSF has three objectives it said ,fighting unconditionally for solving the problems of the oppressed people in the existing socio-economic system, fighting unconditionally to secure the right to free education and fighting for the solution of academic and welfare problems in universities.
I am unable to find any instance where the IUSF has worked for the betterment of the university or society. IUSF is known as an aggressive organization which organizes public demonstrations and sit ins. IUSF also is considered to be behind the murderous ragging going on Sri Lanka‘s universities .
In 2002 IUSF was accused of the murder of Samantha Vithanage, a third year Management student of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, who pioneered an anti-ragging campaign in the university. Samantha was killed on November 7, 2002 while in a discussion to stop the brutal practice of ragging in the faculty.
Samantha was the leader of a group of students opposing ragging at University of Sri Jayewardenepura while General Students Union (Progressive Front), the dominant student group supported ragging.
On November 7, 2002, the anti-ragging campaigners sat down for a discussion with General Students Union. The meeting took place in the University in the Department of Marketing Management. Midway through the discussion, a mob of around 200 strong supporters of the JVP, armed with clubs and stones stormed into the room and viciously attacked Vithanage and others in the anti-ragging camp. President of the General Students Union smashed a heavy computer monitor on his head. Vithanage was seriously injured.
When Samantha was about to be transported to the hospital, the pro-ragging students blocked the vehicle carrying the injured to the hospital, delaying proper medical treatment. The first hour of any seriously injured person is called ‘the golden hour’ by doctors because the first hour decides whether the seriously injured person lives or dies. That is why such victims need to be hospitalized as soon as possible. Two days later Samantha Vithanage died. After 20 years, in 2022, 7 out of the initially accused 22 individuals were sentenced to prison and fines.
In 2017, fifteen second-year students attached to the Agriculture Faculty of the University of Peradeniya had taken a group of first year students to a partially constructed house in Megoda, Kalugamuwa on the Galaha Road to be ragged. The house was rented out by the students paying Rs.30, 000 as rent for a three month period, saying they were a group of architects on field assignments.
The seniors transported groups of first year students from time to time, to this house. Anyone has to pass my home to reach the rented house but the boys had used another path to smuggle the fresher’s to the house,” the landlord said.
We had information that inhuman ragging was taking place in rented houses outside the university .We were waiting for a tip off, to apprehend the offenders, university authorities said. The team was aware of the repercussions if the students were injured in the operation. They took extra measures to ensure their safety.
As we approached the house, we could hear some boys shouting in filth. We saw two naked boys doing bunny leaps, with an onlooker using a club to threaten them if they paused. There were screams from another room, as if more boys were being tortured. All eight freshers had been stripped naked. Some freshers had their body hair removed. These eight were later hospitalized as a result of the ragging. The raggers were arrested by the police.
The university authorities thought that it was the third year students who were behind this incident. Second year students had carried out the instructions. They obeyed out of fear. However, Inter University Student Federation issued a statement saying they had no involvement in this incident.
Within the university premises there is no way of ragging students. There are counsellors, proctors, deputy proctors, and the staff who are all vigilant and therefore they can’t rag students within the premises,” he said. This is why they have taken a new initiative to go somewhere else, away from the university, the authorties said.
University of Peradeniya has taken strong action on this incident. Prof. Upul Dissanayake, the Vice Chancellor of the Peradeniya University said the suspects would either be suspended or expelled after the incident was inquired into. At the moment the suspects are in remand custody. They will be charged under the Anti-ragging Act. We have suspended the fifteen students indefinitely. In the meantime we are appointing an inquiry board and we will conduct a proper inquiry at the end of which they will be punished according to the offence. They will be either suspended or expelled,” he said. He added that there were videos and photos of the physical rag that took place.
We have asked second year students of the Faculty of Agriculture not to come to the university. We have made them out of bounds because of this particular incident,” he added.
Scarred Communities is a qualitative, psycho-ecological study of the long-term effects of disasters—both manmade and natural—on Sri Lankan communities. The book studies the effects of war and the 2004 tsunami on families and communities. The concept of collective trauma is introduced to provide a framework in understanding how basic social processes, relationships and networks change due to these disasters.
The methodology employed is a naturalistic, psychosocial ethnography of northern Sri Lanka, drawing from the author’s participation in psychosocial and community mental health programmes among the Tamil community. Participatory observation, key informant interviews and focus-group discussions with rehabilitation workers and officials were used to gather data.
The author also analyses the various causes of modern civil war, ethnic consciousness, terror and counter-insurgency operations and their consequences on people. Though the study revolves around Sri Lanka, the phenomenon of collective trauma has an international relevance for communities across the globe caught in civil and ethnic strife.
This book is a sequel to Scarred Minds (SAGE, 1998), which deals with the effects of chronic civil war on individuals.
By Pranab Dhal Samanta Courtesy The economic Times
Synopsis
The worrying part is that China may link Sri Lanka’s message to defer the Yuan Wang 5’s ‘refueling stop’ at Hambantota with the IMF approval process. According to Beijing, this is a research vessel, making a routine halt with no negative intent.
Can Sri Lanka’s resistance against letting China dock the Yuan Wang 5 at Hambantota stall its efforts for a bailout package at the International Monetary Fund? Yes, if China decides so. And by accounts reaching Delhi, it appears Beijing has sought to play this card in their hectic conversations with Colombo to go back on its advice to defer the ship’s visit.
So, just how can China play spoiler? For Sri Lanka’s bailout package to go through, it requires first an approval of principal cre ..
The tourism industry was one of the biggest foreign exchange earners in Sri Lanka. However, since the Easter Sunday attacks in 2019 and later COVID, the political crisis and the protests, Sri Lanka saw a drastic drop in tourism in Sri Lanka. Daily Mirror spoke to veteran tourism industry expert and member of the recently appointed Tourist Advisory Committee, Hiran Cooray about the state of the tourism industry in Sri Lanka and the way forward.
Excerpts of the interview:
QHow serious is the situation with the tourism industry in Sri Lanka?
We went through probably the worst ever time that we went through after COVID. Because even after the Easter Sunday attacks, there was a lot of international support for us to get out of the crisis sooner than we expected. A lot of the analysts said it will take probably 1 to 2 years for us to recover. But because of the international support we got, within six months, we were back on track. And so, we had very good months of December, January, February of 2020, December 2019 and January 2020 and February. Then, of course, COVID came with all the international borders closed. That probably was the worst ever time that tourism, not only Sri Lanka but globally faced. So, our income literally went to zero. So, then we survived because the government gave us a moratorium. We did not have to service the loans. And many really had to pull out from their savings or whatever and keep the plant operational.
Then when we were just recovering from COVID comes this, which I’m very sad that we came to this position because none of us, not only in tourism, in other sectors as well, maybe garments, maybe other industries, professionals, the doctors, the engineers, never spoke of this crisis. Maybe some of you in the media, the professional journalists alerted the public, but even that was not taken seriously. So, we, like a little crab in a boiling pot,were swimming.
QSo, you knew there was a crisis but just didn’t speak up
Yes. Nobody really spoke up. So suddenly it hit us. It hit us because the ordinary people, the women, the children, ordinary citizens of this country came on to the streets saying enough is enough. So we all got some life back in. But the tourism industry has suffered. And the burning of buildings, houses, the international community looking at it wont realise this is a targeted building. They think that this is happening everywhere.
QAnd that is something that even the authorities then kept saying. That this is not the entire country. Tourism is not going to be affected. They called it isolated incidents.
But when it goes in the international media it goes as Sri Lanka is burning. Sri Lanka has no government, no proper government. So, this is what went out into the world. And then most of the embassies in Colombo slapped a travel advisory. And again, tourism has literally come to nothing. So,at the moment we are back again trying to bring us out of the mess. Once again, we always think this is the last time we are in a mess like we did after the Easter Sunday bombings. Look what worse can happen and more worse things happened after COVID. We are finally we are out of COVID. We are getting out of it. And now this happened. So this our life. We can’t give up tourism. Tourism is an industry that will contribute a lot to our country to get us out of the balance of payments issues that we are facing at the moment. We need tourism and we have to be committed to move this industry forward.
QHave successive governments really supported the industry the way they should? There were concerns even in 2019 after the Easter Sunday attacks. You spoke about moratorium. But small hotel operators were saying that they were not getting the same support from the authorities back then. Even during COVID, there was this allegation. Even now some people say the same thing as well.
Well tourism is a low hanging fruit. It can take off very easily and it can be wiped out also very easily. Some governments take tourism very seriously. Some don’t. At the moment, it’s a headache for them. This industry now has become a headache because there’s so much of investment, so many people dependent on it. Close to two and one half million people depend on tourism. There is also another point. We have also heard some people saying we haven’t got anything, we haven’t received anything. There’s a formal sector and the informal sector. So what I’d like to see is those who are in the informal sector come into the formal sector. That means if you have a house which you are renting to tourists, establish yourself, come and register yourself with the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority, local producers. So then you are part of the establishment. You benefit from tourism, but you don’t pay your dues. And then when something happens, you come in and say, we didn’t get anything. If those who are in the established sector haven’t got anything, then they need to come out and speak to the authorities and see what has happened. Maybe the associations, because from what I know, most of the association members have received the moratoriums.Its also not fair for us to ask for handouts. Because we have been in business, we have made money in the past through this sector.
QThe Government has also made a lot of money out of this industry.
Yes, that’s right. They have. Some of the money has been used properly, some not properly. But that’s, again, our fault for not checking on public accounts. We just take things for granted. Up to now, most people in this country have just taken things for granted. So hopefully in the future, you know, governments will be more accountable with how they spend the money not only from tourism but other sectors, as well.
QThere were also concerns about the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority. That they were favouring certain hotels, certain people, and that they were not looking at the industry as a whole.
Unfortunately, yes. That should not have happened. We had a time during the COVID crisis and so on. The industry should have been brought together. That’s how we got out of situations in the past. We had the airport bombings in 2001. We had the central bank bombing in 1996, And then we had the tsunami in 2004. When that happened, the travel associations, the hotels association, the inbound travel agents, the outbound travel agents, everybody was sitting in the tourist board and discussing what do we do? How do we get out of this situation.But that unity sadly didn’t happen. So I sincerely hope that won’t happen in the future, because tourism is an industry that is bound to face difficulties. If somebody starts sneezing in Europe, we get pneumonia. So therefore we have to work together with the public and the private sector. But there will be always difficulties because the private sector will demand something. The government will have a different objective. But be that as it may, people have to come together and sort out those differences and work. So that did not happen. Hopefully it won’t happen in the future.
QYou were also part of the Sri Lanka Tourism Advisory Committee during the previous administration. What were you working on at that time?
Well, the main focus at that time during Minister Prasanna Ranatunga’s period was to get out of the immediate crisis that was COVID. How do we get out? How do we open the country? How do you welcome tourists once again? Because if you don’t do that, then everything else is of no use. Just keeping the industry alive with no hope in the future. That was not so. The focus of the ministry at that time was let’s get the country open. Let’s welcome tourists, let’s let the people get their jobs back, all of that. So that happened to a certain extent from January 2021, December 2020 to January 21, we were able to slowly but surely, you know, get some of the real strict restrictions relaxed a bit and get people coming once again.
QDo you feel that the protests that we saw in the country not only brought attention on some of these key issues we faced but also added further to the crisis that Sri Lanka was facing?
Probably it did. We were in a crisis and then that crisis went international with the protests, I think that probably happened. And that sadly impacted tourism. But I think I have to say country must come first. As a Sri Lankan, as a citizen of this country who loves this country, country has to come first. So, there was a need for a change and a sector had to sacrifice a bit.
QIt’s a big sacrifice.
Yeah, it’s quite a big sacrifice. But still, I mean, you think of the farmers.If there is no water, farmers will lose out. If it is too much water also the farmers will lose out. So therefore we can’t always be expecting perfect situations all the time. We also must learn to swim. If you are a swimmer, you must be able to swim in calm waters and rough waters as well. Right now we are swimming in rough waters and we must learn to survive.
QBut do you see a light at the end of the tunnel?
Definitely. I always see light at the end of the tunnel because that’s my nature as well. I can’t see any darkness any time. That’s because of my faith in God. I can’t think otherwise. But be that as it may, there is now a necessity for all Sri Lankans to think, get out of this balance of payments crisis we are in.And in order to do that, we have to earn more foreign exchange. Obviously, tourism is one of those sectors that can bring foreign currency into the country. And I appeal, given this opportunity, that everyone who is in tourism to bring their money into this country. Never keep 5 cents outside because it’s our responsibility. Then the other is we have to also learn to serve our customers with Sri Lankan products, Sri Lankan food, not be hellbent on serving anything that is foreign. You know, believe me, no tourist comes for two weeks to this country to eat oranges, apples, grapes. No one comes to eat a salmon from Norway or Scotland or Alaska. Right. They are coming to eat tropical fruit, tropical seafood and all of that. So therefore, we must have that confidence now to serve our foreign customers with Sri Lankan fusion food. You know, that is an experience in itself. So we have to have that confidence. So we save in foreign currency as well while we earn. We must learn to save. If we have an opportunity to use public transportation. We must learn to do that because, you know, $600 million is what we pay a month for petrol and diesel. And that money has to be used for, you know, the services, the power we get, energy we get, right. So therefore, we have to be responsible to get out of this situation. No politician can get us out of this situation. They will always play games and they will keep us entertained. Watching news is an entertainment. In some ways. It depresses me. So I don’t watch. But for some people it is entertainment because they are howling at each other. Right. But what are they doing? They’re fooling us, right? So we have a responsibility.
QDo you have faith in the current administration?
I have no political interest, but I don’t have too much faith in anybody. I think we must take that faith out of the few people who are in parliament and get that faith into ourselves. There are 22 million people here and that 22 million people must have faith in themselves and in our country and build it. You can’t blame the current president or the former president or whoever it is, because we expect them to deliver. They cannot. They simply cannot. We the people must deliver and make sure they also play accordingly. Not entertain us all the time. Because they represent us.
QYou have set up a number of hotels around the country. Did you foresee something like this happening? This sort of crisis, ever?
Never. Never. I feel very sad and embarrassed that this has happened to our country. I have no words to describe it. I can’t believe that we are in this situation for such a beautiful country. I have travelled to maybe 100 countries in the world. I can’t think of a better country than this to live.
QWill this stop your expansion?
To a certain extent, sadly, yes, because we are just barely surviving at the moment. Our priority at the moment is to look after the 3200 people who are directly working with us and so many others who supply food and other items to us. They are seriously dependent on us. Then we have to finally service the banks. We cannot forget the banks at this point in time. They have helped us as well to expand. They have lent money to us and we have to pay that back. So I cant think of doing new hotels until we actually look after those who have looked after us. After that, hopefully in 3 to 5 years time, if things settle down and we are back on the road again properly we will add new experiences, new things, all of that for sure.
President Ranil Wickremesinghe states that he aims to prepare a governance structure with fair representation for each political party.
His remarks came during a discussion held at the Presidential Secretariat last evening (Aug 10) with several parties regarding the formation of an all-party government.
The President has further mentioned that his main objective is to establish the National Assembly, adding that the representation of all parties and the full representation of other parties and groups in the alliance are necessary for this purpose.
President Ranil Wickremesinghe also requested respective parties to discuss and inform him whether they will represent the committee-based system or join the all-party government.
Colombo, August 10 (Counterpoint): The current disturbance in India-Sri Lanka relations caused by the proposed docking of the sophisticated Chinese military survey vessel Yuan Wang 5 at Hambantota port is but the latest in a long series of hiccups in Indo-Lankan strategic relations.
The relationship has been seeing ups and downs since the two countries became independent in the 1940s. A factor characterizing the relationship is the difference in the strategic vision of the two countries. India has consistently believed that Sri Lanka is vital for its security in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), and that the island must be within its political and defense perimeter. In contrast, Sri Lanka has consistently labored under fear of Indian domination or even absorption due to the asymmetry in power, physical proximity, historical links, and ethnic and religious commonalities.
While India has attempted to block the influence of powers thought to be inimical to it, Sri Lanka has cultivated India’s rivals to use them as a check on India’s dominance. The India-Sri Lanka spat over the proposed visit of Yuan Wang 5 to Hambantota stems from the contradiction between these two tendencies.
According to Punsara Amarasinghe, author of a paper entitled Small State Dilemma” (Open Military Studies 2020), a Lankan leader had said that the day Ceylon (Sri Lanka) dispensed with Englishmen completely, the island would go under India.” Lankans were disconcerted by Indian scholar-diplomat K.M Panikkar’s 1945 thesis that cooperation between India, Burma and Sri Lanka would be a pre-requisite for a realistic policy of Indian defense.” He wrote: The first and primary consideration is that both Burma and Ceylon must form with India a basic federation for mutual defense whether they will it or not. It is necessary for their own security.”
Additionally, according to Amarasinghe: Many Indian policymakers and strategists believed that the departure of British power from the Indian Ocean region had enthroned newly independent India as the natural successor to Britain as the guardian of the Indian Ocean.”
In the 1950s, Sri Lanka had declared neutrality” as its foreign policy. But this was not adequate to appease New Delhi, Amarasinghe avers. An Indian Navy officer Ravi Kaul wrote in 1974: Sri Lanka is as important strategically to India as Eire is to the United Kingdom or Taiwan to China. As long as Sri Lanka is friendly or neutral, India has nothing to worry about, but if there is any danger of this island falling under the domination of a power hostile to India, India cannot tolerate such a situation endangering her territorial integrity.” More recently, retired Indian National Security Advisor, Shivshankar Menon, described Sri Lanka as a permanently-stationed aircraft carrier” off the Indian southern coast.
In 1963, Lankan Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, touched raised the hackles in India when she signed a Maritime Agreement with China. This was a year after China invaded India. India feared that the Sino-Lankan agreement could acquire a military dimension at a time when India’s navy was still a Cinderella. In 1962-63 India expected Sirimavo to support India in its territorial dispute and war with China, but it was not forthcoming. Her only effort was to make them talk.
In 1971, when Sirimavo faced an attempt by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) to seize power, India sent choppers to help the Lankan forces. But come December 1971, when India needed her support for the liberation war in Bangladesh, she gave refuelling facilities to Pakistan’s military aircraft. India was rubbed on the wrong side.
After Sri Lanka liberalized its economy in 1977-78, President J.R. Jayewardene joined the Western camp, while India’s relations with the US had soured because of the latter’s support for Pakistan in the Bangladesh liberation war in 1971. After the 1983 anti-Tamil riots in Colombo and the influx of Tamil refugees into Tamil Nadu, India began to back the Tamil militants.
But there was an Indian security/geopolitical dimension to the intervention also. Ex-Indian envoy in Colombo J.N.Dixit wrote: It would be relevant to analyze India’s motivations and actions vis-à-vis Sri Lanka in the larger perspective of the international and regional strategic environment obtained between 1980 and 1984”. Amarasinghe quotes the then Minister of National Security, Lalith Athulathmudali, as saying: India wanted to control her surroundings. They had an obsession that Trincomalee was being given as a base to the US.”
In mid-1987, India stopped the advance of the Sri Lankan army against the Tamil Tiger militants. It pressured Jayewardene to sign the India-Sri Lanka Accord in July 1987 and accept an Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF). The Accord made Sri Lanka bar forces inimical to India from using its ports and other facilities.
To get even with India, President R.Premadasa armed the Tamil Tigers to help them take on the IPKF. Later, he gave the IPKF an ultimatum to leave. A miffed India refused to give military aid to Colombo when it resumed fighting with the Tigers in June 1990. However, in the final stages of the war in 2007-2009, India helped Colombo defeat the LTTE. A troika” of top security officials from Delhi and a troika” from Colombo, facilitated the process.
But there was a change in the Delhi-Colombo security equation with China entering Sri Lanka as a big builder of infrastructure. Among the projects, the deep-water port in Hambantota raised the hackles in New Delhi. In 2010, Alok Kumar and Ishwaraya Balakrishnan said in a paper in the Indian Journal of Political Science: The construction of this port will bring China within breathing distance of India’s southern coast where sensitive installations, including power plants, are present. It could also help China in keeping a track of India’s nuclear, space and naval establishments in South India and also serving as a listening post”.
India’s apprehensions onIy increased when, in 2017, the port was leased to China for 99 years.
In 2014, a Chinese nuclear submarine Changzheng 2 had docked in Colombo almost coinciding with the visit of President Xi Jinping. New Delhi saw this as a case of Beijing cocking a snook at New Delhi with Colombo’s connivance. In Indian eyes, the docking violated the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord which stipulated that no port in Sri Lanka will be made available for military use by any country in a manner prejudicial to India’s interests.
But China also has security interests in the Indian Ocean, points out Amarasinghe. Zhao Nanqui, the director of the General Logistics Department of the People’s Liberation Army had said: We can no longer accept the Indian Ocean as an ocean only for the Indians”. Zhang Ming, a Chinese naval analyst had warned that approximately 244 islands from Indian Nicobar and the Andaman archipelago could be used by India as a metal chain to hinder Chinese ships entering the Strait of Malacca.
When Gotabaya Rajapaksa came to power in 2019, Foreign Secretary Adm. Jayanath Colombage said: We have to understand the importance of India in the region and we have to understand that Sri Lanka is very much in the maritime and the air security umbrellas of India. We need to benefit from that”.
Indian and Sri Lankan navies have conducted joint exercises nine times under the SLINEX series. Recently, India and Sri Lanka agreed to set up a joint Maritime Rescue Coordination Center (MRCC) with a US$ 6 million grant from India. Sri Lanka would also get a donation of a US$ 19.81 million worth 4,000-ton floating dock, a Dornier surveillance aircraft and a ship repair dock from India.
Sri Lanka became part of India’s Security and Growth for all in the Region (SAGAR) scheme. Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) is part of SAGAR. But in the case of Yuan Wang 5, Sri Lanka had not shared with India, information about its coming. Hence India’s displeasure.
But when it goes in the international media it goes as Sri Lanka is burning. Sri Lanka has no government, no proper government. So, this is what went out into the world. And then most of the embassies in Colombo slapped a travel advisory. And again, tourism has literally come to nothing. So,at the moment we are back again trying to bring us out of the mess. Once again, we always think this is the last time we are in a mess like we did after the Easter Sunday bombings. Look what worse can happen and more worse things happened after COVID. We are finally we are out of COVID. We are getting out of it. And now this happened. So this our life. We can’t give up tourism. Tourism is an industry that will contribute a lot to our country to get us out of the balance of payments issues that we are facing at the moment. We need tourism and we have to be committed to move this industry forward. 
Yes, that’s right. They have. Some of the money has been used properly, some not properly. But that’s, again, our fault for not checking on public accounts. We just take things for granted. Up to now, most people in this country have just taken things for granted. So hopefully in the future, you know, governments will be more accountable with how they spend the money not only from tourism but other sectors, as well.