It was revealed that a mature plant, endangered crudia zeylanica could also be found at the Henarathgoda botanical gardens and another small plant on the border of the 14th km point on the central expressway, the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) said today.
The CEA said it came to light during the field observation by the CEA, the National Botanic Gardens Department, the Wildlife Conservation Department and the Road Development Authority (RDA) in December 31, 2019.
it was initially recommended by the wildlife conservation department to uproot the endangered crudia zeylanica plant on the expressway construction site, and replant it at another suitable location.
The CEA said it had also been informed by the RDA that there are more places in the country where crudia zeylanica could be found. It was the RDA that has been vested with the responsibility of taking further action in the future pertaining to the rare plant species,” the CEA added.
The Sri Lanka legume (crudia zeylanica) was discovered and named a new species in 1868; in 1911 it was found in another locality. Since then, however, there was no trace of it even being seen, and it was eventually presumed to be extinct.
The only surviving tree of crudia zeylanica was re-discovered close to the Daraluwa Railway Station in Gampaha along the Kadawatha-Mirigaa stretch, where the central expressway is being constructed.
Environmentalists raise serious concerns over removing it and doubt whether Sri Lanka is equipped with such technology to relocate the plant.
Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa says that permission will be granted for the burial of COVID-19 victims.
The Premier mentioned this in response to a question raised by Parliamentarian S.M. Marikkar during the parliamentary session today (February 10).
Quoting State Minister of Primary Health Care, Epidemics and COVID Disease Control Sudarshini Fernandopulle, the parliamentarian said COVID-19 does not transmit through water and requested the Prime Minister to grant permission to bury victims of novel coronavirus.
In April last year, the Sri Lankan government amended a law to make cremation compulsory for those who fall victim to the novel coronavirus with the intention of preventing any potential threat.
The Quarantine and Prevention of Diseases Ordinance (Chapter 222) was accordingly amended by an extraordinary gazette notification issued by Health Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi.
The decision sparked heated debate locally and internationally, as concerns were raised stressing that it is against the dictates of Muslim community’s faith.
Former Minister and Leader of All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) Rishad Bathiudeen, former MPs Seyed Ameer Ali, Abdullah Mohamed Mahroof, and Hussein Ahamed Bhaila meanwhile petitioned against the government’s decision, arguing that there is no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that cremation is safer than burial to prevent the infection from the coronavirus.
The topic was also brought to the attention of the Cabinet of Ministers on several occasions.
However, the Cabinet decided to refer the matter back to the experts’ committee to look into the possibility of burying Covid-19 victims in a remote, dry area.
Later in November, UN Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka, Ms Hanaa Singer wrote to PM Mahinda Rajapaksa, reiterating the concerns of the United Nations with the existing Health Ministry guidelines, which stipulate cremation as the only method for the disposal of bodies suspected of COVID-19 infection.
In her letter, Singer had noted that the common assumption that people who died of a communicable disease should be cremated to prevent spread is not supported by evidence.
Five more COVID-19 related deaths have been reported in Sri Lanka today (February 10), the Director-General of Health Services confirmed.
Following the new development, total lives claimed by the novel coronavirus outbreak in the country have climbed to 375.
According to the Department of Government Information, a 73-year-old woman who was residing in Colombo 05 has died yesterday (February 09) while receiving treatment at the Colombo National Hospital. The cause of death was recorded as COVID-19 pneumonia, heart disease and stroke.
The second victim is a 51-year-old woman who was transferred to the Mulleriyawa Base Hospital from a private hospital in Colombo, after testing positive for the virus. She has fallen victim to COVID-19 pneumonia on February 08.
Meanwhile, a man aged 67 years died yesterday due to blood poisoning, acute kidney disease and COVID-19 pneumonia. He had been moved to the National Institute of Infectious Diseases from a private hospital in Colombo after it was confirmed he was positive for novel coronavirus. He was identified as a resident of Aluthgama area.
In addition, a 75-year-old man from Gampaha area passed away while receiving treatment at the Divulapitiya District Hospital today (February 10). He has succumbed to COVID-19 pneumonia.
Reports revealed that a 61-year-old man who was living in Wellampitiya area also fell victim to COVID-19 pneumonia. He had been under medical care at Iranawila Treatment Centre at the time of his passing today (February 10). He was transferred from Colombo National Hospital after testing positive for the virus.
Sri Lanka registered 424 new positive cases of COVID-19 today (February 10), as total novel coronavirus infections reported within the day reached 963.
Department of Government Information says 940 of the new infections are close contacts of earlier cases linked to the Peliyagoda cluster. Meanwhile, 15 have been reported from the prison cluster.
The remaining 08 were identified as arrivals from the United Arab Emirates.
The new development has pushed the country’s confirmed COVID-19 cases count to 72,174.
According to COVID-19 figures, 6,160 active cases are still under medical care at selected hospitals and treatment centres.
Mr.Bandula
Gunawardane, a minister of the government expressed in a recent press
conference that the government has decided to reduce the prices of dhal
(lentil), sugar, rice, and other several consumer items. He again stated in the
parliament that the gazette notice has been canceled as no retailer sells goods
for a controlled price. Although the
changes of prices of consumer items should be based on the price mechanism the
government should get away from intervening in the determination of prices of
consumer items. Food shortages created during the second world war forced to
supply two measure of rice and in 1951 it became a political football and a
serious protest in Sri Lanka under the leadership of Marxist parties conducted
and Mr.Dudley Senanayake resigned from the Prime Minister position considering
the difficulty to face the issue. Rice
had been a political football till J.R.Jayawardane changed it to eight-pound of
cereal grains before the election in 1977.
The
argument of J.R after coming to power in 1977, was in an open market system not
only eight pounds, but more can purchase and he changed the policy with an
accelerating Mahavelly project. Why
again cheap dhal (Lentil), sugar, and other consumer items came political
platform is difficult to understand and it shows that politicians in Sri Lanka
much enjoy using the prices of consumer items than developing policies for
sustainable development.
The
prices of consumer items are depending on various factors especially production
and the quantity of supply. This is an automatic mechanism and the government
should not intervene in this price mechanism and if Mr.Gotabaya Rajapaksa
direct intervene making a production economy this type of retail issue will not
come to politics.
The
government gives subsidies and cash allowances to lower-income earners. In such
a background, it is not necessary to intervene in determining the market prices
and the role of the government is to educate people on how to determine
consumer prices. If the government creates competition among retail sellers
prices will drop without government gazette notifications.
Politics
is a short term matter and economics is long term behavior. What is Mr.Bandula
Gunawardane wants politics or economics?
Sri Lanka’s
envoy in China Dr Palitha Kohona-Journalist Chakravarthi Raghavan
When the 134-member Group of 77, the largest single
coalition of developing countries, was trying to strike a hard bargain in its
negotiations with Western nations years ago, one of its envoys famously
declared: You have the numbers. We have the money.”
But that implicit threat – signifying the power of the
purse– did not deter the G77 from playing a key role in helping shape the UN’s
socio-economic agenda, including sustainable development, environmental
protection, universal health care, South–South cooperation, eradication of
extreme poverty and hunger – all of them culminating largely in the 17
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015 and targeted for a 2030
deadline.
The People’s Republic of China, the world’s second
largest economy after the US, has remained an integral part – and a strong
supporter – of the G77, going back to the historic 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.
At that summit meeting – which marked a battle between
the West and the global South over funding to promote development while
protecting the environment – a G77 delegate told his colleagues in a
closed-door gathering: We have to confront them with an iron fist cloaked in a
velvet glove.”
The G77’s strength in numbers – with over two-thirds
of the UN’s 193-member states – provides it with an unparalleled political
clout ranking ahead of the Non-Aligned Movement (with 120 members), the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (57), the Asian Group (55), the African
Group (54), the Latin American and Caribbean Group (33) the European Union (27)
and the Eastern European Group (23).
While the G77 focused on achieving sustainable
development, NAM pursued the hard-core politics of the global South, including
human rights, neo-colonialism, international security, military conflicts and
UN peacekeeping.
Speaking from Beijing, Dr Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka’s
Ambassador to China, told IPS that while many countries in the Western camp
have tended to dismiss the G77 and China as irrelevant to contemporary economic
and political developments, the Group has provided the platform for developing
countries to make a profound input to contemporary global economic policy
formulation.
In its heyday, he pointed out, the G77 and China
contributed significantly to the development of the New International Economic
Order (NIEO) and the Law of the Sea regulatory framework.
Today, the Law of the Sea Convention is considered to
be the Constitution of the oceans and seas,” said Dr Kohona, a one-time Chief
of the UN Treaty Section and a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to
the United Nations.
More recently, he noted, its influence on the Rio
Process, the conventions on Climate Change, Biological Diversity, Hazardous
Wastes, Ozone, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) has been seminal.
He said the G77’s influence on global policy
development in these major areas of importance to humanity remain undiminished
and cannot be underestimated.
These global rules are now impacting on policy
formulation in the Bretton Woods institutions as well,” he added.
The role played by individual intellectual giants from
the developing world in highlighting the G77 and China needs to be
acknowledged, he argued.
Today China has assumed a lead role in addressing the
challenge of climate change affecting the very survival of humanity,” he
declared.
Mourad Ahmia, Executive Secretary of the G77, told IPS
the integral role played by the Group in economic diplomacy and projecting the
development interests of the global South is a testimony to its continued
relevance in the ongoing global development dialogue.
When it was established on June 15, 1964, the signing
nations of the well-known Joint Declaration of Seventy-Seven Countries formed the
largest intergovernmental organisation of developing countries in the United
Nations to articulate and promote their collective interests and common
development agenda.
Since
the First Ministerial meeting of the G-77 held in Algeria in October 1967, and
the adoption of the Charter of Algiers, he pointed out, the Group of 77 laid
down the institutional mechanisms and structures that have contributed to
shaping the international development agenda and changing the landscape of the
global South.
Over the years, he said, the Group has gained an
increasing role in the determination and conduct of international relations
through global negotiations on major North–South and development issues.
The G-77 adheres to the principle that nations, big
and small, deserve an equal voice in world affairs….Today the Group remains
linked by common geography and shared history of struggle for liberation,
freedom and South–South solidarity, said Ahmia.
The Group has a presence worldwide at UN centres in
New York, Geneva, Nairobi, Paris, Rome, Vienna, and Washington D.C., and is
actively involved in ongoing negotiations on a wide range of global issues
including climate change, poverty eradication, migration, trade, and the Law of
the Sea.
The G-77 remains the only viable and operational
mechanism in multilateral economic diplomacy within the UN system. The growing
membership is proof of its enduring strength.
Chakravarthi Raghavan, the former Chief Editor of the
Geneva-based SUNS, told IPS since its founding in 1964, the G77 came into
being, along with the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), as an
organ of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and brought about several changes for
the better in the international economic system.
With UNCTAD came the scope for ‘alternate view’ to
‘liberal/neoliberal economics’ and Generalized System of Preferences (GSP
schemes) – True, they are voluntary, not mandatory.”
The principle of non-reciprocity, and Special and
Differential treatment in trade relations with developed countries (initially
non-binding, Part IV of GATT-1947, but contractual for developing countries
after 1994 Marrakesh Agreement for WTO) that the US now is trying to eliminate
as part of its proposals for ‘WTO Reform’, said Raghavan, a former
Editor-in-Chief of the Press Trust of India.
The G77 also created the concept of ‘development’ as
against the original IMF Bretton Woods concept of ‘Reconstruction and
Development’ for war-ravaged economies of Europe, said Raghavan, winner of the
1997 G77/UN Development Programme (UNDP) Award.
In the immediate post-war order, the major
Industrialized countries decided on policy (with US holding a veto on most
decisions) that others were forced to accept. Now there is at least an attempt
at dialogue (from G7 to G20).
Initially, said Raghavan, the G77 concerned itself
only with economic issues; the much earlier NAM dealt with political and
security issues.
But gradually, individual G77 members, brought their
political and security issues and alliances with Great Powers, to influence the
G77 decision-making. This has resulted in weakening the G77 positions and
influence in international economic matters, declared Raghavan.
(The
writer is a former editor of the Journal of the Group of 77)(IPS)
Zahida
Bibi feared for her family’s survival when she lost her job as a housekeeper in
Islamabad during the COVID-19 outbreak. Zahida’s four children depend on her
income – and so does her husband, a…
When
the 134-member Group of 77, the largest single coalition of developing
countries, was trying to strike a hard bargain in its negotiations with Western
nations years ago, one of its envoys…
What
happened in Myanmar? The military ‘coup’ in Myanmar is not a coup in the truest
sense of the word for the simple reason that the military was already in charge
more or less. Maybe you could say…
Concluding
16 months of extensive investigations, the much-awaited Final Report of the
Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) into the Easter Sunday attacks was
submitted to President Gotabaya…
Dr.
Neville Fernando, Maama, Aiya, Seeya or Uncle to diverse family members, left
on his onward journey leaving his family in shock and grief, as Covid-19 took
him completely unexpectedly. Even at 89…
The
coastal areas of Sri Lanka have some stunning historic forts. Some are massive
and imposing. Other forts are not that big but served their purpose of a
fortified defensive bastion. With the…
Ensuring
equitable access to vaccines globally during a pandemic is not only a moral
issue, but an economic imperative to protect the well-being of people
everywhere. But when will Africa get…
Last
week, we discussed some of the features such as redundancy and structure
dependency that characterize language. In today’s article, we will talk about
some more features of language such as…
Both
coverage in the Asian press and statements by neighbouring Asian governments
reported in the media on the grabbing of exclusive power by the military in
Myanmar, reflects the traditional Asian…
China,
we are told, inveigles poorer countries into taking out loan after loan to
build expensive infrastructure that they can’t afford and that will yield few
benefits, all with the end goal of…
President
Gotabaya Rajapaksa said that going to the grassroots level to give swift
solutions to public grievances is neither political gimmick nor media hype.The
next Presidential Election is almost…
Ranga
Suriarachchi, General Manager of PrintCare Secure Limited, has sent us the
following Clarification and Right of Reply with regard to an article that
appeared in the Daily News on January 12,…
As it is
revealed (Jan 31 (Island) Indian scientists will soon undertake a possibly
first scientific expedition to date the chain of corals and sediments forming
the Ram Setu, also known as Adam’s Bridge.
This 48-km long bridge-like structure between India
and SL finds mention in the great Hindu epic
Ramayana, but little is known or scientifically proven about its formation.
Recently, a central advisory board on archaeology, functioning under the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), approved the project proposal submitted
by more
Since this area
stretches between two countries (India and Sri Lanka) and is owned by both
countries it is politically very sensitive area
I think this study should be a joint venture .As the news item reveals
the study is undertaken by India without consultation or collaboration with Sri
Lanka. Therefore I would like to draw
the attention of Sri Lankan authorities
to get in touch with the Indian Government and get this project
converted to a by partisan study so that
both countries can share the results and avoid any future possible conflicts. A mono Indian research project
will always come out with conclusions favorable to India and India will
definitely use them in defeat any Sri Lankan claim in all International for The
will not respect the Sri Lankan interests as they are doing presently with
regard to fishing in this region Therefore Sri Lankan Government should
intervene at the outset to avoid future conflicts.
Peduru Hewage
William de Silva (1908-1988) was the only son of a wealthy professional family
of Batapola, near Ambalangoda. William studied at the Buddhist Mixed School in Batapola,
then at St. John’s, Panadura, later at Richmond College, Galle, and finally at
Ananda College from which he entered Ceylon University College. He had joined the Suriyamal movement when he
was a student at University College, Colombo.After one year, disenchanted
and bored, he left University College and went abroad for higher studies.
He
went to Oxford, then studied law in London and was called to the Bar in 1940. He was
President of the Ceylon Students Union.He
joined the India League and a
Marxist study group with other Ceylonese students in London. He was influenced by Laski and was attracted to Trotskyism. In London
William associated closely with Krishna Menon, later Defence Minister of India
and Jomo Kenyatta, later Prime Minister of Kenya.
He was
arrested in 1943, for fomenting strikes, and spent the remaining years of the
war in prison. He was held in Bogambara and Badulla Prisons from 1943–45. He funded the break out of the LSSP leaders
from prison. During the war when the
LSSP was proscribed and the leaders had fled to India, he kept the underground
movement going using his wealth. The family estate and graphite mining business
which his father had built up brought him the income he needed to engage in
full time politics, observed Bandu de Silva.
P.H.William
Silva represented Ambalangoda in Parliament from 1947-1960. He won the
1947 election as a member of the Bolshevik Leninist Party of India (BLPI) led
by Colvin R de Silva. In 1952 he won as nominee of the merged LSSP and BLPI. William
Silva left the LSSP, In 1953 together
with a dissenting group and later joined the Viplavakari Lanka Sama Samaja Party (VLSSP) where he was made deputy leader. He won in 1956 on the MEP ticket. He later became Vice-President
of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party.
William Silva was appointed
Minister of Industries and Fisheries in the 1956 MEP government (1956–59). His name is forgotten today,
but it was under William Silva, that the country saw the
beginnings of industrialization in Sri Lanka.
There were no local industries
when MEP came to power in 1956, everything was
imported. The country was importing everything, from a pin, comb, pencil,
biscuit to mammoties, water pumps, agriculture and industrial machinery,
reported economists.
William Silva decided that in such a situation, the state
had to step in and provide a lead in developing industry. He presented a
White paper on Industrial policy. Budget 1957-58
included various tax concessions for industry.
He introduced the
State Industrial Corporations Act of 1957. ..
Corporations were established under State Industrial Corporations Act 1957, as
well as special legislation. These corporations were provided with startup
capital in form of grants and loans, confirmed economist Saman Kelegama.
He saw the
state leading with a few basic industries whilst the rest were left to the
private sector.The State with its limited resources had to promote private
enterprise in industry by providing the infrastructure, credit and other
incentives. We are going to invite
people to invest in small scale industries. We are not only going to encourage
them, we are going to offer them inducements by way of tax concessions, tariff
protection, and so on, said William Silva.
William
Silva thought that the state should
undertake ‘large’ industry, such as
cement, steel and machinery. He drew up
three lists of industries. The first
list consisted of items reserved for the state. They included iron and steel,
cement, chemicals, fertilizer, salt, mineral sands sugar, power alcohol and
rayon.
The
second list had industries which were open to both state and private sectors.
They included textiles, tyres and tubes,
tiles, asbestos products, bicycles, industrial alcohol, acetic acid, sugar, vegetable oil, ceramic ware, glass
ware, leather products, plywood, paper, electric bubs, dry cell batteries,
accumulators, barbed wire, lumber, agricultural implements, wood working,
furniture and cabinetry, and concrete
products.
There
was a third list of 82 industries ranging from motor car assembly to activated
charcoal, reserved exclusively for the private sector. Persons embarking on these industries would
receive tax concessions and tariff protection.
Meegama observed that this period therefore saw the beginning of a
private sector in industry with government encouragement. Industrialists
promptly asked the government to stop imports in the goods they are
producing.
The
first industrial estate was established at Ekala, with a grant from the US, giving facilities for the small
industrialist, so that he could avoid the expenses for land, building and
provision of water and electricity. Ekala started to operate in 1960.
The
main obstacle to the creation of local industry when the country became
independent was the lack of credit. World Bank Survey of 1951 reported that the
banks operating in Ceylon did not support local industry. Development
of private industry was retarded by inadequate facilities for medium and
long-term credit, it said.
The Agricultural and Credit Corporation
(est. 1943) for the express purpose of Providing such
credit had not done so. Those who went there found it impossible to arrange
acceptable security. The British and Indian commercial banks present in the
country, only lent for short term
import export transactions.
Bank
of Ceylon did not help either. Mortgages had to be secured by personal assets
of borrowers. Bank of Ceylon did not give loans on new enterprises unless the
bank officials knew the person. The
local moneyed class was also not prepared to invest in industry. William Silva
observed that when a local person made money, he preferred to buy an estate and
get a quick return.
William
Silva needed to find funds for the state industries. World Bank had refused to finance
local industry when the earlier government had asked them, so this time William
turned to Russia. Russia gave money to
start the steel factory at Oruwala, tyre factory at Kelaniya, cement factory at
Puttalam and the State Flour Milling factory.
A Ceramic Corporation, Leather corporation, Plywood corporation and
Caustic soda project were set up by the MEP government later on.
The
Mineral Sands Corporation was started by William Silva. William Silva was aware
of the value of these mineral sands. It
contains titanium oxide, rutile, and zircon, he told Parliament . He was
hoping to process them with the limited technical knowledge we possess.
He also
took note of the Monazite available. There is monazite washed up by the tide.
It is there on the shore. We can collect about a thousand tons for nothing, he
said. Having collected it, you separate
by magnetic operation, the monazite from the sand. Monazite is radioactive. We
will not sell it. We will stockpile pile it, so that we can use it someday in
an atomic programme for peaceful purposes said William Silva hopefully.
William
Silva set up a National Textiles Corporation and a new spinning and weaving
mill at Veyangoda. He encouraged handloom weaving by supplying yarn at a reasonable price. He stopped the import of Indian handlooms to
give a boost to the local handloom industry. It was on the foundation laid by
him that the industry forged ahead and tens of thousands of rural girls found
employment or self employment, said Bandu de Silva.
In 1956,
Lakshman Rajapaksa, MP for Hambantota and Deputy Minister for Commerce and
Trade set up a cotton processing factory at Mirijjawila near Hambantota to
encourage cotton cultivators in Hambantota and Monaragala. During this period
cotton was a popular crop in the Eastern part of Hambantota and Monaragala, and
cotton was cultivated under rain-fed conditions. This factory functioned
satisfactorily and it started processing their home grown cotton. It was set on
fire by the JVP in 1971.
William Silva was responsible for the mechanisation of
the deep sea fishing industry. This was a far reaching change. Till then deep sea
fishing was done in the traditional 35
foot oruwa. This was replaced in 1958, by a locally built 27 ft, three and half
ton mechanized boat with a 25 horse power engine, built with Japanese aid. The catch increased,
and fish landing doubled in 1964 and trebled in 1969. A cold room was installed
at Mutwal.
William Silva
he not only gave a boost to the industry but also improved the living
conditions of fishermen throughout the island especially by providing them
housing, said Bandu de Silva. William Silva also promoted inland fisheries by breeding
tilapia and gourami.
William Silva was a close friend
and a comrade of Philip Gunawardena. He was a calm personality and a glutton for
sustained hard work like Philip, said Meegama.
In 1959 the two of them resigned from the MEP Cabinet, due to
pressure from other Cabinet members. William Silva,
usually mild, was angry and showed it in his resignation speech. He never held cabinet office again .
In 1970, he became the Ceylon High
Commissioner to Canada. He was also Chairman of the Press Council, 1974-77. Sri Lanka commemorated the hundredth Birth
Anniversary of P.H. William de Silva with the issue of a new Stamp and a First
Day Cover in 2008. (continued)
I remember the days before 1956, when the official
language of the country was English. Most
of the Sinhala schools in villages had classes up to 8th standard
and those who wanted to do higher studies in English had to go to collages in
the main cities. All most all the
government officials other than low-ranking workers were English educated.
Things have changed remarkably after the introduction
of the Official Language Act, paving the way for the majority community,
especially those who lived in villages including myself to move forward. The Official Language Act of 1956 replaced
English as the language of the country with Sinhala.
After the introduction of the 13th Amendment
to the Constitution in 1987, stating the official language of Sri Lanka is Sinhala” while Tamil
shall also be an official language,” with English as a link language”, followed
by the 16 Amendment in 1988, the status of the Sinhala language maintained for
32 years from 1956 to 1988 as the country’s
official language started
diminishing gradually while that of English language appears to be regaining
slowly but surely.
As per the 16th Amendment made in
1988, Sinhala language, in effect, is no longer the Official Language or the
language of administration throughout Sri Lanka. It is only an Official
Language, in the sense that it is the language of administration in seven
provinces other than the Northern and Eastern Provinces, whereas Tamil can be
the language of administration throughout Sri Lanka in addition to its Official
Language status, since there is no limitation imposed on its application as in
the case of Sinhala. Sinhala is no longer the language of administration
throughout Sri Lanka.
https://island.lk/16a-removed-sinhala-as-countrys-official-language/
On the other hand, International Schools are popping
up everywhere and national languages are no more the medium of their education. Sinhala, we hear in TV channels (including
the national channels) and we read in printed media now is not the Sinhala we
learnt but a mixture of Sinhala and English.
Even after 64 years of the replacement of English as
the language of administration of the country, the highest court of law of the
country is still conducting its investigations and delivering their judgments
in English.
It is interesting to note how the Law Collage stopped its medium of
legal education, Sinhala, in 2010 after 25years, when the Ministry of Justice
was under Rauff Hakeem. Soon after this change, an abnormal number of law applicants got admission to the law collage
from a specific community. Most recently, there was an attempt by the current minister to
recruit 150 Tamil (Sinhala is not a requirement) speaking lawyers to police department.
Making the situation worse, Council of Legal Education has issued a
Gazette Notification upgrading English, the link language, as the mandatory
medium of legal education commencing from 2022, thus preventing the use of
Sinhala for the purpose of legal education, anymore, anywhere within the country. This rule is applicable not only to Law
Collage but to all the universities, the Open University and the Kotelawala Defence
University.
The Gazette Notification No 2208/13 dated 30/12/ 2020,
under the subject Council of Legal Education Ordinance”, the following new
rules 28A have been introduced.
28A. (1) All
courses conducted at the Sri Lanka Law College shall be conducted in the English
Medium.
(2) English shall be the mandatory medium of
examinations and shall be introduced in the following manner-
(a) Preliminary Year, commencing from the
year2022– a minimum of three (3) subjects to be answered in the English
medium;
(b) Intermediate Year,
commencing from the year2023– a minimum of five (5) subjects to
be answered in the English medium;
(c)
Final Year, commencing from the year2024 – all subjects to be
answered in the English medium.
(3) The Council may,
considering the medium of instruction at any university established or;deemed
to be established under the Universities Act, No. 16 of 1978, the Open
University of Sri Lanka or the Kotelawala Defence University, at its
discretion, grant exemptions to any person who has obtained a Bachelor of Laws
Degree (LL.B) from any such university, from the application of this rule until
the year 2025.”
The law is a scheme of control backed by the state for the
protection of social interests. Unlike engineering and medicine, the law is social engineering
and social medicine. Hence it is the responsibility of the state to
ensure its free availability to its citizens to understand their rights and
duties and to act according to the law.
Once the new rule 28A is in action, imposing further
limitation of the use of Sinhala (the language of the 74.9% of the population,
according to the 2012 censes) in the legal system throughout the country, the
entire legal proceedings including hearing of court cases will be in English
violating the constitutional provisions and rights of the ordinary citizens. The Council of Legal
Education consists of 14 members chaired by the Chief Justice. Out of 14members, six are appointed by the
Minister of Justice. Thus any legal action against this injustice may not be
possible.
By chasing away our 2500 year linguistic
heritage to the backyard, what patriotism are we trying to protect? The nation “Sinhala” lives only
until its “language” is alive. The day the Sinhala Language becomes dead
that would be the funeral date of Sinhala nation!
Britain was colonizing, enslaving Asian people before WW2.
The British Empire ruled South Asia for 180 years. Though Japan lost WW2,
however it was the consequence of Japan’s entry to war in December 1941 with
its attack on Pearl Harbour that all S E Asian countries and South Asian
countries achieved their long hoped for independence from the Western
colonial powers within 15 years after the end of the War.
As the famous British historian
Arnold Toynbee said:
Japan
put an end to West’s colonialism in Asia once and for all”
On
November 14, 2018, a meeting was held on the
premises of the Japanese Parliament (Diet) Building in Tokyo,
Japan to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of Japan’s Proposal
for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, sponsored by the Japanese Society
for the Dissemination of Historical Fact.
Three speakers made
presentations at this meeting: Mr. Senaka Weeraratna, Attorney at Law, from Sri
Lanka, Mr. Kase Hideaki, Foreign Affairs commentator and President of the
Society, and Dr. Yamashita Eiji, Professor Emeritus, Osaka City University.
Mr.
Senaka Weeraratna was the keynote speaker at this meeting. He
stated:
I am here today not only to share my thoughts on what
needs to be done to rectify a blatant historical injustice done to the leaders
and people of Japan in the aftermath of the Second World War, through
manipulation of the media and the writing of history, but also to fulfill a
long overdue duty, as a Buddhist Sinhalese from Sri Lanka, as a representative
of South Asia and a fellow Asian, to thank Japan for setting in motion a
phenomenal process that brought about the liberation of Asia from Western colonial
domination.”
The
video footage of the concluding segment of his talk has been uploaded on to the
YouTube channel.
Here he is seen sharing some
perspectives on the fairness and the impartiality of the International
Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) (Tokyo Trial) that was established in 1946 to
try Japanese leaders for alleged war crimes in the second world war.
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan’s (ISIL-K) new leader Shihab al-Muhajir heads its operations in India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and is said to have had an earlier affiliation with the dreaded Haqqani Network.
The 12th report of the Secretary-General on the threat posed by ISIL to international peace and security and the range of United Nations efforts in support of member states in countering the threat said that ISIL-K currently has 1,000-2,200 fighters in Afghanistan spread across several provinces. Daily Excelsior, February 5, 2021.
International experts investigating the origins of Covid-19 have all but dismissed a theory that the virus came from a laboratory in China.
Peter Ben Embarek, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) mission, said it was “extremely unlikely” that the virus leaked from a lab in the city of Wuhan.
He said more work was needed to identify the source of the virus.
The investigation could now focus on South East Asia, one expert said.
The WHO team are currently at the end of their investigation mission.
Wuhan, in China’s central Hubei province, is the first place in the world that the virus was detected in 2019. Since then, more than 106 million cases and 2.3 million deaths have been reported worldwide.
Dr Embarek told a press conference the investigation had uncovered new information but had not dramatically changed the picture of the outbreak.
Experts believe the virus is likely to have originated in animals before spreading to humans, but they are not sure how.
Dr Embarek said work to identify the origins of Covid-19 pointed to a “natural reservoir” in bats, but it was unlikely that this happened in Wuhan.
He said identifying the animal pathway remained a “work in progress”, but that it was “most likely” to have crossed over to humans from an intermediary species.
The experts also said there was “no indication” that the virus was circulating in Wuhan before the first official cases were recorded there in December 2019.
Liang Wannian, an expert with China’s Health Commission, said Covid-19 could have been in other regions before it was detected in Wuhan.
The team called for further investigation into the possibility of “cold chain” transmission, referring to the transport and trade of frozen food.
Dr Peter Daszak, a member of the WHO team, said the focus on where the origins that led to Covid-19 might be, could be shifted to South East Asia.
“We’ve done a lot of work in China and if you map that back it starts to point towards the border and we know that there is very little surveillance on the other side in the whole region of South East Asia,” he told the BBC’s John Sudworth in Wuhan.
“China is a very big place and South East Asia is a very big place. The supply chains to the Huanan seafood market were extensive, they were coming in from other countries, they were coming in from various parts of China, so to really trace that back it’s going to take some work.”
He added that the focus should now be on those supply chains.
The WHO mission began in January, following months of negotiations with Beijing. The experts’ visit was closely-monitored by the Chinese authorities.
Complicated task
It was unlikely that the expert group, in its politically-charged mission, would be able to pinpoint the source of the pandemic in China a year after it began. But, after visiting the Wuhan Institute of Virology, they have closed the lid on a controversial theory that coronavirus came from a lab leak or was made by scientists.
Their search for clues also included a visit to the now-famous wet market in Huanan – selling fish, meat and live wild animals – that was linked to some of the first human cases.
The team say the virus may have jumped from animals to humans, but they don’t have the proof yet.
Possible carriers include bats and pangolins, but tests so far have yet to find convincing evidence for this. Another line of investigation is whether the virus could have spread through imported frozen food. The hunt for the origin will continue.
What was the laboratory theory?
Speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology – one of China’s top virus research labs – began last year and was propagated by former US President Donald Trump.
The office of the US national intelligence director said at the time that while the virus was not man-made or genetically modified, officials were investigating whether the outbreak began through contact with animals or through a laboratory accident.
But Dr Embarek said a visit to the laboratory during the mission showed it was “very unlikely” that anything could have leaked out.
He said the laboratory theory was “not in the hypotheses that we will suggest for future studies”.
People travelling from red list countries to Wales and Northern Ireland will be required to book and pay for quarantine in England, as neither destination currently has any direct international flights.
Travellers arriving into England who lie on their passenger locator forms about visiting a red list country face a fine of £10,000 or up to 10 years in jail.
It comes as the UK reported another 12,364 confirmed cases of coronavirus and a further 1,052 deaths within 28 days of a positive test – bringing that total to 113,850. More than 12.6 million people have received a first dose of the vaccine.
Delivering a statement in the Commons, Mr Hancock said 16 hotels have been contracted for the programme, with 4,600 rooms secured.
The health secretary also confirmed a new “enhanced testing” regime for all travellers arriving into the UK would begin on Monday, with two tests required during the quarantine process.
They will be required to get a test on days two and eight of their 10-day quarantine period, whether they are isolating at home or in a hotel. The tests, conducted by NHS Test and Trace, will cost travellers £210.
“People who flout these rules are putting us all at risk,” the health secretary told MPs.
Airlines and travel companies will be legally required to make sure travellers have signed up for the new measures before they depart, with fines for companies and passengers if they fail to comply, he said.
The penalties include a £1,000 fine for travellers who fail to take mandatory tests and a £2,000 fine for failing to take the second mandatory test – along with a 14-day extension to quarantine.
Failing to quarantine in a designated hotel carries a fine of between £5,000 and £10,000.
Asked when the travel rules would be relaxed, Mr Hancock said: “We want to exit from this into a system of safe international travel as soon as practicable and as soon as is safe.”
Passengers required to stay in a quarantine hotel will need to reserve a room online in advance using a booking system that opens on Thursday.
The £1,750 fee for an individual includes the hotel, the cost of transport and testing. The additional rate for one extra adult or a child aged over 12 is £650, and for a child aged five to 12 it is £325.
These travellers will only be allowed to enter the UK through a “small number of ports that currently account for the vast majority of passenger arrivals”, Mr Hancock added.
Responding to Mr Hancock’s statement, Labour’s shadow health secretary said the public wanted the government to “go further” on border quarantine measures.
Jonathan Ashworth told the Commons: “Our first line of defence is surely to do everything we can to stop (new variants) arising in the first place. That means securing our borders to isolate new variants as they come in.
“He’s announced a detailed package today but he hasn’t announced comprehensive quarantine controls at the borders.”
Mr Hancock later said the red list was kept “under review”.
Announcing Scotland’s tougher measures, which apply to arrivals from all countries, Scottish Transport Secretary Michael Matheson said the “targeted, reactive approach” of the UK government was “no longer sufficient” to deal with the threat from coronavirus.
Sri Lanka has reported 05 more coronavirus related deaths, the Director-General of Health Services confirmed today (February 09).
As per the Department of Government Information, three male patients and two female patients are among the victims.
The new deaths bring the number of COVID-19 related deaths witnessed in Sri Lanka to 370 in total.
01. The deceased is a 45-year-old female from Kapuliyadda. She died on 08.02.2021 while undergoing treatments at Theldeniya Hospital. The cause of death is mentioned as acute COVID-19 pneumonia, bronchitis, and high blood pressure.
02. The deceased is an 81year old male from Moratuwa. He died on 09.02.2021 while undergoing treatments at Kotalawala Defense Hospital. The cause of death is mentioned as acute kidney disease and blood poisoning due to COVID-19 pneumonia.
03. The deceased is a 56-year-old male from Ketawala. He was diagnosed as infected with the COVID-19 virus and transferred from National Hospital Kandy to the Base Hospital Homagama where he died on 02.02.2021. The cause of death is mentioned as COVID-19 pneumonia.
04. The deceased is a 73-year-old male from Kurunegala. He died on 08.02.2021 while undergoing treatments at District Hospital Narammala. The cause of death is mentioned as COVID-19 pneumonia and acute asthma.
05. The deceased is a 74-year-old female from Anuradhapura. She died on 06.02.2021 on admission to the General Hospital Colombo. The cause of death is mentioned as COVID-19 pneumonia and acute diabetes and high blood pressure.
The Attorney General has informed the Inspector General of Police (IGP) that the Criminal Investigations and the material submitted in the respect of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks are incomplete.
Attorney General Dappula de Livera has directed IGP C. D. Wickramaratne to conduct further investigations on the matter.
He has further instructed the IGP to submit the material called for without a delay, says Attorney General’s Coordinating Officer State Counsel Nishara Jayaratne.
There
are several high profile cases involving current and former
politicians scheduled to be heard beginning this month.
In
addition, there are also several Presidential/Prime Ministerial Commissions
findings where public looking forward for punishment for
wrongdoers and relief for aggrieved parties.
In
the past, the recommendations of the Commissions appointed by the Prime
Minister and or President have not been implemented in full.
In fact these reports are not available in the public domain. The
current President Gotabaya Rajapakse has committed to dislodge the trend and
implement the recommendations.
There
are several reports of such Commissions, requiring further action.
The Easter Good Friday Commission, Bond Scam, Commission report on misuse of Rs
11 billion from the Central Cultural Fund were few examples of most recently
concluded cases, pending further action.
Other
interesting cases involve current and former Ministers on alleged
White Van fabrication, Swiss Embassy fiasco, bribery case for accepting a
gratification for leasing a luxury penthouse at Monarch Housing Complex
at Colpetty, bribery case against a mansion built in Kaduwela for Rs 70
million, thus making some politicians panicking ahead of court
case hearings.
Using
Ranjan Ramanayake case, the politicians are likely to press ahead to create a
precedent through the Speaker, in spite of the fact the judgement was delivered
by the Supreme Court, with the ulterior motive that future politicians if
found guilty could access the loophole for their advantage.
The
public demand punishment for politicians alike if they are guilty. The
general public has the utmost confidence in the current regime to ensure clean
and independent system of governance.
The Annual Activity Plan 2021 of the
Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), the electricity sector regulator
was unveiled today. A total of 111 projects based on service quality and
consumer rights protection in the power industry, water service industry and
petroleum industry are to be implemented this year.
Projects related to the electricity
industry have been formulated under four main objectives such as improve
productivity and convenience for electricity consumers, supplying electricity
at affordable prices to the consumer and maintaining a sustainable financial
position for licensees, improve the safety of every living being and properties
of the general public, licensees and operators, improve environmental
conditions for humans, animals and plants. Four special projects will be
implemented this year to expedite the resolution of electricity consumer
complaints and disputes.
Under this, a joint program will be
initiated with the Divisional Secretaries to solve the problems faced by the
electricity consumers during the installation and replacement of electricity
poles and cables. Addition to that, steps will be taken to solve the problems
that have arisen in obtaining electricity for houses located in blockout lands
from real estate companies. Also, a special project will be launched to
maintain the efficiency of the street lighting system in the country by
introducing a standard for the installation, operation and maintenance of
street lighting systems.
In order to achieve the goal of
electrical safety, the national framework for licensing electricians’ program
is being implemented in collaboration with other relevant agencies. Around
45,000 electricians have been identified in the country and a project will be
launched to provide them with the National Vocational Qualification or NVQ 3,
the basic qualification required to obtain a permanent electricity license,
quickly and free of charge. The project is being implemented under a special
memorandum of understanding signed with the Tertiary and Vocational Education
Commission and the National Vocational Training Authority.
The PUCSL, as the shadow regulator of
the lubricant market, assists the Ministry of Energy in regulating the
lubricant market. The projects launched last year to control the sale of
substandard lubricants and the sale of illegal lubricants will be further
strengthened and implemented. A project is also underway to dispose of used
lubricants in an environmentally friendly manner. Also, a system will be
introduced to protect the rights of petroleum consumers and to resolve their
grievances.
The PUCSL as the designated body for
the regulation of the water service industry in the country assists the
Ministry of Water Supply and Drainage Board in regulating the water services
industry.
The Commission assists the Ministry
of Water Supply to introduce a methodology for resolving water consumer
complaints and disputes through a declaration of water consumer rights. Also,
the second phase of a series of public consultations at the local level to
identify the issues of water consumer will be launched this year.
PUCSL will take steps to expedite and
successfully implement all projects scheduled for the year 2021.
The speech of Chairman of Public
Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka, Janaka Ratnayake is attached.
Ends.
Please contact : Anushika
Kamburugamuwa, Assistant Director Corporate Communication via 0718622800 for
more information
August 15 is the day Japan commemorates the war’s end. Soon it will be 70 years after that day in 1945 when two Atomic Bombs dropped from American planes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced Japan to surrender. Japan lost to foes enjoying overwhelming superiority in both numbers and material. Nevertheless Japan’s entry to war in 1941 was not without significant consequences for the rest of Asia. It had redeeming features. Within a few years of Japan’s surrender in 1945 a host of leading Asian countries achieved independence from western colonial domination after centuries of abject rule. Japan’s legacy is that the people in Asia are now free.
The purpose of this article is to re – visit the subject and re- examine it from the point of view of the de-colonized and pose the unthinkable and once unimaginable question, Are we in Asia and particularly South – East Asia indebted to the Japanese for their blood sacrifices which undoubtedly contributed to the winning of our freedom from colonial rule?
Japan is the first Asian country to modernize and then take on one of the Great Western powers, the Russian Empire and defeat the Russian Navy in an epic naval battle at Port Arthur in 1905. This raised a great deal of hope in many Asian countries that were suffering under the Western jackboot. Who else in Asia at that point in time were capable of taking on the mighty West except for Japan? Despite Japan’s ultimate defeat it’s victories over Western colonial occupation armies in the early period of WW 2, triggered the independence of many Asian countries. Japan changed the colors of both East Asia and South East Asia on the world map.
Was Japan like its Western adversaries yet another colonial power seeking to expand its empire by war?
Yes and No. In fact, according to observers Japan had never actually been an empire” before its colonization of Korea with the tacit approval and support of America. Japan had learned lessons from its Western adversaries” and developed its technology on western lines after the so-called Meiji Restoration had established a theocratic oligarchy based on the model of a British peerage with a hastily adopted Constitution” predicated on the German model, which had an autocratic ruler i.e. the Kaiser that could amend the law by a simple edict.
The only time that Japan set out to conquer and colonise foreign lands in the medieval period was under Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the 16th century when he set out to conquer Korea. His naval armada was unsuccessful largely as a result of the valiant defence mounted by a Korean naval commander called Yi Sun-sin, who is a legend in Korea because of his victories against the Japanese Navy. After Hideyoshi’s death, the succeeding Tokugawa government not only prohibited any further military expeditions to the Asian mainland, but closed Japan to nearly all foreigners during the next 300 years.
It is time for people in Asia to review and re-write our history books. Start looking at issues not necessarily from the point of view of victors but also from the point of view of the defeated. Japan suffered defeat. But should Japan due to that alone continue to live in disgrace burdened with a heavy dose of ‘war guilt’ while others from the Occident who had benefited from colonial conquest, oppression and occupation of poor countries all over the world for centuries tend to walk with their head held high without accountability without remorse and without payment of reparations. There is an inversion of morality when such people loudly preach ‘tongue in cheek’ to the rest of the world on human rights, democracy, equality, rule of law and what not, without a qualm of conscience.
Who won freedom for Sri Lanka?
We obtained Independence in February 1948 because India and Pakistan received their independence in August 1947 and Burma in January 1948. It worked cumulatively almost in the form of a package deal.
When we talk of Asian independence movements it would be a remiss to ignore Japan’s significant military contribution towards weakening the might and resources of the British Empire during the 2nd World War.
Japan was the first Asian country to militarily defeat Russian and Anglo – American imperial armies and navies in epic battles in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions that captured the spirit and imagination of the people of Asia long suppressed by western colonial powers and yearning for liberation, under the banner ‘Asia for Asians’.
Though Japan eventually lost the war its military effort was not in vain. It substantially weakened and demoralised the western countries then in occupation of large tracts of Asia, such as Britain, France, Netherlands, Portugal and USA that they were forced to quit Asia in next to no time.
It is political correctness and revelations of Japan’s conduct in war related atrocities during the Second World War that prevent Japan from being given due credit for its unique contribution towards hastening the liberation of Asia from western colonial rule.
Though we in Sri Lanka live under a self – styled grand delusion that independence for Sri Lanka was won from Britain exclusively by the efforts of our own leaders through exchange of letters over cups of tea, it is factually incorrect and a big myth. We were simply lucky. Our local effort was relatively minimal. History shows that it is the intervention of an external power that had always helped us to get rid of a foreign occupier from the soil of Sri Lanka.
For example, the Portuguese were expelled from Sri Lanka (then called ‘Sinhale’) in 1658 when the Kandyan King Rajasinghe II combined forces with the Dutch (an external power) to militarily defeat the Portuguese based on a treaty between the Kingdom of Kandy and theDutch Republic. It was signed by King Rajasinghe II for the Kingdom of Kandy and Adam Westerwold and William Jacobsz Coster, a commander and vice commander of the Dutch Naval Forces respectively, for the Dutch East India Company. The treaty was signed on 23 May, 1638 in Batticaloa. The treaty secured the terms under which the two nations would cooperate in defending the Kandyan Kingdom from the Portuguese. However this Treaty was very favourable to the Dutch. Then at the insistence of King Rajasinghe II who in 1647, requested for few modifications to a few articles of this agreement, the Dutch envoy Maetsuijker ‘negotiated the matter with great skill and patience and in the mid of 1649 the treaty of 1638, was in certain aspects altered and re-empowered’. (Valentijn vol. v, pt. 1 c Ceylon, page 121 vv, Berigten van Historisch Genootschap VII, 2, pp. 377 vv.).
The Dutch in turn were expelled when the Kings of Kandy appealed to the British (an external power ) who took over the coastal areas of Lanka from the Dutch in 1796. The intervention of an external power (in this case the British) was pivotal to get rid of the Dutch from Sri Lanka.
The people of Sri Lanka had to wait for nearly another 150 years when another external power i.e. Japan, intervened to defeat allied armies (and navies) all over Asia including Sri Lanka which was bombed by the Japanese in April 1942. As much as the Japanese Armies were welcomed in Burma, Indonesia, Malaya, Singapore, Philippines, Hong Kong, and wherever they went, it is likely that had the Japanese Imperial Army stepped foot on Lankan soil in 1942 the majority of the people particularly the Sinhala Buddhists would have welcomed the Japanese. The people of Sri Lanka particularly the Sinhalese have always resisted colonial occupation of the country. Further both the Japanese and the Sinhalese have a strong bond by sharing a common faith i.e.Buddhism, and the Japanese have always had a high regard for the Buddha whom they refer to as Sakyamuni.
J.R. Jayawardene in defence of a free Japan at the San Francisco conference (1951)
The words of Ceylon´s delegate Finance Minister J.R. Jayawardene in defence of a free Japan at the San Francisco conference on September 06, 1951 is worthy of reproduction here. He said:
We in Ceylon were fortunate that we were not invaded, but the damage caused by air raids, by the stationing of enormous armies under the South-East Asia Command, and by the slaughter-tapping of one of our main commodities, rubber, when we were the only producer of natural rubber for the Allies, entitles us to ask that the damage so caused should be repaired. We do not intend to do so for we believe in the words of the Great Teacher whose message has ennobled the lives of countless millions in Asia, that hatred ceases not by hatred but by love”. It is the message of the Buddha, the Great Teacher, the Founder of Buddhism which spread a wave of humanism through South Asia, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Siam, Indonesia and Ceylon and also northwards through the Himalayas into Tibet, China and finally Japan, which bound us together for hundreds of years with a common culture and heritage. This common culture still exists, as I found on my visit to Japan last week on my way to attend this Conference; and from the leaders of Japan, Ministers of state as well as private citizens and from their priests in the temples, I gathered the impression that the common people of Japan are still influenced by’ the shadow of that Great Teacher of peace, and wish to follow it. We must give them that opportunity.”
After 1848 we never fought against the British Imperial armies through force of arms. There were neither civil disobedience movements in Sri Lanka like in India. In India the last great armed uprising by Indian soldiers was in 1857. The so – called Indian Mutiny was crushed but the Indian people with leaders like Mohandas Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhai Patel (a Gujerati) never gave up hope of liberation. They organized country wide civil disobedience movements under the banner of ‘Satyagraha ’. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose took the radical step of joining hands with the axis powers i.e. Germany and Japan and raising an Indian National Army to liberate his country. Other fellow Asians in Japan, Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, Malaya and Singapore fought and shed their blood fighting for Asia’s liberation from the yoke of Western imperialism. We benefited from their bloody sacrifices though we have yet to concede this fact. The British Empire would have clung to its colonial possessions in Asia for a much longer time, if Japan did not make aggressive war against the West in Asia with the support of the colonized people of Asia, and drive fear into the colonial west of the dangers of continuing with european colonial rule East of the Suez Canal. This was the only language that the imperial west understood and grudgingly respected.
Who won freedom for India?
Indian-born American writer, author and blogger, Dr. Susmit Kumar PhD, has claimed that Hitler, not Gandhi, should be given credit for the independence of India in 1947.
There is a saying that history is written by the victors of war. One of the greatest myths, first propagated by the Indian Congress Party in 1947 upon receiving the transfer of power from the British, and then by court historians, is that India received its independence as a result of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence movement. This is one of the supreme inaccuracies of Indian history because had there been no Hitler and no World War II, Gandhi’s movement would have slowly fizzled out because gaining full independence would have taken several more decades. By that time, Gandhi would have long been dead, and he would have gone down in history as simply one of several great Indian freedom fighters of the times, such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Motilal Nehru, Dada Bhai Naoroji, and C.R. Das. He would never have received the vast publicity that he did for his nonviolence movement. Political independence for India was achieved not by Mahatma Gandhi, but rather by Hitler rendering the British Empire a bankrupt entity.”
The reasons behind Indian independence are nicely summarized by the esteemed Indian historian Ramesh Chandra Majumdar:
There is, however, no basis for the claim that the Civil Disobedience Movement directly led to independence. The campaigns of Gandhi … came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved independence … During the First World War the Indian revolutionaries sought to take advantage of German help in the shape of war materials to free the country by armed revolt. But the attempt did not succeed. During the Second World War Subhas Bose followed the same method and created the INA. In spite of brilliant planning and initial success, the violent campaigns of Subhas Bose failed … The Battles for India’s freedom were also being fought against Britain, though indirectly, by Hitler in Europe and Japan in Asia. None of these scored direct success, but few would deny that it was the cumulative effect of all the three that brought freedom to India. In particular, the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys [low-ranking Indian soldiers under British command] for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India.”
British Prime Minister Atlee says Gandhi’s effort was ‘minimal’
It was British Prime Minister Clement Atlee who, when granting independence to India, said that Gandhi’s non-violence movement had next to zero effect on the British. In corroboration, Chief Justice P.B. Chakrabarty of the Kolkata High Court, who had earlier served as acting governor of West Bengal, disclosed the following in a letter addressed to the publisher of Ramesh Chandra Majumdar’s book A History of Bengal:
You have fulfilled a noble task by persuading Dr. Majumdar to write this history of Bengal and publishing it … In the preface of the book Dr. Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor’s palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi’s Quit India” movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave? In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji [Subhash Chandra Bose]. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, m-i-n-i-m-a-l!”
In a remarkable documentary now available on YouTube under the title
‘Truth of World War II – What did Japan fight for?’
” You don’t understand how Malaysians and Singaporians and other nations of S E Asia felt and thought when Japanese military attacked and occupied Malaysia, Singapore, Burma and Indonesia etc. in the earlier part of the Pacific War” They were all inspired by the victories of the Japanese military which motivated their aspirations for independence, freedom from the yoke of colonial powers of the West.
” Britain was colonizing, enslaving Asian people before WW2. They ruled the Indian people for 180 years. It was Japan that got rid of the British from most of Asia and later all those countries gained independence”
” Japan lost WW2 but as the consequence of Japan’s entry to war all S E Asian countries and India achieved their long hoped for independence from the Western colonial powers within 15 years after the end of the War. As the famous British historian Arnold Toynbee and Lord Mountbatten, uncle of Queen Elizabeth II, said:
Japan put an end to West’s colonialism in Asia once and for all”
That’s why all S E Asian nations have sent their Kings, Presidents, Prime Ministers and other high ranking officials to visit Yasukuni Shrine to pay respect for the war dead. Not only that; American sailors, Italian soldiers, Argentine sailors, German military officials, French military, Spanish, Israelian, Chilean military, the former Indian National Army Colonel Sharzada Brandin Khan, Pakistani general
By Deborah Brautigam and Meg Rithmire/www.atlantic.com
Colombo, February 8 (www.theatlantic.com): China, we are told, inveigles poorer countries into taking out loan after loan to build expensive infrastructure that they can’t afford and that will yield few benefits, all with the end goal of Beijing eventually taking control of these assets from its struggling borrowers. As states around the world pile on debt to combat the coronavirus pandemic and bolster flagging economies, fears of such possible seizures have only amplified.
Seen this way, China’s internationalisation—as laid out in programs such as the Belt and Road Initiative—is not simply a pursuit of geopolitical influence but also, in some tellings, a weapon. Once a country is weighed down by Chinese loans, like a hapless gambler who borrows from the Mafia, it is Beijing’s puppet and in danger of losing a limb.
The prime example of this is the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota. As the story goes, Beijing pushed Sri Lanka into borrowing money from Chinese banks to pay for the project, which had no prospect of commercial success. Onerous terms and feeble revenues eventually pushed Sri Lanka into default, at which point Beijing demanded the port as collateral, forcing the Sri Lankan Government to surrender control to a Chinese firm.
The Trump administration pointed to Hambantota to warn of China’s strategic use of debt: In 2018, former Vice President Mike Pence called it ‘debt-trap diplomacy’—a phrase he used through the last days of the administration—and evidence of China’s military ambitions. Last year, erstwhile Attorney General William Barr raised the case to argue that Beijing is loading poor countries up with debt, refusing to renegotiate terms, and then taking control of the infrastructure itself.”
Debt-trap narrative: A powerful lie
As Michael Ondaatje, one of Sri Lanka’s greatest chroniclers, once said, In Sri Lanka a well-told lie is worth a thousand facts.” And the debt-trap narrative is just that: a lie, and a powerful one.
Our research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota. A Chinese company’s acquisition of a majority stake in the port was a cautionary tale, but it’s not the one we’ve often heard. With a new administration in Washington, the truth about the widely, perhaps willfully, misunderstood case of Hambantota Port is long overdue.
The city of Hambantota lies at the southern tip of Sri Lanka, a few nautical miles from the busy Indian Ocean shipping lane that accounts for nearly all of the ocean-borne trade between Asia and Europe, and more than 80% of ocean-borne global trade. When a Chinese firm snagged the contract to build the city’s port, it was stepping into an ongoing Western competition, though one the United States had largely abandoned.
It was the Canadian International Development Agency—not China—that financed Canada’s leading engineering and construction firm, SNC-Lavalin, to carry out a feasibility study for the port. We obtained more than 1,000 pages of documents detailing this effort through a Freedom of Information Act request. The study, concluded in 2003, confirmed that building the port at Hambantota was feasible, and supporting documents show that the Canadians’ greatest fear was losing the project to European competitors.
SNC-Lavalin recommended that it be undertaken through a joint-venture agreement between the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) and a ‘private consortium’ on a build-own-operate-transfer basis, a type of project in which a single company receives a contract to undertake all the steps required to get such a port up and running, and then gets to operate it when it is.
The Canadian project failed to move forward, mostly because of the vicissitudes of Sri Lankan politics. But the plan to build a port in Hambantota gained traction during the rule of the Rajapaksas—Mahinda Rajapaksa, who served as president from 2005 through 2015, and his brother Gotabaya, the current president and former minister of defence—who grew up in Hambantota. They promised to bring big ships to the region, a call that gained urgency after the devastating 2004 tsunami pulverised Sri Lanka’s coast and the local economy.
We reviewed a second feasibility report, produced in 2006 by the Danish engineering firm Ramboll, that made similar recommendations to the plans put forward by SNC-Lavalin, arguing that an initial phase of the project should allow for the transport of non-containerised cargo—oil, cars, grain—to start bringing in revenue, before expanding the port to be able to handle the traffic and storage of traditional containers. By then, the port in the capital city of Colombo, a hundred miles away and consistently one of the world’s busiest, had just expanded and was already pushing capacity. The Colombo port, however, was smack in the middle of the city, while Hambantota had a hinterland, meaning it offered greater potential for expansion and development.
To look at a map of the Indian Ocean region at the time was to see opportunity and expanding middle classes everywhere. Families in India and across Africa were demanding more consumer goods from China. Countries such as Vietnam were growing rapidly and would need more natural resources. To justify its existence, the port in Hambantota would have to secure only a fraction of the cargo that went through Singapore, the world’s busiest transshipment port.
Armed with the Ramboll report, Sri Lanka’s Government approached the United States and India; both countries said no. But a Chinese construction firm, China Harbor Group, had learned about Colombo’s hopes, and lobbied hard for the project. China Eximbank agreed to fund it, and China Harbor won the contract.
This was in 2007, six years before Xi Jinping introduced the Belt and Road Initiative. Sri Lanka was still in the last, and bloodiest, phase of its long civil war, and the world was on the verge of a financial crisis. The details are important: China Eximbank offered a $ 307 million, 15-year commercial loan with a four-year grace period, offering Sri Lanka a choice between a 6.3% fixed interest rate or one that would rise or fall depending on LIBOR, a floating rate. Colombo chose the former, conscious that global interest rates were trending higher during the negotiations and hoping to lock in what it thought would be favourable terms. Phase I of the port project was completed on schedule within three years.
For a conflict-torn country that struggled to generate tax revenue, the terms of the loan seemed reasonable. As Saliya Wickramasuriya, the former chairman of the SLPA, told us, To get commercial loans as large as $ 300 million during the war was not easy.” That same year, Sri Lanka also issued its first international bond, with an interest rate of 8.25%. Both decisions would come back to haunt the Government.
Finally, in 2009, after decades of violence, Sri Lanka’s civil war came to an end. Buoyed by the victory, the Government embarked on a debt-financed push to build and improve the country’s infrastructure. Annual economic growth rates climbed to 6%, but Sri Lanka’s debt burden soared as well.
In Hambantota, instead of waiting for phase 1 of the port to generate revenue as the Ramboll team had recommended, Mahinda Rajapaksa pushed ahead with phase 2, transforming Hambantota into a container port. In 2012, Sri Lanka borrowed another $ 757 million from China Eximbank, this time at a reduced, post-financial-crisis interest rate of 2%. Rajapaksa took the liberty of naming the port after himself.
By 2014, Hambantota was losing money. Realising that they needed more experienced operators, the SLPA signed an agreement with China Harbor and China Merchants Group to have them jointly develop and operate the new port for 35 years. China Merchants was already operating a new terminal in the port in Colombo, and China Harbor had invested $ 1.4 billion in Colombo Port City, a lucrative real-estate project involving land reclamation. But while the lawyers drew up the contracts, a political upheaval was taking shape.
Rajapaksa called a surprise election for January 2015 and in the final months of the campaign, his own health minister, Maithripala Sirisena, decided to challenge him. Like opposition candidates in Malaysia, the Maldives, and Zambia, the incumbent’s financial relations with China and allegations of corruption made for potent campaign fodder. To the country’s shock, and perhaps his own, Sirisena won.
Indian-made cars in Hambantota port waiting for transshipment
Dire fiscal straits
Steep payments on international sovereign bonds, which comprised nearly 40% of the country’s external debt, put Sirisena’s Government in dire fiscal straits almost immediately. When Sirisena took office, Sri Lanka owed more to Japan, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank than to China. Of the $ 4.5 billion in debt service Sri Lanka would pay in 2017, only 5% was because of Hambantota. The Central Bank governors under both Rajapaksa and Sirisena do not agree on much, but they both told us that Hambantota, and Chinese finance in general, was not the source of the country’s financial distress.
There was also never a default. Colombo arranged a bailout from the International Monetary Fund, and decided to raise much-needed dollars by leasing out the underperforming Hambantota Port to an experienced company—just as the Canadians had recommended. There was not an open tender, and the only two bids came from China Merchants and China Harbor; Sri Lanka chose China Merchants, making it the majority shareholder with a 99-year lease, and used the $ 1.12 billion cash infusion to bolster its foreign reserves, not to pay off China Eximbank.
Before the port episode, Sri Lanka could sink into the Indian Ocean and most of the Western world wouldn’t notice,” Subhashini Abeysinghe, research director at Verité Research, an independent Colombo-based think tank, told us. Suddenly, the island nation featured prominently in foreign-policy speeches in Washington. Pence voiced worry that Hambantota could become a ‘forward military base’ for China.
Yet Hambantota’s location is strategic only from a business perspective: The port is cut into the coast to avoid the Indian Ocean’s heavy swells, and its narrow channel allows only one ship to enter or exit at a time, typically with the aid of a tugboat. In the event of a military conflict, naval vessels stationed there would be proverbial fish in a barrel.
The notion of ‘debt-trap diplomacy’ casts China as a conniving creditor and countries such as Sri Lanka as its credulous victims. On a closer look, however, the situation is far more complex. China’s march outward, like its domestic development, is probing and experimental, a learning process marked by frequent adjustment. After the construction of the port in Hambantota, for example, Chinese firms and banks learned that strongmen fall and that they’d better have strategies for dealing with political risk. They’re now developing these strategies, getting better at discerning business opportunities and withdrawing where they know they can’t win. Still, American leaders and thinkers from both sides of the aisle give speeches about China’s ‘modern-day colonialism.’
Over the past 20 years, Chinese firms have learned a lot about how to play in an international construction business that remains dominated by Europe: Whereas China has 27 firms among the top 100 global contractors, up from nine in 2000, Europe has 37, down from 41. The US has seven, compared to 19 two decades ago.
Chinese firms are not the only companies to benefit from Chinese-financed projects. Perhaps no country was more alarmed by Hambantota than India, the regional giant that several times rebuffed Sri Lanka’s appeals for investment, aid, and equity partnerships. Yet an Indian-led business, Meghraj, joined the UK-based engineering firm Atkins Ltd., in an international consortium to write the long-term plan for Hambantota Port and for the development of a new business zone. The French firms Bolloré and CMA-CGM have partnered with China Merchants and China Harbor in port developments in Nigeria, Cameroon, and elsewhere.
The other side of the debt-trap myth involves debtor countries. Places such as Sri Lanka—or, for that matter, Kenya, Zambia, or Malaysia—are no stranger to geopolitical games. And they’re irked by American views that they’ve been so easily swindled. As one Malaysian politician remarked to us, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss how Chinese finance featured in that country’s political drama, Can’t the US State Department tell the difference between campaign rhetoric that our opponents are slaves to China and actually being slaves to China?”
The events that led to a Chinese company’s acquisition of a majority stake in a Sri Lankan port reveal a great deal about how our world is changing. China and other countries are becoming more sophisticated in bargaining with one another. And it would be a shame if the US fails to learn alongside them.
(Deborah Brautigam is Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Meg Rithmire is F. Warren McFarlan Associate Professor at Harvard Business School.)
Colombo, Colombo, February 8: The oft-repeated advice given by foreign policy wizards to smaller countries who are victims of power rivalry is that they should understand the reality of geopolitics. Sri Lanka, a country that burnt its fingers once for ignoring geopolitics, is well aware of the bitter realities and is always eager to come to an understanding with regional and global powers, while zealously guarding its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Sri Lanka’s gratitude to friends was well displayed at the simple, but majestic, parade on the occasion of the 73rd Independence Day last Thursday. The armory proudly displayed its gleaming 105 mm guns received from China and the Indra radars received from India which can detect aircraft intruding into Lankan airspace. Ironically, the sole occasion on which the airspace of independent Sri Lanka was violated was in June 1987, when Indian fighter jets accompanied the Indian transport planes flew over north Sri Lanka to drop parippu (dhal) to the allegedly ‘starving people of Jaffna’.
The current spat between New Delhi and Colombo arose when the Lankan government dropped the proposal to collaborate with India and Japan to develop the strategic East Container Terminal (ECT) at the Colombo Port due to strong opposition from trade unions, political and religious groups across the country.
Memorandum of Cooperation
Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa announced that the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) would build and operate the ECT on its own. At the same time the cabinet approved a proposal to develop the West Terminal at the Colombo Port as a Public Private Partnership with India and Japan, which was seen as a bid to compensate India. However, immediate reports indicate that India is unwilling to accept the latest proposal.
Indian Media, quoted a spokesperson of the Indian High Commission in Colombo, as stating that the Government of India expected the expeditious implementation of the trilateral Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) signed in May 2019 between Sri Lanka, India and Japan. The commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka in this regard had been conveyed several times in the recent past, including at the leadership level. All sides should continue to abide by the existing understandings and commitment,” the High Commission said.
Japan, too expressed regret after the announcement on the ECT was made. A Japanese embassy official in New Delhi responding to a media query, expressed regret at the unilateral decision taken by Sri Lanka”. In the aftermath of the development, the Japan envoy to Colombo Akira Sugiyama met Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena.
Meanwhile, the Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said at a media briefing in New Delhi: As is well known, the Governments of India, Sri Lanka and Japan had signed a memorandum of cooperation in May 2019 to develop and operate the East Container Terminal of Colombo Port in a trilateral framework. We sincerely believe that the development of infrastructure in Sri Lanka, in areas such as ports and energy, with foreign investment from India and Japan, will be a mutually beneficial proposition.”
He added the Indian High Commissioner in Colombo is in talks with the Lankan Government on the issue. Our High Commissioner in Colombo is in discussion with the Government of Sri Lanka, including on the importance of adhering to international commitments,” he said. India’s response was that Sri Lanka should not be taking a decision in a unilateral manner on an existing tripartite agreement.
Referring to the Sri Lankan offer of the Western Container Terminal (WCT) to India, some experts told the Indian media that commercially, the WCT offer is better for India as it gives a larger stake for developers of the WCT against the 49 per cent in ECT. But even if this is a better deal for investors, including the Adani Group, the final decision has to come from the Indian government. Geo-politically too, the WCT is almost the same when the security aspect and the necessity to have a port terminal in Sri Lanka is considered.
Start From Scratch
Furthermore, WCT is no smaller in size or depth compared to the ECT. There is no difference between East and West Terminals except the development of the ECT is partially completed while the development of the West Terminal has to start from scratch.
However, the ECT decision should not be taken as an irreparable blow to Indo-Lanka relations. It certainly will not take back the relationship to June 1987, when ties hit rock bottom. In this era of development and cooperation, bullying tactics have no place and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a special regard for neighbors. Leaders of both countries have a perfect rapport and an amicable consensus could be reached through frank exchange of opinions.
It must be noted that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in his meeting with Indian External Affairs Minister last month expressed a desire to strengthen the bilateral relationship through post COVID-19 economic development. India will be a reliable partner in Sri Lanka’s development” Jaishankar said. Strengthening the bilateral relationship between Sri Lanka and India through post COVID-19 economic development, health care, power generation etc. were discussed thoroughly,” he added
Although, some critics of the Sri Lankan Government hope for hostilities between India and Sri Lanka to rise and anticipate many national and international impacts surrounding the latest decision on ECT, the saner opinion is that the issue will die down soon with the offer of the WCT to India. Sri Lanka Port Authority officials are confident that the issue could be settled once for all with the offer of WCT.
John Keells Holding PLC (JKH), the largest public listed conglomerate in Sri Lanka and the Adani group, at the Indian side, may agree with WTC offer as a compromise formula with a promise that the private stake will be 85 per cent in WTC instead of 49 per cent at ECT,” he told Indian media.
Sensitivity and understanding
There could be some opposition from a section of port trade unions, but that could be handled, the official said. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in his Independence Day address said, I will never take decisions that will damage the country and to please those who seek gains for themselves personally or for their businesses.”
It is now for India to be sensitive to Sri Lankan political compulsions. When External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj visited Sri Lanka in 2018, she clearly showed her sensitivity towards Sri Lanka and her perfect understanding about the internal and external issues in this country.
At one discussion with then President Maithripala Sirisena, her Foreign Secretary Jaishankar (now External Affairs Minister) said India wanted an immediate decision on ECT and President Sirisena explained that he could not decide immediately as that could become an issue at the upcoming local government elections. When Jaishankar raised the issue once again, Minister Sushma Swaraj intervened and said, No. If His Excellency thinks this is not the best time for that project, let us wait. We have to understand his sensitivities”.
It is now hoped Minister Jaishankar would display the same magnanimity, understanding, patience and sensitivity shown by his late predecessor.
An Opposition political grouping has accused the SLPP government of planning to deprive civic rights of several members of parliament and ex-MPs.
Opposition activists former Deputy Minister Karu Paranavithana, Attorney-at-Law Crishmal Warnasuriya, Attorney-at-Law Shiral Lakthilaka and Ananda Lanarolle alleged the government targeted former Prime Miniter and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, SJB MPs Patali Champika Ranawaka, Dr. Rajitha Senaratne and Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, SLMC leader Rauff Hakeem and TNA leader R. Sampanthan on the basis of the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) into Political Victimization.
Public servants implicated in the PCoI report, too, face the possibility of losing civic rights.
The issue was taken up at a press conference called at the National Library and Documentation Services Board on Friday (5).
The PCoI consisted of retired Supreme Court Judge Upali Abeyratne, retired Court of Appeal Judge Daya Chandrasiri Jayathilake and retired IGP Chandra Fernando. Ms. Pearl Weerasinghe functioned as the Secretary to the PCoI.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa received the report on January 8. The President appointed the PCoI on January 20, 2020.
The PCoI inquired into alleged cases of political victimization that took place in the wake of investigations conducted by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, FCID, CID and the Special Investigation Unit of the Police from January 8, 2015 to November 16, 2019.
Lakthilaka alleged that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was planning a Myanmar style authoritarian rule. The SJB National List nominee said that the electorate empowered Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the Nov 2019 presidential poll, in spite of them repeatedly warning of the looming threat of dictatorship in case the SLPP candidate won.
Alleging that the Justice Abeyratne committee report had been prepared outside the existing law, one-time advisor to President Maithripala Sirisena warned of dire consequences if the government exploited the report to advance its despicable political agenda. Lakthilaka claimed that PCoI project threatened the very basis of the country’s judiciary.
Asked to explain what the Bar Association of Sri Lanka’s role should be, Lakthilaka told The Island yesterday (7) that if the BASL, the Law Commission and the Justice Minister addressed the issues at hand, there was no requirement for them to take it up. Pointing out that the BASL election was around the corner, Lakthilaka said that the primary body representing the interests of the lawyers and the Law Commission couldn’t remain silent on the matter.
Addressing Friday’s media briefing, lawyer Lakthilaka urged President Gotabaya Rajapaksa not to abuse and exploit available laws and the follow democratic way of governance.
Karu Paranavithana said that the PCoI process threatened Sri Lanka’s judicial system. Pointing out that the electorate overwhelmingly empowered Gotabaya Rajapaksa with executive powers, the former Deputy Media Minister alleged the President was bent on seeking dictatorial powers. Paranavithana compared what he called judicial crisis in Sri Lanka with Myanmar military seizing executive, parliamentary and judicial powers for a period of one year.
Paranavithana also claimed that the Abeyratne report had created necessary ground situation for an authoritarian administration.
The former yahapalana MP questioned the justification in appointing a Special PCoI to examine the Abeyratne report. The Special PCoI was established by way of a gazette extraordinary, dated January 29, 2021. The Special PCoI will be chaired by Supreme Court Justice Dhammika Samarakoon and will also comprise SC Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe and Court of Appeal Judge Ratnapriya Gurusinghe.
Lawyer Warnasuriya asked whether a Special PCoI could be appointed to examine PCoI report appointed in terms of another Act. Warning of calculated efforts to undermine the supremacy of the judiciary, Warnasuriya expressed confidence that those who had been appointed to the Special PCoI, too, would recognize the looming danger. Warnasuriya assured that whatever the challenges; they would definitely stand by the public and do everything possible to thwart the SLPP’s political project.
Ananda Lanarolle urged all members of the judiciary to take a common stand.
Meanwhile, former Additional Solicitor General Srinath Perera told the media that the Abeyratne report if implemented could destroy the public faith in the judiciary. Perera explained how the government sought to exploit the report to its advantage at the expense of all democratic institutions and cleared those near and dear to the administration who had been found guilty of courts or were currently facing proceedings.
Opposition activist Lal Wijenayake yesterday told The Island that the judiciary would be definitely moved against the government in that regard. Wijenayake said that they were in the process of discussing ways and means of tackling the threat and judicial measures would be taken.
