K.S. Udaya Kumar Courtesy Ceylon Today

Attorney General Dappula de Livera yesterday (28) filed indictments against former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran and nine others in the Special Permanent High Court Trial-at-Bar.

The indictments were before a three-Judge Bench comprising Justices Sampath Abeykoon, Sampath Wijeyaratna and Champa Janaki Rajaratna.

Coordinating Officer to the Attorney General, State Counsel Nishara Jayaratne, said that the Court has summoned the accused to appear before the Court on 19 July for the serving of indictments.

She said that the prosecution has already named 115 persons as witnesses in the case while one million Court productions have also been submitted.

The Attorney General has indicted the suspects on 23 counts, under the Offences against the Public Property Act and the Registered Stocks and Securities Ordinance.

Earlier this month, the Attorney General had sought approval from Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya to file indictments against the 10 defendants over the Central Bank Treasury Bonds scam, in the Permanent High Court-at-Bar. On 13 June, the Attorney General received the Chief Justice’s approval to file the case before the Permanent High Court-at-Bar in the Western Province.

Content with the information filed by the Attorney General in the Bond scam case involving the former Central Bank Governor, former Deputy Governor P. Samarasiri, Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) and its Directors, Chief Justice Jayasuriya ordered the Permanent High Court-at-Bar in the Western Province to try the case in respect of the offences stated in the information submitted to him.

Issuing a statement, she said that having considered the information referred by the Attorney General, under Section 12A(4)(a) of the Judicature Act as amended by Act, No. 09 of 2018 and the Chief Justice being of the opinion that the information satisfied criteria (i) (ii) (iii) and (v) specified in Section 12A(4)(a), has made the Order under Section 12A(4)(b) of the said Judicature Act directing that Criminal Proceedings in respect of the offences stated in the said information be instituted before the Permanent High Court-at-Bar in the Western Province against the suspects.

The defendants include Lakshman Arjuna Mahendran, Paththinige Samarasiri, the PTL, PTL Owner Arjun Joseph Aloysius, PTL Chief Executive Officer Kasun Oshadhi Palisena, PTL Chairman Geoffrey Joseph Aloysius, PTL Directors Pushyamithra Gunawardena, Chitta Ranjan Hulugalle, Muthuraja Surendran and Ajahn Gardiye Punchihewa.

The indictments have been filed pertaining to the Central Bank Treasury Bond auction on 27 February 2015.

Seven of the charges against the suspects are as follows;

• Conspiracy to commit criminal misappropriation in respect of Treasury Bonds to the face value of Rs 10.058 billion. (against all suspects)
• Criminal breach of trust in respect of Treasury Bonds to the face value of Rs 10.058 billion (against Mahendran and Samarasiri, the first and second suspects) and thereby causing a loss to the Government in a sum of Rs 688,762,100
• Abetting Mahendran to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of Treasury Bonds to the face value of Rs 10.058 billion (against Samarasiri)
• Criminal misappropriation in respect of Treasury Bonds to the face value of Rs 5 billion (against the PTL)
• Abetting the PTL to commit criminal misappropriation (against all the other suspects)
• Committing insider dealing by the PTL
• Abetting the PTL to commit insider dealing (against all the other suspects)

 K.S. Udaya Kumar 11:34 AM Jun 29 2019

Courtesy Adaderana

The Attorney General has directed the Acting Inspector General of Police (IGP) to name Inspector General of Police (IGP) Pujith Jayasundara and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando as suspects of the Easter attacks.

Further, the Attorney General has requested the Acting IGP to produce them before courts, stated the Attorney General’s Department.

Coordinating Officer to the Attorney General, State Counsel Nishara Jayaratne said the Acting IGP was instructed on the matter last Thursday, however, no action has been taken in this regard.

Accordingly, the Attorney General has directed a letter to the Acting IGP, calling him to state reasons for not implementing the instructions.

The Attorney General last Thursday instructed the Acting IGP to name the former Defence Secretary and the IGP as suspects of Easter attacks, on the evidence revealed through investigations that the duo is culpable for the deaths and the major property damage caused by the attacks.

The special investigation board, after considering the facts and documentary evidence, has uncovered that the former Defence Secretary and the IGP’s criminal negligence and excessive delinquency have caused the casualties and property damage in the terrorist attacks on the 21st of April.

State Counsel Nishara Jayaratne added that the Acting IGP is yet to respond to the letter directed to him today.

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, July 1 (AFP) – Sri Lanka’s president said Monday he had rejected a telephone appeal by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to reconsider his push to reintroduce the death penalty after 43 years.

I told the Secretary General that I want to save my country from drugs,” Maithripala Sirisena told a meeting in Colombo to mark his anti-narcotics drive.He telephoned me last week shortly after I signed four death warrants. I told him to please allow me to stamp out the drug menace,” Sirisena said.

Sirisena told reporters on Wednesday that he had signed death warrants for four drug offenders, but did not give their names nor say when and where the executions would be carried out.

He accused the European Union of interfering in the internal affairs of his country, saying that EU diplomats had threatened him with tariffs if Sri Lanka went ahead with the executions.

The EU told me that they will withdraw the GSP Plus (tariff concession) if I go ahead,” Sirisena said. This is interfering with the sovereignty and independence of our country. It is unacceptable.”

He also took a swipe at Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and at non-governmental organisations that had criticised him over his stance.

Wickremesinghe had on Sunday said that a majority of parliament members were against Sirisena’s decision to resume executions.

Sirisena faces several court challenges to his decision to restore the death penalty.

In the latest case filed in the Supreme Court Monday, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) noted it was long recognised that hanging by death was a cruel and inhuman form of punishment, not befitting a multi-religious and civilised society.

Though convicts have been sentenced to death, the long recognised practice in Sri Lanka for over 43 years has been that they were not executed,” the CPA’s executive director Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu said.

Justice ministry sources said they were yet to fill the vacancies for two hangmen, although 26 candidates had been shortlisted for the job.

An executioner was in the post until his retirement in 2014 although no hangings were carried out since June 1976. Three replacements since have quit after short stints at the unused gallows.

Sirisena’s office has said the president wanted the hangings to send a powerful message to anyone engaged in the illegal drugs trade.

Sirisena said there were 200,000 drug addicts in the country, and 60 percent of the 24,000-strong prison population were drug offenders.

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, July 1 (Xinhua) — Thirty five people died and over 23,000 were infected by the dengue virus across Sri Lanka in the first six months of this year, the Epidemiology Unit said here Monday.

Till the end of June, a total of 23,842 dengue cases were reported, with the highest number of cases reported from the Colombo district with 5,069 cases, followed by Gampaha in the outskirts of Colombo with 3,052 cases and Galle in the south with 2,031 cases.

With the ongoing rains, the Epidemiology Unit said it had identified five high risk districts which include Colombo, Gampaha, Galle, Kalutara in the Western Province and Ratnapura, in south central Sri Lanka.

Medical experts have urged people to seek immediate medical attention if they suffered from high fever, uncontrolled vomiting, abdominal pain, dizziness and reduced urinary.

All fever patients need rest and should refrain from attending work or school,” epidemiologists said.

Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever (DHF) can be fatal,” epidemiologists added.

Medical experts have further urged pregnant women to seek hospital admission immediately on the first day of fever.

Last year, over 50 people died and over 48,000 were affected by the dengue virus in Sri Lanka, with the National Dengue Control Unit launching several programs to eradicate dengue’s breeding grounds in several districts of the island country.

By Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka/ Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Ten years ago, Sri Lanka prevailed in a Thirty Years War against a suicide-bombing separatist terrorism. Ten years later, this year 2019, on Easter Sunday, we were attacked atrociously by another type of terrorism: Islamist jihadist terrorism. So, the question of terrorism has been and remains an existential problem for Sri Lanka and it is from that perspective that I speak.

The question What is to be done?” was initially posed by the writer Chernyshevsky, but was better known after Lenin posed it. What is less well known is that Lenin followed up his question What is to be done?” with another question: Where to begin?”.

I suggest that we begin with understanding the matrix or the disease vector that produces the ideology and the mentality of terrorism, and assess what can be done to take down the matrix or to contain it.

The second question of course is What is to be done?” and there I shall be following in the footsteps of Mr. Rajinder Khanna, the high-level representative of our neighbour and friend, India.

The ‘matrix’ is a set of policies and practices in the world order. One may call it the dark side or the down side of the world order. It is those policies and practices that provide the provocations, the stimuli and the opportunities for terrorism. All you really have to do is unpack the videos that radicalized the terrorists, as well as the videos that they themselves post. You take their pedagogical material and you will see inescapably, unavoidably, the recurrence of certain themes.

The Occupation of the Palestinians and Palestine, and the worsening of that Occupation– that is true, and really is one of the catalysts. The aggression against many Arab and Islamic countries is another. This is also true, and there are videos of the bombings, the cruise missile strikes, the drones and the destruction. Then there are almost incentives provided by the patronizing of, or the space afforded to, certain types of Islamist terrorist organizations, whether it’s the Afghan mujahideen in 1978 or the KLA, or the evacuation from Raqqa in buses in more recent times.

So, you have this particular matrix of policies, of permissiveness, of a strange paradoxical mix of ‘state destruction’ and of the lassitude, for instance concerning the Russian warning about the Boston Marathon bombers. That is the matrix. What are we going to do about it? I leave that to you and our leaders. But I want to emphasize that we are about to see a powerful factor that will help the radicalization of terrorists and the proliferation of terrorists. And that is the talk of and perhaps action against Iran.

Speaking as a representative of Sri Lanka we have no involvement in the battle within the Islamic world, but the reality is that we do know that most of the terrorist organizations come from a certain stream within the Islamist space, the so-called Wahhabi or Salafist space. Not that everybody in that space is an extremist or a terrorist, but that’s where most of it comes from.

But Iran, by contrast, has been the first respondent against it in Syria, even before the decisive support extended by the Russian Federation. Now if Iran is attacked, damaged, diverted, then two things happen. You weaken one side which for whatever reason has chosen to fight against the IS terrorists physically. Therefore, an attack on Iran or weakening of Iran will automatically strengthen, empower and enable the other side within the Islamic space– that is, the side of the Wahhabist-Salafist jihadist terrorists. You also give a message to every young Muslim that it doesn’t really matter; that there is an attack or a threat against you if you belong to an Islamic country and it doesn’t matter which side or which type it is. That is powerful motivator for radicalization of young people including, lone-wolf terrorists.

Now what are we going to do? Are we going to just sit back and say OK, we watched Iraq happen, and we watched Libya, and Syria almost happened, or half happened until Iran and Russia went in? Now something bigger is going to happen which is going to destabilize the region if not the world economy and unleash a tsunami of terrorism because most of them will not have anybody to worry about within the Islamic world and the rest of them will think there is a threat against Islam as a whole. So, this is a question that the world has to ask itself right now because there is a clock ticking.

There is also the problem of permissiveness. I used to tell my French counterparts when I was serving as Ambassador in Paris, please don’t allow these demonstrations of the LTTE with the crossed machine guns on their banners. Don’t allow school kids in Parisian schools, and especially in suburban schools to give their friends videos of the Tamil Tigers’ attacks on civilian airplanes at Katunayake airport because you cannot stop the spread of a bad example.

But that is exactly what is happening in many western societies! So, any kid from a different background can pick up these videos, go home and be turned on by it. Now all of those are problems to do with the matrix. And where to begin?” is to discuss collectively what can be done to shrink this matrix; to clean up this disease vector of policies which constitute the dark underside of the world order.

The second and final point is What is to be done?”. And here I pick up from the excellent points made by India’s Rajinder Khanna. I think we have to pose a universalist definition of terrorism that is parsimonious, that is simple, but strikes a chord in every human being. And that is, we must bracket out the idea that terrorism is any and all kind of violent resistance by non-state actors, because in conditions of invasion and aggression and so on, there’ll always be violent resistance whether we like it or not. Terrorism, ladies and gentlemen, is the deliberate, intentional, lethal targeting of non-combatant civilians.

I propose that there be an attempt to have a Universalist Charter, may be at the level of the United Nations; a Charter which movements claiming to fight for causes which they consider just, can sign up to abjure the use of violence against non-combatants. This is, of course in keeping with the ICRC’s doctrine. If we draw the line of demarcation there, that doesn’t mean all violence ceases and all non-state actors become pacifists, but that is another story altogether, and that has to be dealt with separately. What we can do is bracket out terrorism and then put the ball in the court of not only movements that claim to fight for resistance or liberation but also for states that tend to instrumentalize and tolerate them.

If we make this a question of the killing of innocents, you will have a resonance right in the families of the terrorists, because there will be some who say that’s ok, there is nobody who is innocent, anybody who is involved, even indirectly involved or is passively is a legitimate target– but that will be a minority. There will always be those, a wife, a lover, a son, a daughter a mother, a father, who says this is wrong, don’t do this, Allah didn’t say this should be done, God doesn’t say this, the Buddha doesn’t say this; and they will insist that killing innocents is bad. If we can draw the line there, not an elaborate distinction, but a simple distinction concerning the right and wrong use of violence, then we take the moral high ground.

The states that refuse to go along with this, then expose themselves ethically and morally. Movements that refuse to go along with this also make it very clear that they walk around with a target painted on their back. Because those who subscribe to this, as they did with the landmine convention, and pledge that we will not wittingly engage with the killing of civilians” then, those movements open for themselves a window that someday there could be a negotiated solution with them. That my dear friends, is my answer to the two questions that I posed borrowed from the Russian political tradition, namely, Where to begin?” and What is to be done?”. Thank you very much. ”

(Text of Ambassador Jayatilleka’s speech at the Roundtable discussion on Enhancing international cooperation to combat spread of terrorist ideology and counter self-radicalization of lone terrorists” moderated by Deputy Secretary of Security Council of the Russian Federation Yury Kokov, at the 10^thInternational meeting of the high-ranking officials responsible for security matters at Ufa organized by the Security Council of the Russian Federation.)

Kamalika Pieris

In the 19th Amendment, the main blow to the powers of the President came with the Constitutional Council.  The Constitutional Council was first established in 2001 in the 17th Amendment. The idea was imitated by the civil society, led by the Organization of Professional Associations (OPA). The 17 Amendment was certified on 3rd October 2001. The Constitutional Council was removed in 2010 by the 18^th Amendment and replaced in the 19^th Amendment. 

Under the 1978 Constitution, the President made   the appointments to every important office of the State, from Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and Deputy Ministers to Judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, from the Attorney General and the Secretary-General of Parliament to the Auditor General and the Commissioner of Elections, the Public Service Commission, the Judicial Service Commission, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

19th Amendment took this away from the President and gave it back to the Constitutional Council. The unfettered power of the President to appoint persons of his sole choice to critical judicial and government posts was brought under control by the 19th Amendment   declared jubilant Yahapalana supporters.

Composition of Constitutional Council

19th Amendment   said  “There shall be a Constitutional Council which shall consist of the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, one person appointed by the President, five persons appointed by the President on the nomination of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition,of whom two persons shall be Members of Parliament and one person nominated upon agreement by the majority of Members of Parliament belonging to political parties or independent groups other than the respective political parties or independent groups to which the Prime Minister and the Leader of theOpposition belongs and appointed by the President. The Speaker shall be the Chairman of the Council.

The Constitutional Council consists of ten members with the Speaker as its Chairman. Of the ten members in the Constitutional Council, seven are members of Parliament and three are outsiders nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The persons who are not Members of Parliament shall be persons of eminence and integrity who have distinguished themselves in public or professional life.   Three of them must represent the minorities, to reflect the pluralistic character of Sri Lankan society.

When the 17th Amendment was debated in Parliament, some members said that the interests of the minorities were not adequately safeguarded. It was agreed, at the last moment in 2001 to provide that 3 of the 5 nominated members would represent minority interests, Members of Parliament who belong to the respective Minority Communities would be consulted for this purpose.  This was the only provision that was hurriedly made, said Elmore Perera, who was a member of the OPA team that helped draft the Amendment.

The original plan when the 19th Amendment was drafted was to have three lawmakers and seven outsiders. This was opposed and it was decided to have seven lawmakers and three outsiders, said Jayampathy Wickremeratne.

The Constitutional Council speaking in 2019, said that its members are also of the view that the civil society representation must get the majority share in the Constitutional Council. That was the original proposal in the 19th Amendment Bill, but that had to be revised at the committee stage due to objections by the MPs. However, we are of the view that the current composition represents all party views at the Constitutional Council,” they said.

This was also included in the Draft Constitution prepared by Yahapalana. in this draft, the Constitutional Council is supposed to be made up of the following persons – the Prime Minister; the Speaker of Parliament; the Leader of the Opposition; the Speaker of the Second Chamber; one person appointed by the President; five persons appointed on nomination by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition; and one person nominated by agreement among the majority of the Members of Parliament belonging to political parties or independent groups, other than the political parties to which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition belong reported Chandraprema.

We see that the number of persons on the Constitutional Council is to go up from ten to eleven with the addition of the Speaker of the Second chamber, commented Chandraprema. The composition is also to change from having seven parliamentarians and three non-politicians at present to just four parliamentarians and seven non-politicians This is obviously in keeping with the idea that non-politicians were somehow more exalted, more independent, more upright and less likely to do the wrong thing than a politician,   continued Chandraprema.

The draft constitution specifically says, that other than the Speaker, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker of the proposed second chamber, none of the other members of the CC should be Members of Parliament, Members of the proposed Second Chamber, Members of a Provincial Council, or members of any political party. However in selecting their supposedly non-political nominees, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are mandatorily required to consult the leaders of political parties represented in Parliament ‘so as to ensure that the Constitutional Council reflects the pluralistic character of Sri Lankan society, including professional and social diversity’, concluded Chandraprema.

Functions of Constitutional Council

The Constitutional Council was given the task of selecting the Chairmen and members of the following commissions. a) The Election Commission. (b) The Public Service Commission. (c) The National Police Commission. (d) The Audit Service Commission. (e) The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. (f) The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption. (g) The Finance Commission. (h) The Delimitation Commission. (i) The National Procurement Commission.

It shall be the duty of the Council to recommend to the President fit and proper persons for appointment as Chairmen or members of the Commissions specified in the Schedule to this Article, also the recommendations must reflect the pluralistic character of Sri Lankan society, including gender, said 19th Amendment.  In the case of the Chairmen of Commissions, the Council shall recommend three persons for appointment, and the President shall appoint one of the persons recommended as Chairman.

 No person shall be appointed by the President as the Chairman or a member of any of the above Commissions, said the 19th Amendment, except on a recommendation of the Council. The appointment had to be made within 14 days of receiving the recommendation. If the President failed to do so, the nominees would be deemed to be appointed.

The Constitutional Council was also to name the following. The Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court. (b) The President and the Judges of the Court of Appeal. (c) The Members of the Judicial Service Commission, other than the Chairman. The Attorney-General. (b) The Auditor-General. (c) The Inspector-General of Police. (d) The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman). (e) The Secretary-General of Parliament. 

The 19th Amendment stated that in the case of Judges of the Supreme Court and the President and Judges of the Court of Appeal, the Council must obtain the views of the Chief Justice.  The first draft of the 19th Amendment had a provision making it mandatory for the Constitutional Council and the Judicial Services Commission to consult the Bar Association of Sri Lanka when appointing judges. This was shouted down by the Opposition and the provision was dropped when the 19th Amendment was finally passed.

The Constitutional Council of the 19th Amendment had a status that even the President did not have. 19th Amendment said any decision of the Constitutional Council or any approval or recommendation made by the Council, shall be final and conclusive for all purposes. This means that the Constitutional Council is immune from any sort of legal action by any Court and no person or institution can question the decision of the Constitutional Council.  However, the 19th Amendment makes the Executive answerable to the Parliament while making the Parliament not answerable to any authority whatsoever, exclaimed critic.

There is more.  No person appointed under the recommendation of the Constitutional Council shall be removed except as provided for in the Constitution or in any written law, and where there is no such provision, the person shall be removed by the President only with the prior approval of the Council.  Savitri Goonesekera pointed out that one of the limitations in the 19th Amendment is that it has not addressed, very unfortunately, the critical issue of the removal of judges of the Supreme Court. I see that this is an omission, she said.

The first Constitutional Council had Champika Ranawaka (President’s nomination), Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe (Prime Minister’s nomination) and Vijitha Herath (Parliament’s nomination), Bimal Ratnayake (minor party representative) A. T. Ariyaratne, Radhika Coomaraswamy and Shibly Aziz (Appointed members)  later Naganathan Selvakumaran, Jayantha Dhanapala and Javed Yusuf .

The Constitutional Council, once appointed, settled down to the difficult task of making recommendations to a wide range of offices, regarding which they probably knew much less than the President. Anyway they muddled through and did their job. They recommended Senior Supreme Court Justice Nalin Perera and thereafter, Attorney General, Jayantha Jayasuriya as Chief Justice. Chula Wickramaratne was approved for the position of Auditor General. Pujitha Jayasundera as Inspector General of Police.

Appointments made by Constitutional Council to judiciary.

The Constitutional Council ran into trouble over its appointments, starting with the appointment of the Chief Justice. President Sirisena’s nomination for this post was rejected because the Chief Justice was not favor of that name. Constitutional Council however, firmly refused to make public, the comments made by the Chief Justice. If the CJ says a particular judge should not be promoted due to adverse judicial behavior, we will not make that information public, they said.

Why wasn’t the most senior Judge considered? The government has claimed that the most senior Supreme Court judges name was not submitted by the President. If so, why did the Constitutional Council not ask the President why he did not,  said a critic.

The Constitutional Council continued to bungle. The Constitutional Council delayed to recommend a nominee for President of the Court of Appeal, when the post fell vacant in January 2019.  This created a problem. It was not possible to appoint ‘Acting’ Presidents of the Court of Appeal without the permanent President. An acting appointment can be made only where a sitting President of the Court of Appeal is temporarily unable to  carry out his duties, due to illness, absence from Sri Lanka or any other cause said  the Constitution. 

This left the appointment of acting Presidents to the Court of Appeal in a legal quandary, observed J.C.Weliamuna,  because, that meant that there is, no constitutionally established Court of Appeal. The Constitutional Council and the President must work together to decide on a suitable candidate, he said. The judiciary, Attorney-General’s Department and private bar have many highly qualified and suitable nominees.

 The Constitutional Council ran into trouble over the appointments to the superior courts. President Sirisena had nominated a single candidate each for the two superior courts, Deepali Wijesundera for the Supreme Court and Kusala Sarojini Weerawardena for the Court of Appeal. If she made it into Supreme Court, Deepali Wijesundera would then have been next in line for Chief Justice on the grounds of seniority. Both were knocked out, since civil society groups were against these two names and Sirisena sent in 12 more names.

In February 2019 the President complained to Parliament that 14 names of judges had been rejected by the Constitutional Council .without any reasons given. The Speaker has sent me a four-page letter stating that the seniority would not be counted as the sole criterion when making the appointments by the Constitutional Council, he grumbled.” It is said that the Constitutional Council rejects the names of the judges on the basis of judgments they have given in the past. Those who get their names rejected think that I am responsible for that. “

Analysts pointed out that the one consistent feature noticeable in these recommendations is that most senior persons have not been selected. For instance, Constitutional Council did not approve former Solicitor General Suhadha Gamlath as Attorney-General.  Mr. Gamlath was the most senior Solicitor General. He was not selected but a junior was, said a critic.  

The Constitutional Council replied its critics. The CC only approves or disapproves the nominations sent by the President, it said. Also, there are three parties, namely the President, Chief Justice and the Constitutional Council, involved in the matter. The CJ’s reasoning in approving or disapproving the nominations were given special consideration by the Constitutional Council.

The Constitutional Council thereafter announced in March 2019 that it has decided to seek the Attorney General’s opinion to draft the modalities and criteria for the appointment of judges and other members of the commissions.

Appointments made by Constitutional Council in the Police department.

In 2016, the Constitutional Council selected Pujitha Jayasundera for the post of Inspector General of Police.  He was appointed over the head of Snr. DIG S.M. Wickramasinghe. Constitutional Council nominated Pujitha Jayasundera   overlooking the most eligible candidate nominated by the President, comment critics.  ‘There were no shortcomings on Wickramasinghe‘s part that we know of, said an analyst. ’ Jayasundera‘s appointment was objected to at the time.  At the time the IGP was appointed, I told them to appoint someone else. But they did not heed my advice said Sarath Fonseka.

This appointment has been heavily condemned.  Television news showed IGP Pujitha Jayasundera speaking to a bigwig, calling him ‘Sir’ and assuring him that ‘Nilame’ would not be arrested. Here was the head of police himself assuring the caller that the law could be somehow adjusted to suit the circumstance, said a critic.

Junior ranks of the Police Department complain that the recent promotions effected by the National Police Commission on the recommendation of IGP Pujith Jayasundara have overlooked many deserving officers. Not even the person adjudged the best policeman in the country in 2017 has been considered for promotion.

 The best policeman of the year was selected in a competition among 440 stations countrywide. The person who scored the highest mark too has been overlooked among many other deserving cases.

Priority had been given to the policemen who were working for the Ministers and politicians in the Ministerial Security Division for promotions while those who served difficult areas had been overlooked,..

The NPC, on the recommendation of IGP Jayasundara, granted promotions to 2891 police officers of various ranks following interviews. The policemen who attended the interviews with the recommendations of their senior officers were given 10 marks at the interview while those who did not have such recommendations were given only five marks.

The Constitutional Council  in March 2019 decided to postpone naming a permanent Chairman to the National Police Commission (NPC) and let its members decide on a protem Chairman at its each sitting to continue its functions.

The Constitutional Council  was created to curb the arbitrariness of executive action. Therefore, if such an institution is to fulfill the purposes for which it was created, it has to gazette and place before Parliament the parameters that guide its operations. Else, it amounts to replacing the arbitrariness of an individual with that of an institution whose decisions are final and cannot be challenged.

If the Constitutional Council  had assigned weightage to the qualities they were looking for, when they developed guidelines, this would have been a non-issue. The lack of such procedures has made the guidelines for selection open to question said analyst.

Analysts were highly critical of the Constitutional Council recommendations. We could accept their selection, ignoring seniority and merit if the persons selected by them, , have been better than the seniors who were overlooked. But those who were nominated were not better than those  overlooked. It is no secret that many people in this country have reservations about the people recommended by the Constitutional Council, said critics. It should be made incumbent on its members inform an officer, when his seniority and merit are ignored, why he was not selected . After all, the Constitutional Council also must be accountable.

Seniority and merit were the age old criteria for promotion to all positions in the Public Service, Judiciary and Overseas’ Service. We should get rid of the Constitutional Council and revert to the simple principle of seniority and merit for promotion to high posts, they concluded. 

Criteria  for appointments

There was criticism that the CC lacks a set of criteria in approving the appointments referred to it. The 19th Amendment  said that  Constitutional Council  ‘has the power’ to make rules relating to the performance and discharge of its duties and functions. All such rules shall be published in the Gazette and be placed before Parliament within three months of such publication”.

The CC was created to curb the arbitrariness of executive action. Therefore, if such an institution is to fulfill the purposes for which it was created, it has to gazette and place before Parliament the parameters that guide its operations. Else, it amounts to replacing the arbitrariness of an individual with that of an institution whose decisions are final and cannot be challenged, said critics.

The Constitutional Council contested this. They issued a statement in March 2019, saying that it was using same  criteria followed by the then Constitutional Council of 2002. The Constitutional Council  has informed the President and all MPs on this set of criteria and requested suggestions if any revisions are needed.

Constitutional Council said that the Council called for applications for vacancies in the independent commissions and only considered for nomination persons who had applied. The Council examined the requirements for each Commission as spelled out in the Constitution or the appropriate legislation”, and placed priority on integrity, independence and non-partisanship.” It looked for professional experience that was relevant to the work” of the respective commission, and outstanding qualities and leadership in important institutions or positions.”

The Council also weighed maturity” against the benefits of younger candidates” who could bring new ideas” to the workings of particular commissions. Diversity, in terms of ethnicity and gender in particular” was another factor considered by the Council in recommending nominees to the independent commissions. 

When it came to judicial and other appointments under Article 41C of the Constitution, the Council was not required to call for or evaluate applications for vacancies, but only to evaluate and approve persons nominated by the President.

Constitutional Council  gave a detailed statement to Parliament as to the criteria it was using. This report tabled by the Speaker set out the different criteria used by the Council in evaluating candidates submitted by the President.

In evaluating potential Chief Justices, the Council gave preference to senior Justices of the Supreme Court, serving Attorneys-General, and private lawyers with a successful practice and at least 30 years of legal experience who are held in high regard” by the judiciary and the legal profession. With the exception of sitting Justices of the Supreme Court, other candidates for Chief Justice were expected to be below 62 years.

Persons nominated to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court were expected by the Council to be attorneys of outstanding ability” with at least 25 years of legal experience. They must be serving on the Court of Appeal, a Solicitor General level officer or higher of the Attorney-General’s Department, a private lawyer with a successful practice held in high regard” by the judiciary and the bar, Secretary to the Justice Ministry, Legal Drafts person, or a jurist or person of high academic attainments in the field of law.”

In the case of Justice Secretaries, Legal Drafts persons or other jurists”, the Council also requires that they have made a significant contribution to the development and advancement of the law” and that they are held in high regard by Judges and the legal profession.” Except for sitting Justices of the Court of Appeal, all other candidates are required to be under 62 years.

Potential Presidents of the Court of Appeal must be senior Justices serving on that court or be practicing,  with a successful career spanning at least 25 years either in the private bar with a successful practice or in the Attorney General’s Department serving in a Solicitor General-level post or above. Non-judicial applicants for this post are also required to be held in high regard” by the legal profession and the judiciary. Except for sitting Court of Appeal Judges, other candidates must be under 60 years.

Justices of the Court of Appeal are expected to be persons of outstanding ability” with at least 20 years of experience of practicing law. They may be senior High Court judges, a Deputy Solicitor General or higher grade officer of the Attorney General’s Department, a private practitioner held in high regard by the legal profession and judiciary, Justice Ministry Secretary, Legal Draftsperson, or a jurist of high academic attainments in the field of law.”

Candidates in the latter four categories are also required to have made a significant contribution to the development and advancement of the law” and to be held in high regard by the Judges and the legal profession.” Except for sitting High Court judges, other candidates must be below 60 years old.

Regarding candidates to the Judicial Services Commission, the two most senior judges of the Supreme Court are approved. However, in the event where both the Chairman and the most senior Justice are not career Judicial Officers, the most senior career Judge will be approved to be appointed as a member” of the Judicial Services Commission.

Candidates for Attorney General must be either a serving Justice of the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General or a senior Additional Solicitor General, or a private practitioner attorney with at least 30 years of legal experience who is held in high regard by the judiciary and the legal profession.

A prospective Auditor-General from the Auditor General’s Department must be a Deputy Auditor General with either 25 years or more experience in the Department or a degree in Economics, Law, Mathematics or other subject with membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and at least five years in an executive grade position in the public sector.

Candidates from outside of the Auditor-General’s Department must possess a degree, preferably in Economics, Law or Mathematics, be a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and have at least 15 years of post-qualification experience in an executive grade position in accounting, auditing, finance control or monitoring, including at least ten years of public sector experience.

 When evaluating candidates to serve as Inspectors General of Police (IGP), the Council rules only allow the selection of a serving Senior Deputy Inspector General from the Sri Lanka Police, who must have uninterrupted service in the police force, at least ten years of service in operational areas including at least one year in charge of a police division in such an area, at least five years in a gazetted post in a special duty division such as the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Field Force Headquarters or Administration of Supplies and Services Headquarters, and five years of service at a Deputy Inspector General or Senior Deputy Inspector General including at least one year in charge of a police range. Potential IGP candidates who have completed a service period in a gazetted post in the field of Intelligence are given additional consideration, concluded the statement.

Criticism

The Constitutional Council was heavily criticized. The very existence of the Constitutional Council has  been questioned. The concept of an ‘independent’ Constitutional was flawed said analysts. The creation of such a Council amounts to a violation of the Constitution based on the Court’s determination that “…as long as the President remains the head of the Executive, the exercise of his powers remain supreme or sovereign in the executive field”. The transfer of key appointments from the President to a Constitutional Council should have required a referendum since it amounts to transfer or removal of executive power from the President to another body – the Constitutional Council.

The first Constitutional Council  appointed under the 19th Amendment was a 100% Yahapalana outfit,   said Chandraprema. With the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader representing opposing sides, the only practical way an agreement can be reached on making nominations to the Constitutional Council  will be if the two sides divide up the slots among themselves,  taking turns to appoint the remaining member.

I’ll scratch your back, you scratch my back’ kind of cooperation soon evolved with the political parties sharing out the slots among themselves. The President appointed his catcher, PM appointing two of his catchers, the Leader of the Opposition appointing two of his, and the smaller parties took turns appointing their catchers to the Constitutional Council  in turn.

The Prime Minister was a Yahapalanite, the leader of the opposition was a Yahapalanite, the Speaker was a Yahapalanite, the five nominees to be appointed by the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition were all Yahapalanites, the President’s nominee to the CC was a Yahapalanite and the nominee of the political parties to whom neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the opposition belongs was a Yahapalanite. The three ostensible non-politicians on the CC are all Yahapalanites.

Every person elected to high office in the past four years was also Yahapalanite.  The former Solicitor General,  Srinath Perera admitted in an interview, that top positions were being given to political fellow travelers of the government,  said Chandraprema.

Apologists of the scheme  forget that  the Constitutional Council  only shifted the decision-making powers from the President-led Cabinet to another group of people, who were all political nominees.

The need for some kind of a vetting process in making high state appointments was of course desirable, but not the way the 19th Amendment did it. To start with, when appointing the   three non-parliamentarians the Constitution requires the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to consult the political parties in Parliament, making it a political exercise, observed Chandraprema. Further, there was heavy canvassing by interested persons and groups .

If the Constitutional Council rejects the nominee of the President without any valid reason, the President can keep on sending names and the Constitutional Council can keep on rejecting such names. The President can also keep on sending names to the Constitutional Council knowing fully well that it might not approve them. This again creates a situation where the country becomes ungovernable, speculated an analyst.

Instead the rules for the selection to posts could have been formulated and given statutorily to the Constitutional Council. The Constitutional Council could have been directed to call upon citizens of the country either on their own or for the citizens themselves to apply to be appointed to these high posts and the selection process could be done based on the criteria provided statutorily while several names (may be 3) could have been sent to the President.

The President could have made his selection from out of those nominated. This would have been a far better method of getting the best person appointed and a practical one. The Executive power of the President, like in the American Constitution, could have been given entirely to the President where he decides on the best individuals to run the Executive.

The type of Ministries could have been decided by the Parliament and could have been fixed in terms of the Constitution itself. The control of Public Finance could have continued to be with Parliament and the Executive while the Legislative functions could have been separated creating a more efficient form of Government which would be conducive for Good Governance rather than what has been created now.

The 19th Amendment  also required the CC to forward reports of their activities to the President every three months. However, so far no progress review report has been handed over to the President , said the media in February 2019.

This essay ends with  a chorus of support for the Constitutional Council . The Council applied high standards of probity and rectitude in considering the nominees for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal sent in by President Maithripala Sirisena, said the supporters of the Constitutional Council. It is reliably understood that the two new nominees of the Council to the Supreme Court are both upright judges currently serving the Court of Appeal. Both have a track record of being impartial and honest, the support group  said.

The Constitutional Council embodies that essential principle of key state appointments being independently vetted and approved by a collective leadership, said Harim Pieris. This has, in fact, led to a renewed Sri Lanka, where senior police officers are institutionally independent of politicians now, in their professional work and careers,.

it surely boggles the mind and is inconceivable that a collective of ten members of the Constitutional Council, comprising ex officio the Speaker, the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, their nominees and three eminent non-partisan persons, can make a bigger mistake and be allegedly partisan, than a single individual, as would be the case of the executive president concluded Harim Pieris.

With the Constitutional Council , the country has seen a remarkable improvement in the quality of the delivery of justice. The Constitutional Council  has a mechanism and guidelines by which candidates are vetted and filtered. Judges vetted unanimously by the Council and appointed by the President, have been dignified, independent, competent and dynamic. This is an achievement discussed among the judiciary around the world, and none other than our own judges hear this for themselves when they interact with their counterparts across the globe, said J.C. Weliamuna.

Who could argue that such a process does not incentivize distinction, hard work and independence throughout the judiciary and public service? If public servants, police officers and judges know that their career prospects at the height of their careers will depend on scrutiny of their track record by a Council made up of all political parties and eminent persons from civil society, any incentive to work according to the whims of a given political master rapidly evaporates concluded Weliamuna.

 Kishali Pinto Jayawardene also sees potential in the Constitutional Council .We see cleverly managed slings and arrows being leveled at the Constitutional Council in terms of pointed questions which the Council has indeed become helpless to answer, such as if there are no credible disciplinary issues against ‘so-and-so’, why is the promotion not being made? Or if ‘so-and-so’ is fit to sit in the Court of Appeal, from whence does the unsuitability to sit as the President of that Court or in the Supreme Court arise.

 These onslaughts are part of a well orchestrated plot to undermine even the constitutional minimum that we have. In particular, the CC is being savaged as it has stood firm in the matter of judicial promotions. This issue is linked, to a larger question of disciplinary procedures relating to judges of the appellate courts. If credible allegations exist of behavior unsuitable for judicial office (viz; acceptance of money by politicians, sexual misconduct or decisions taken with political bias and conflict of interest), then these must be formally investigated in a process that is not politically compromised said Kishali. ( CONCLUDED)

By Rohana R. Wasala

The true barbarian is he who thinks everything barbarous but his own tastes and prejudices. -William Hazlitt

Sunday Island columnist Sanjana Hattotuwa (‘What we are today’/June 23, 2019), as if stoned on the drug of racist hatred and prejudice against the majority Sinhalese Buddhists who constitute 70% of the Sri Lankan population (Sinhalese account for at least 75% of the population in terms of racial composition, it could be 80% or more in reality), implicitly condemns all nationalist oppositional forces including the non-political Maha Sangha as barbarians. This, of course, is  self-inflicted racism, because, as the name suggests, the person is a Sinhalese. (All ethnicities are represented among nationalists in varying proportions; nationalists are not exclusively Sinhalese or Sinhalese Buddhists; not all Sinhalese are nationalists either.) 

What SH offers the Sunday Island readers is a stinker of a scurrilous piece of writing soiled with a verbal diarrhoeal discharge absolutely devoid of meaning. Baseless implicit or explicit charges of racial supremacism, religious exclusivism, and political majoritarianism have been repeated ad nauseam against the majority community over the past decades. Today, for all their innocence of these evils, they have become hapless victims of other people’s racism, religious intolerance, and minoritarian politics of genocidal proportions. While this is the ground truth about the predicament of the majority Sinhalese at present, Hattotuwa’s great worry seems to be over the distinct probability of the nationalist forces uniting to oust the failed foreign sponsored Yahapalanaya before long. All his allegations, particularly against the majority community and the Buddhist monks, about visiting violence on innocent Muslims are baseless assertions, which seem to have  to do with some personal embitterment in life he has experienced. He deserves to be treated with understanding and sympathy; but the truth that he wants to hide, especially from the small but important English reading public, must be stated in the national interest. Hence this article is written as a reply to SH, although I feel he is not worthy of one. It is respectfully offered to the intelligent and fair minded readers of the Sunday Island and others interested, for their critical engagement and appraisal.

His Eminence the Cardinal’s urgent appeal to the Catholics for calm, after the April 21 terrorist bombings, completely neutralized any possibility of retaliatory violence by them on innocent Muslims who had nothing to do with those terror attacks. His personal call was  much more effective than whatever the government did in that respect on its own initiative. There was no reason to fear that the Buddhists would perpetrate any violence on Muslims to avenge terrorist attacks on Catholic churches. 

Those of us who are old enough can remember at least three occasions (out of many) in the past that the Sinhalese Buddhists remained calm under extreme provocation and avoided communal violence: On May 14, 1985, LTTE terrorists shot dead 146 innocent Sinhalese Buddhist men, women and children arriving at Anuradhapura to take part in religious observances at the Sri Maha Bodhi there, some of them already engaged in those activities; on June 2, 1987, 33 Buddhist monks, most of them teenaged or younger novices, were hacked to death, at Aranthalawa by LTTE terrorists; on January 25, 1998, the Sri Dalada Maligawa in Kandy, the holiest Buddhist shrine in the country, was truck-bombed by an LTTE suicide cadre, killing 17 early morning worshippers, and seriously injuring more than 25. When these atrocities were committed,  innocent Tamils or their shops and houses or their Kovils were not attacked by the Sinhalese, although that was what the terrorists expected to provoke them to do, in order to discredit the Sinhalese majority in the eyes of the world. (It should be noted that in Kandy, businesses are overwhelmingly possessed and controlled by Tamil speakers including Muslims.) 

So, is it likely that these Sinhalese Buddhist ‘barbarians’ wanted to attack  Muslims, their businesses and houses in Minuwangoda and Kuliyapitiya one month after those Islamic terror attacks on Catholic churches elsewhere that they had nothing to do with? Neutral media sources point out that the perpetrators of the violence in those places

which equally affected Sinhalese families, businesses and houses were strangers to the area, and that they were probably agents provocateurs. Opposition observers claim government involvement. Persons arrested by the police, the same sources allege, were people who were sight-seeing or were there to try and stop the violence and help out those already subjected to it, without discrimination. 

In SH’s opinion, such allegations as those about serving food adulterated with unknown drugs to Sinhalese customers who go to Muslim eateries, and about forced sterilization of unsuspecting Sinhalese mothers by restricting  the fallopian tubes by a Muslim doctor, are attributable not to the ‘domain of fringe lunacy’ but to something worse that is signalled by the statements of the (Most Venerable) Asgiriya Mahanayake Thera, presumably because the Thera has implied that these charges against suspected Islamic extremist sympathisers are credible (Here my interpretation could be wrong, but this is what I can make out of SH’s convoluted prose). SH chooses not to recognize or indulge the religious sensitivities of the Buddhist readers of his piece by avoiding respectful honorifics before the names of Buddhist monks. He grants the Most Venerable Warakagoda Gnanaratana, the Mahanayake Thera of Asgiriya Chapter, no more significance than that due to his seniority. 

The Asgiriya prelate’s attitude is an implicit indictment of the government’s failure to duly investigate the specific charges and take tangible action if they are found to be true or to reassure the vast majority of the multiethnic multi-religious population threatened by a small group of extremist Islamists. If the high monk’s stand is something worse than fringe lunacy as SH warns, what does he say about His Eminence the Cardinal who, in no uncertain terms, accuses the government of direct responsibility for the Easter Sunday attacks? His Eminence repeated this charge even in Rome a week or so ago. The Most Venerable Mahanayake Thera of the Malwatte Chapter, a diehard supporter of the UNP, recently chided a senior-most cabinet minister, who is a potential presidential nomination aspirant from that party, for offering surveillance  cameras for his monastery instead of doing more to ensure the security of the people. The Asgiriya High Monk’s recent candid criticism of the UNP as the party that caused the greatest harm to the country and the nation in recent times (which seems to have got SH’s goat) was evidence based, and went down well with the masses impatiently waiting for a change of government. 

As opposed to unfounded allegations hurled at the nationalist oppositional forces, there are reasonable grounds for one to assume that the serious charges that are raised against certain extremist elements in a particular community by the ‘barbarians’ are based on verifiable factual observations, although the government prefers to be in denial. That is, according to free online news media sources. SH dismisses these reported facts contemptuously without bothering to study them as part of his work in investigative journalism that he apparently wants to take credit for. Only perfect blockheads will accept his opinion regarding the matter, while rejecting the scientific fact based explanation of the allegation against the doctor in question (who has acted as a house officer in a Kurunegala hospital) by an internationally recognized young university medical professor of Sinhalese ethnicity. 

Whose views should we attach credence to? SH’s or the two religious personages’ and the medical professor’s? 

SH has also made references to Ven. Ratana and Ven. Gnanasara Theras (who are monk activists of two different models).  He accuses Ven Gnanasara of using ‘virulent words’ and doing ‘violent actions’. The truth is that though sometimes he used harsh language he didn’t mean any harm to anybody.  He only wanted people to listen to the legitimate complaints he had against the unacceptable activities of fundamentalist sects targeting peaceful Buddhists, Christians, Catholics, Hindus, and traditional Muslims. In spite of sometimes assuming threatening postures, he never indulged in physical violence on persons or property. The Islamic violence that he started warning against in 2013 materialized  on April 21 this year. That day he was still in prison. He said he cried looking at the pictures of the bodies of small children killed in the church blasts. After his release from prison, not long after, he didn’t exult claiming that he was vindicated about the passionate warnings that he had been sounding for so long. He said that he only deeply regretted that all his efforts to get the authorities to investigate the evidence he was giving them and to get them to act in order to prevent such mayhem and destruction fell through. 

On being freed from prison, he declared his intention to get back to his usual spiritual pursuits as a Buddhist monk, away from mundane affairs. He said, I have done my duty by the country. I am now tired”. But then, the young Buddhist activists who had been following him urged him to resume the work he was doing for safeguarding the country’s age-old Buddhist cultural legacy without which the Sri Lankan state cannot survive whole. It is the dominant Sinhalese Buddhist culture that ensures the peaceful coexistence and flourishing of all communities. So he relented. After all, Buddha advised his disciples to ideologically defeat all superstitions and awaken people to see things as they really are, Ven. Gnanasara says. That’s what Ven. Gnanasara will be doing in the future. He wants the Maha Sangha to remain above politicians and get them to rule righteously so that the country, the people and the Buddha Sasanaya will be saved for the good of all. 

The Maha Sangha are the spiritual leaders of the majority of the population. Yet they have been unable to provide them with the inspiring and protective moral  leadership that it is their historical duty to provide to the nation. The Cardinal provided that leadership to the Catholics, and he was immediately recognized as a national hero, most of all by the Buddhists, for playing that role with such dedication and compassion. His Eminence’s bold criticism of the suspected government’s dereliction of duty concerning national security  is just and it will go a long way towards correcting the situation soon. His praiseworthy conduct has put our leading monks to shame. It is heartening to see that they are now awakening to the reality. Ven. Gnanasara’s contribution in this connection should be recognized. 

However, three glaring defects of Ven. Gnanasara’s personality that have greatly damaged his reputation and have substantially harmed the national cause that he is championing are the impetuous nature of his temperament, his naivety and his unguarded tongue. Had he been a politician he would have controlled all these better. Not being a politico is not enough for a monk. It’s no harm having the positive qualities that successful politicians possess such as coolness, cleverness, and controlled speech.

Ven. Ratana, the scheming politician monk, put a hex on the Maha Sangha awakening that Ven. Gnanasara facilitated through his non-political activism, which, unfortunately, even led him to jail, mainly due to the aforementioned personality defects. Though Ven. Gnanasara disapproved of the other’s ‘farcical fast’ (as SH rightly describes it), he had no choice but to temporarily associate with Ven. Ratana’s demand that the three Muslim politicians he charged were connected with Islamic terrorism resign from their posts, though this was not the correct thing to be urged at that stage. Ven. Ratana’s objective was, apparently, to steal a march on the non-political monks who were just beginning to move in the correct direction. Ven. Gnanasara, after that episode including his own questionable but excusable part in it, criticised the Ven. Ratana’s realpolitik. Ven. Ratana’s gatecrashing will be an obstruction to finding a permanent solution to the crucial problem of Islamic fundamentalist threat to our country. Ven. Ratana cannot provide the political leadership that the country needs, nor can he provide any spiritual leadership either, because of the duality of his role.

If SH has any genuine concern about Sri Lanka, he must try to correctly identify the real barbarians and blockheads who are responsible for  the deplorable state of the country today. He must explain why the foreign advocated policies of the government are good for our people, if he thinks so, while demonstrating that he has a correct idea of the existential threats that they being confronted with. Please address yourself to them, not to the foreign powers who are in our region to promote what they can do there in the interest of the well-being and security of their own respective peoples back home.  

පේශල පසන් කරුණාරත්න

කළුතර දිස්ත්‍රික්කය නිවර්තන සදාහරිත වනාන්තර කීපයකටම හිමිකම් කියන්නා වූ ජෛව හා පරිසර පද්ධති විවිධත්වයෙන් පොහොසත් දිස්ත්‍රිකකයක් වේ. වර්තමානය වන විට ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ වනාන්තර පද්ධතියට විශාල වශයෙන් මානව ක්‍රියාකාරකම් නිසා තර්ජන එල්ල වෙමින් පවතින අතර කළුතර දිස්ත්‍රික්කයේ වනාන්නර පද්ධතිද විශාල වශයෙන් හායනයට ලක් වෙමින් පවතී. මේ නිසා මෙම සංවේදී පරිසර පද්ධති රැක ගැනීමට විශාල වෙහෙසක් දැරීමට සිදුවී ඇත.මෙම කාර්ය ඉටු කර ගැනීම සඳහා විවිධ වූ ආයතන හා සංවිධාන විශාල කැපකිරීමක් සිදු කරන අතර වලල්ලාවිට ප්‍රාදේශීය ලේකම් කොට්ඨාසයෙහි යෞවන සමාජයන්  මේ සඳහා ප්‍රමුඛත්වයක් ගෙන ක්‍රියා කරයි.

එබැවින් වලල්ලාවිට ප්‍රාදේශීය ලේකම් කාර්යාලය විසින් ප්‍රාදේශීය ලේකම් කොට්ඨාසය තුල පවතින පරිසර පද්ධති රැක ගැනීම  සඳහා එම පරිසර පද්ධති ආශ්‍රිතව ජීවත් වන තරුණ තරුණියන්ගේ දායකත්වය ඒ සඳහා ලබා ගැනීමට හා ඒ පිළිබඳව උනන්දුව ඇති කරලීම අදිටන් කර ගනිමින් වනාන්තර පද්ධති වල ජෛව විවිධත්ව වැදගත්කම, ඒවා මුහුණ පා ඇති තර්ජන සහ එහි සංරක්ෂණය පිලිබඳව දැනුවත් කිරීම සඳහා දෙදින ගවේශණාත්මක වනජීවී හා පාරිසරක සංරක්ෂණ වැඩමුළුවක් ජුනි මස 26 සහ 27 දින රූණකන්ද සංරක්ෂණ මධ්‍යස්ථානය හා රූණකන්ද රක්ෂිතය කේන්ද්‍ර කරගනිමින් පැවැත්වුණි.

කළුතර දිස්ත්‍රික්කයේ විශාලතම රක්ෂිත වනාන්තරය වන රූණකන්ද යෝජිත රක්ෂිත වනාන්තරය දල වශයෙන් හෙක්ටයාර 6500 පමණ වපසරියකින් යුක්ත වේ. තවමත් යෝජිත තත්වයේ පවතින රක්ෂිත වනාන්තරයක් වන මෙම සුවිශේෂි වනාන්තරය ලෝක උරුම සිංහරාජ වනාන්තරයේ පරිවාර වනාන්තරයක් ලෙස හැඳින්විය හැකිය. ප්‍රධාන වශයෙන් හඳුනාගත හැකි දිය ඇලි 6ක්, ශාක විශේෂ 66ක්, ක්ෂිරපායි විශේෂ 24ක්, ලංකාවට ආවේනික පක්ෂි විශේෂ 24ක්, සර්ප විශේෂ 26ක්, කටුසු විශේෂ 6ක්, මත්ස්‍ය විශේෂ 33ක්, සමනල විශේෂ 50කින් සමන්විත ජෛව විවිධත්වයෙන් ඉතාමත් ඉහල ස්ථානයක පවතින මෙම පරිසර පද්ධතිය කේන්ද්‍ර කොට ගනිමින් පැවැත්වූ වැඩමුළුව සඳහා වලල්ලාවිට යෞවන සමාජ ප්‍රාදේශීය මණ්ඩලයේ තරුණ තරුණියන් 50ස්  දෙනෙකු සහභාගී විය. වලල්ලාවිට ප්‍රදේශීය ලේකම් කාර්යාලය විසින් සංවිධානය කල මෙම වැඩසටහන සඳහා උඩවෙල ජෛව විවිධත්ව මිතුරෝ සංවිධානයේ සහයෝගයද ලැබුණී.

මෙම වැඩසටහන මෙහෙය වූ පරිසරවේදී උදය චානක මහතා විසින් ශ්‍රීලංකාවේ ජෛව විවිධත්වය, එහි ඇති වැදගත් කම, එයට එල්ලවී ඇති තර්ජන, එය රැක ගැනීමට තරුණයන් වශයෙන් දායක විය හැකි ආකාරය පිළිබඳව සහභාගී වූ තරුණ පිරිස දැනුවත් කල අතර  ඔහුගේ  මග පෙන්වීම යටතේ  රූණකන්ද රක්ෂිතය තුල සිදුකල ගවේෂණ වැඩ සටහන මගින් වනාන්තරයක් තුල ක්ෂේත්‍ර අධ්‍යන චාරිකාවක යෙදෙන අන්දම, වන සතුන් සහ ශාක පිළිබඳ විස්තර සටහන් කරගන්නා ආකාරය තරුණයන්ට පැහැදිලි  කරන ලද අතර රූණකන්ද රක්ෂිතයෙන් හමුවන වනජීවීන් පිළිබඳවද තරුණ තරුණියන් දැනුවත් කරන ලදි. මෙහිදී දඹාන ආදීවාසී කෞතුකාගාරයෙහි නිර්මාතෘ නලින් මුණසිංහ මහතා විසින් ශ්‍රීලංකාවේ ආදීවාසීන් පිළිබඳව හා ඔවුන් පරිසරය සමඟ කටයුතු කරන්නා වූ ආකාරය, දැනට ශ්‍රීලංකාවේ ආදීවාසීන්ගේ ව්‍යාප්තිය පිළිබඳව සාරවත් දේශනයක් මගින් දැනුවත් කරන ලදී. වලල්ලාවිට ප්‍රාදේශීය ලේකම් කාර්යාලයේ ළමා හිමිකම් ප්‍රවර්ධන නිලධාරී රංග අබේවීර මහතා විසින් ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ පරිසර පද්ධති විනාශකාරී කටයුතු සඳහා තරුණ තරුණියන් වංචනිකව යොදා ගන්නා ආකාරය සහ එවැනි දේ වලින් තරුණයන්ට වැලකිය හැකි ආකාරය හා ඒ පිළිබඳව වගකීමෙන් කටයුතු කරන ආකාරය පිළිබඳවද දැනුවත් කරන ලදි.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සියළුම වනාන්තර හා ජල මූලාශ්‍ර මිනිස් ක්‍රියාකාරකම් නිසා දිනෙන් දින විනාශ වී යමින් පවතින අතර වසරක් පාසා ඇතිවන දරුණු නි‍යං, ගංවතුර හා නාය‍යෑම් වැනි ස්වභාවික විපත් වලට ඒවා මග පාදයි. මේවා සොබා දහමේ අකාරුණික භාවය නොව මිනිසා විසින්ම ඇති කරගන්නා  ලද උවදුරු බව පැහැදිලි කරුණකි. නොදැනුවත්කම හා තාවකාලික වාසි තකා සිදුකරන මෙවන් විනාශකාරී ක්‍රියා දිගින් දිගටම සිදුවීම වැලැක්වීමට පරිසරය පිළිබඳව දරුවන්ට ඉගැන්වීමත්, ජල පෝෂක වනාන්තර හා ජල මූලාශ්‍ර රැක ගැනීමට මතු පරම්පරාව යොමු කිරීමත් අප සියලු දෙනාගේ යුතුකමය. මෙම පුහුණු කඳවුර සාර්ථකව අවසන් කල තරුණ තරුණියන් වෙනුවෙන්  සහතික පත් ප්‍රදානෝත්සවය සඳහා වලල්ලාවිට ප්‍රාදේශීය ලේකම් රන්ජන් ප්‍රියශාන්ත පෙරේරා, අතිරේක ප්‍රාදේශීය ලේකම් එරංගි ප්‍රනාන්දු, තරුණ සේවා නිලධාරී අරුණ ජයතිලක, ළමා හිමිකම් ප්‍රවර්ධන නිලධාරී රංග අබේවීර යන මහත්ම මහත්මීන් පිරිසක් සහභාගී විය.

ස්තූතියි.

පේශල පසන් කරුණාරත්න

සභාපති

සමනල යෞවන සමාජය.

Dr Sarath Obeysekersa 

I flew in to Colombo on Saturday. Sri Lankan air line flight was full  but there were hardly any European guests  flying in to Colombo .It was full of transit passengers.

 Easter  Sunday attack ,is the main reason for lack of tourists arriving in Colombo.

When we read news items people are concentrating more on Dr Shafi s purported crime committed to prevent more Sinhala Children being born .

Government ,police ,journalists keep guessing and blaming how easy to crush Fallopian tube to prevent conceiving a child.Ordinary people came to know about the anatomy only after this incident .It is fortunate that people have forgotten about the suffering of children and people who have perished during the bomb  blasts.

 I happened to meet a Muslim regular mosque goer ,who said that Quran never advocated such heinous acts.it is the local or foreign capitalist anti perialist forces  created such monsters .Even during The times of Eelam war,there were such people who blew themselves up.But we never blamed the whole Tamil nation.

Government and opposition are deviating the  minds of people by giving publicity to Shafi Affair, Badurdeen affair,Copper factory fiasco. 

People should now understand that American Imperialism is the only beneficiary.

SOFA which is being pushed thru like the Sri Lanka Indian peace accord pushed thru many years back is the danger sign to our country and the nation more than Dr Shafi and.Badurdeen.

GMOA is wearing black arm bands and also trying to safeguard Shafi ,thus deviating the attention of the people.

JVP is also not fighting enough to stop implemtation  of SOFA like the way they fought against Signing of Indian Peace accord.

We Sri Lankan people would not like to sea hefty blue berets or US mariners white  or black freely driving thru our cities in their ferocious looking US army transporters  like in Syria ,Libya ,Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the sake of our nation and country ,Muslims ,Tamils and Sinhalese should join hands and fight aginst the SOFA ,rather than punishing Shafi and Badurdeen 

Dr Sarath Obeysekersa 

Janaka Perera

It is erroneous belief that Sri Lanka and most other European colonies were granted Independence by the Atlantic Charter the US and the UK agreed upon in 1941.

There was no formal document called Atlantic Charter with signatures of Heads of States as a Treaty. It was only a discussion paper. 

The two who discussed it Roosevelt and Churchill never meant to give freedom to people in European colonies suffering for centuries under the jackboot of European rule. The so called Atlantic Charter cannot be located anywhere with signatures. It meant different things to different people.

Winston Churchill rejected the universal applicability of the Atlantic Charter when it came to the self-determination of subject nations such as British India. The Americans however were insistent that the charter was to acknowledge that the war was being fought to ensure self-determination.The British were forced to agree to these aims but in a September 1941 speech, Churchill stated that the Charter was only meant to apply to states under German occupation, and certainly not to the countries who formed part of the British Empire.

Mahathma Gandhi in 1942 wrote to President Roosevelt: “I venture to think that the Allied declaration that the Allies are fighting to make the world safe for the freedom of the individual and for democracy sounds hollow so long as India and for that matter Africa are exploited by Great Britain…” 

While self-determination was Roosevelt’s guiding principle, he was reluctant to place pressure on the British in regard to India and other colonial possessions as they were fighting for their lives in a war in which the United States was not officially a participant.^] Gandhi refused to help either the British or the American war effort against Germany and Japan in any way, and Roosevelt chose to back Churchill.

India was already contributing significantly to the war effort, sending over 2.5 million men (the largest volunteer force in the world at the time) to fight for the Allies, mostly in West Asia and North Africa. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter  )

No body has ever said that freedom was being granted to India and Sri Lanka on the basis of an Atlantic Charter, that does not really exist. 

People in Asia fought the white man and got their freedom. It was never given free.

Examples abound.

India, Indonesia, Myanmar Vietnam illustrate this concept strikingly.

See also

·         Crawford, Neta C. (2002). Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521002790.)

Janaka Perera

Dilrook has said that ‘ Japan was the only country that bombed Sri Lanka”

Here is my reply:

The Easter Sunday Raid (or Battle of Ceylon) was an air attack by carrier-based aircraft of the Imperial Japanese Navy against Colombo, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), on Easter Sunday, 5 April 1942, during the South-East Asian theatre of World War II. This attack was part of the Indian Ocean Raid, and was followed a few days later by a similar attack on Trincomalee. The targets were British warships, harbour installations, and air bases; the object was to disrupt the war effort of British Empire / Commonwealth nations and force the British Eastern Fleet to leave Asian waters.  ( Wikipedia – Easter Sunday Raid – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Sunday_Raid)

When Singapore fell to the Japanese in February 1942, British occupied Ceylon (later Sri Lanka) became a central base for British operations in Southeast Asia, and the port at Trincomalee regained its historically strategic importance. 

Because Ceylon was an indispensable strategic bastion for the British Royal Navy, it became an irresistible military target for the Japanese.

The Japanese in their bombing raids over Ceylon in April 1942 targeted only British military bases in Colombo and Trincomalee, and not civilian locations.

The Japanese also bombed the mental asylum at Angoda, mistaking it for the fuel tanks at nearby Kolonnawa.  There was no Red Cross painted on the Roof of the Hospital.

It was what is now called co – lateral damage.

This stands in contrast to the conduct of the the Allies who deliberately targeted innocent civilians in the Anglo – American raid over Dresden, Germany in February 1945, and the Americans who mercilessly bombed innocent men, women and children using Nuclear Bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan in August 1945.

Janaka Perera

Janaka Perera

Having read the responses to the article in ‘Lankaweb’ under the caption, ‘Did Japan contribute to Sri Lanka’s Independence,’ I, as the writer who attended the public lecture and subsequent discussion at the Mahaweli Centre Auditorium, Colombo, on June 24, wish to state the following.

At the outset the Speaker Senaka Weeraratna said that the chief purpose of his talk was to explore an alternate version of history, which has been suppressed hitherto by mostly colonized minds that dominate the mass media, academia, and civil society in former colonies.  

He was commenting neither on Japan’s actions in occupied territories nor what they probably would have done if they had won the war. His main focus was on the knock on effect of Japan’s World War II role on European colonies in Asia.

Mr. Weeraratne further said that he visited Japan to deliver a talk at the Japanese Parliament (Conference Room No. 101 of the Japanese Diet) on the invitation of the Japanese ‘Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact’ to express gratitude to Japan. There he had said:

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.” 

Mr. Weeraratna also made the following points:

1)      He has taken up this cause to help re-write the narrative on how Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948 which currently is full of falsehoods and fake story lines.

2)      He was NOT there to defend war crimes of any nation be it Germany or Japan, but at the same time to draw attention as a lawyer, to abuse of due process at both the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials. It was Victor’s Justice. High Grade ‘Lynch Mob’ mindset was the description of an American Jurist at what happened at the Tokyo Trials.

3)       Sri Lanka gained independence not solely due to internal factors but largely due to external factors such as the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbour in 1941 which precipitated a series of events leading to Subash Chandra Bose, Indian Patriot and nationalist, who formed an Indian National Army (INA) comprising 100, 000 Indian soldiers, that joined hands with the Japanese Army to fight the British at Impahl and Kohima in 1944.

4)      Though the Japanese and INA lost these Battles, the British decision to try INA soldiers for high treason after the war at the Red Fort in Delhi, backfired.

5)      It led to the possibility of an Indian Mutiny in the British Indian Army, Navy and Air Force on a scale bigger than what happened in 1857.

6)      Riots in Bombay in 1946 with the likelihood of riots spreading to all over India under the mantle of Indian nationalists and freedom fighters, were very high.

7)      The British then realized that the game was up, and with the British economy drained of resources due to continuous war and British people tired of unceasing wars, and not in a mood to engage in further battles, Clement Attlee, the then British Labour Prime Minister, wisely decided to grant independence to India and Pakistan, which took effect on August 15, 1947.

8)      Sri Lanka received independence on February 4, 1948 as a ‘Knock on’ effect of grant of independence to India on August 15, 1947.

9)      The dates ‘February 4, 1948 and August 15, 1947’ are intertwined.

10)  There would have been no independence to Sri Lanka on February 4, 1948 if India did not receive independence on August 15, 1947. 

        This is the true position.

11)   India was the Jewel in the British Imperial Crown.

12)   We in Sri Lanka gained freedom on a platter, without a fight, without in any way troubling the foreign occupier. There was no bloodshed in Sri Lanka to gain freedom in 1948.

13)   But there was bloodshed outside Sri Lanka. It was shed by other Asians to get rid of European occupation of vast swathes of Asian Territory. 

14)   It was largely these blood sacrifices, mostly Japanese soldiers and joined by the sacrifices of other Asians from India, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, Malaya etc. that finally sealed the fate of European colonialism in Asia.

15)     We were lucky. We never really fought on battlefields (after 1818 and 1848). However, we must be grateful to those who fought for our freedom outside our country under the slogan ‘Asia for Asians’ led by Japan, and contributed towards us gaining freedom from the British Raj

Mr. Weeraratne’s is a point of view that gives food for thought on a critical but yet balanced perception of what happened during the WW II years.

Courtesy Adaderana

Courtesy Adaderana

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe says that he cannot support the death penalty because harming lives is against the policy of the United National Party (UNP).

The UNP, as the main party in the government, the Opposition led by Mahinda Rajapaksa, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) are all against the decision to reinstate the death penalty.

The Prime Minister further said that he expects to discuss this issue, first, with the Cabinet of Ministers and then with the President and the Speaker.

The Prime Minister expressed these views at an event held in Monaragala District, today (30).

Further speaking, Wickremesinghe said that Sri Lanka supported the United Nations (UN) resolution on the death penalty in 2016 when Maithripala Sirisena was President and Wickremesinghe was the Prime Minister.

Sri Lanka once again agreed to support the resolution when the UN re-reviewed the resolution on December 17, 2018. At that time, the President was Maithripala Sirisena while Mahinda Rajapaksa held the premiership”, he pointed out.

Late President J. R. Jayawardena first suspended the death penalty; succeeding Presidents R. Premadasa, D.B. Wijetunga, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa followed through the decision, he added.

by Amal Jayasinghe Courtesy The Island

President Maithripala Sirisena is facing fresh legal challenges in his attempt to end a 43-year moratorium on capital punishment and start executing drug convicts, officials said Sunday.

Two petitions were filed in the Court of Appeal Friday seeking an order quashing any move by Maithripala Sirisena to resume executions, which have not been carried out since the last hanging in June 1976.

“The Court of Appeal will have a preliminary hearing next week. In the meantime, the prisons commissioner has given an assurance to court that there will be no hangings,” a court official told AFP.

On Wednesday, Sirisena said he has completed formalities to resume hangings by signing the death warrants of four condemned drug convicts. He did not say when the executions would be carried out.

Justice ministry sources said they were yet to fill the vacancies for two hangmen, although more than a dozen candidates had been shortlisted for the job.

Although the last execution was more than four decades ago, an executioner was in post until his retirement in 2014. Three replacements since have quit after short stints at the unused gallows.

There has been a mounting chorus of international criticism of Sirisena’s announcement.

Justice ministry sources said, however, there would have to be a lengthy administrative process before an execution took place.

A High Court judge who condemned a convict would have to make a fresh recommendation whether to carry out the death penalty or not. The condemned prisoner also has the option of making a clemency plea to the president.

“I have signed the death warrants of four,” Sirisena told reporters at his official residence on Wednesday.

“They have not been told yet. We don’t want to announce the names yet because that could lead to unrest in prisons.”

By Janaka Perera

An interesting debate over who brought independence to Sri Lanka, India and the rest of European colonies in Asia took place at the Gamini Dissanayake Auditorium, Mahaweli Centre, Colombo, last Monday (June 24, 2019).

An entirely different perspective to the historical narrative sparked off the debate at the Royal Asiatic Society sponsored public lecture.  The speaker was Attorney at Law Senaka Weeraratna, who addressed the gathering on Did Japan Contribute to Sri Lanka and India gaining Independence from British colonial rule?”

Mr. Weeraratna is the first Sri Lankan and first Asian to thank Japan on the premises of the Japanese Parliament (Conference Room No. 101 of the Diet) for making huge blood sacrifices of Japanese soldiers and thereby paving the way for the liberation of Europe’s Asian colonies including Sri Lanka, at a symposium organized by Japan’s Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact, in November, last year.

The crux of his argument was as follows:

The time has come to challenge the hype that Sri Lanka won independence from Britain in 1948 exclusively by our own local efforts through an exchange of correspondence and political negotiations without any supportive foreign factor. This British centric – friendly narrative is increasingly unsustainable in the light of new evidence.

Moreover, it is political correctness and tendency to please our former colonial rulers that has prevented an objective appraisal being undertaken taking into account the external factors that contributed substantially towards the gaining of freedom from colonial rule.

It is indisputable that Japan struck the greatest decisive blow ever by any non – white country or non – white people to European power in Asia with the attack on Pearl Harbour.  In about 90 days beginning on December 8, 1941, Japan overran the possessions of Britain, France, the US and the Netherlands in east and south-east Asia, taking the Philippines, Singapore, Malaya, Hong Kong, the Dutch East Indies; much of Siam and French Indochina and Burma with bewildering swiftness to stand poised at the borders of India by early 1942.”

While members in the audience expressed different views on this subject, especially on Japan’s motives, none could deny the following fact:

That the British in the late 1940s were compelled to depart the shores of India and Sri Lanka neither because of Gandhi’s non-violent civil disobedience movement nor because of the peaceful agitation for Dominion Status by D.S. Senanayake and other leaders but because World War II drained the British economy and sapped her energy making it difficult to further maintain the empire.  

If not for Japan the war would have been confined to Europe and the Middle-East.  Regardless of Tokyo’s motives it was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that ignited the anti-European liberation movements in South and Southeast Asia. Asian Leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose, Myanmar’s Aung San and Indonesia’s Soekarno were quick to grasp the opportunity and secure Japanese assistance for the freedom movements, though Japan was eventually defeated in the war.

However for the British, the French and the Dutch it was a Pyrrhic victory.  In the following decade they lost their Asian empire.  

These events made J.R. Jayewardene (then Sri Lanka’s Finance Minister) to oppose the isolation of Japan and call for Japan’s re- integration into the international community, without imposing harsh punishment by way of reparations, at the San Francisco Peace Treaty Conference in 1951, when many Western nations demanded payment for reparations for damages caused during the war. The two other men who were closely associated with J.R. Jayewardene’s historic speech, were the then Prime Minister D.S. Senanayake (who gave instructions to J.R. Jayewardene to toe the line as preached by the Buddha ‘ “Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.”) and Sir Susantha Fonseka , then Sri Lanka’s first Ambassador to Japan (who was an ardent supporter of the Japanese cause, and even the influence behind the government’s decision not to ask for war compensation). 

Janaka Perera

---

By Steve A. Morrell Courtesy The Island

At the seminar – (L-R): Tamara Kunanayakam, Mayura Gunawansa, President, OPA Eng. Nissanka Perera, Dr. Palitha Kohona, Eng. Saman Warusawithana, President-elect and Eng. Nissanka Senarath, OPA, Secretary, OPA.(Pic by Dharmasena Welipitiya)

Asserting that the two contentious agreements with the US were disadvantages to Sri Lanka, a top former diplomat warned that ACSA (Acquisition and Cross Services Agreement) and SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) would influence the country to the extent that US hegemony could eventually result in the Sri Lanka government being subservient to the US.

Both the government and the Opposition did not seem able to understand the implications and ramifications of the two Agreements, said Dr. Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka’s former Permanent Representative to the UN.

“Sri Lanka would be within the vortex of US influence and would not be able to disentangle itself, with the end result that the US will have all options open, and if it wished, could even invade Sri Lanka,” he cautioned.

Dr. Kohana was the keynote speaker at a seminar convened by the Organization of Professional Associations (OPA) last week on the US agreements with the government of Sri Lanka and their validity within context of the US government’s push for mutual defence understanding between both countries.

Referring to the ACSA in particular, he noted that the contents of the Agreement were not known to the public.

In response to a query from the media on his knowledge of the US agreement why it was that he did not raise those objections before the agreement was signed, Kohana said it had been signed in a surreptitiously.

He said there were more than 900 bilateral agreements Sri Lanka was a signatory to including different cultural and free trade agreements with countries like India, Singapore and Pakistan. Most of them were heavily partial to those countries. India benefited to the tune of some USD 5 billion in trade between the two countries. Indian exports amounted to around USD 4.5 billion, but Sri Lanka’s exports were merely USD 500,000, he pointed out.

Free trade with Singapore was also one- sided. Singapore did not produce petroleum, but it was one of Sri Lanka’s main suppliers of the commodity. Pakistan did not come into the equation because of limited trade between both countries, Kohana explained.

Tamara Kunanayakam, a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN Office in Geneva, said the two Agreements had ben discussed and planned for a long time.

“We were used to bombs going off, and we knew it was the LTTE. This is something very different. It has never happened the way it did on Easter Sunday. This is something that has woken people up. The Prime Minister himself said there was an external intervention”, she said.

The 2018 document of the Pentagon focused on Russia and China as the main enemy. It was in that context that Sri Lanka had become important to them as the war against China was going to be maritime, primarily. In that context, the Americans had now shifted their focus to the Indo Pacific region, Kunanayakam further said.

Sri Lanka is important because of its strategic location and its maritime link between these oceans. The Americans did not turn up from nowhere. They had been studying it. That was not really new. SOFA was only an amendment to an earlier agreement signed in 1995. There might have been other agreements, she continued.

During President J. R. Jayewardene’s time, JR and Rajiv Gandhi agreed that Trincomalee would not be used by an external power. And that the VOA (Voice of America) Station would not be used against US interests, Kunanayakam, said.

President OPA Eng. Nissanka Perera introduced the speakers at the event. Attorney Mayura Gunawansa was also on the panel of speakers.

Ada Derana

Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana Courtesy The Daily Mirror

The joint opposition yesterday urged the Speaker to table the letter sent by the Attorney General stating his views on the Parliamentary Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Easter Sunday attacks.

UPFA MP Dinesh Gunawardene who raised this matter said the Speaker should table the letter in the House so that MPs could get to know what the AG had said on the PSC.

Members are unaware about the views expressed by the AG on the PSC so we will like to know about them,” he said. As we understand from the statement made by the President, the AG has informed him that there are issues pertaining to the PSC. We should know about them.”

UPFA MP Nimal Lansa also wanted the AG’s letter tabled in the House saying he was making this request on behalf of the Catholics in Sri Lanka.

Deputy Speaker Ananda Kumarasiri who was in the Chair said he would inform Speaker Karu Jayasuriya about this matter.(

Courtesy Adaderana

The results of the radiocarbon dating test report carried out by a laboratory in the United States on the bone samples recovered from the mass grave in Mannar are questionable, says Prof. Raj Somadeva of Archaeology at the Postgraduate Institute of the University of Kelaniya.

Prof. Somadeva, speaking to BBC Sinhala, said there are doubts concerning the estimated time period of the bone fragment samples as they were recovered from the same grave but said to have a difference of 231 years.

Accordingly, the Mannar Magistrate’s Court has informed him to submit a complete forensic report on the bone fragments found from the mass grave, Prof. Somadeva further told BBC Sinhala.

The investigating team expects to submit the said report to the Mannar Magistrate’s Court before the 31st of July, he added.

Testing on the bone fragments have already been commenced to prepare the relevant forensic report and a separate report will be prepared on the other items recovered from the mass grave to estimate the time in order to determine the nature of the mass grave.

Several skeletal remains were discovered on March 26 from a mound of soil in the Emil Nagar area in Mannar, which had been removed from the demolished CWE building and investigations regarding the location were launched subsequently.

The investigations, led by Prof. Raj Somadeva of Archaeology at the Postgraduate Institute of the University of Kelaniya, the officers of the Archaeological Department, Government Analysts and the Judicial Medical Officers including Dr Saminda Rajapaksa, Mannar police officers, were conducted for at the mass grave under the orders of Mannar Magistrate T. Saravanaraja.

The reports said 330 bone fragments have thus far been unearthed from the mass grave.

On 23rd of January, six samples of the unearthed bone fragments were sent for radiocarbon testing at a laboratory in Florida, USA. The report was submitted to the Mannar Magistrate’s Court on March 7th.

According to the report sent by Beta Analytic Inc., a radiocarbon dating laboratory in Miami, USA, the sample bone fragments fall within calendar years of 1450-1650 AD.

Courtesy Adaderana

State bank makes revelation on Saudi funds received by Batticaloa Campus
The Chairman of Bank of Ceylon (BOC) Senarath Bandara says that the Batticaloa Campus Private Limited has never mentioned to the bank that the Rs 3.5 billion deposited to their BOC savings accounts was received as a foreign loan from a Saudi Arabian company to establish the campus.

He stated this yesterday (28) testifying before the Special Parliamentary Select Committee looking into the terror attacks on Easter Sunday.

The BOC general manager told the committee that the Batticaloa Campus Private Limited has three savings accounts in their bank.

Rs 3.5 billion of foreign money, amounting to USD 25 million approximately, has been credited to these accounts, and no repayment of the said amount has been noted thus far.

Subsequently, MP Prof. Ashu Marasinghe said that the request made by the Hira Foundation from the Ministry of Defence in 2012, to register the foundation as a non-governmental organization in Sri Lanka, had received a ‘negative report’ from the intelligence chief.

When asked if the BOC was aware of the matter, Mr Bandara said the bank learned of this following the attacks.

He added that the Hira Foundation too received foreign currency accumulating to Rs 313 million.

Meanwhile, the Director General of the Board of Investment (BOI) also testified before the committee regarding the Batticaloa Campus receiving the BOI approval.

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, June 28 (newsin.asia): Dr. Palitha Kohona, a leading member of the opposition organization Eliya” on Thursday expressed opposition to the proposed Colombo-Trincomalee Economic Corridor (CTEC).

Dr.Kohona ,who was Sri Lanka’s Foreign Secretary during Eelam War IV, objected to the CTEC on two grounds: Firstly, the CTEC cannot be a priority for the economic development of Sri Lanka because Trincomalee is yet to be developed as a port. A Colombo-Jaffna corridor, on the other hand, would make more sense, he argued.

Secondly, the CTEC would lead to a change in Sri Lanka’s land laws to the detriment of the peasant who is holding a government permit to cultivate a piece of land. The new laws could allow the permit holder to alienate his land to a private party, something which he is not allowed to do now. And the private party buying the land could be a foreign entity.

In Sri Lanka, 80% of the land is State Land, parts of which are parcelled out to peasants to cultivate on the basis of a time-bound but renewable permit. The permit holder can alienate the permit land” only to the State and not to any private party. This is to ensure that peasants have land and landlessness, which is a cause of poverty, is avoided.

It is the right to hold land, along with free education and free medicare which has enabled Sri Lanka to prevent abject poverty. This will be gone if land is made alienable,” Dr. Kohona warned.

According to National Freedom Front (NFF) leader, Wimal Weerawansa, the CTEC envisages the acquisition of 1.2 million acres of land along a 200 km corridor.

Weerawansa alleged that the grant of US$ 480 million from the US Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is contingent on an agreement to implement the CTEC.

MCC

According to the MCC website, the Board of Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation ha approved a five-year, U$ 480 million Compact with the Government of Sri Lanka aimed at reducing poverty through economic growth.

The Compact seeks to assist the Sri Lanka Government in addressing two of the country’s binding constraints to economic growth: (1) inadequate transport logistics infrastructure and planning; and (2) lack of access to land for agriculture, the services sector, and industrial investors.”

The compact will be composed of two projects: a Transport Project and a Land Project. The Transport Project aims to increase the relative efficiency and capacity of the road network and bus system in the Colombo Metropolitan Region and to reduce the cost of transporting passengers and goods between the central region of the country and ports and markets in the rest of the country. The goal of the Land Project is to increase the availability of information on private land and underutilized state lands or all land in Sri Lanka to which the Government is lawfully entitled or which may be disposed of by the Government (State Lands”) in order to increase land market activity.”

The Land Project would increase tenure security and tradability of land for smallholders, women, and firms through policy and legal reforms.”

Doubts About MCC

While the Sri Lankan government has accepted the MCC US$ 480 million Compact , it requires Congressional approval in the US and cabinet approval in Sri Lanka.

According to Dr.Kohona, there is no guarantee that the US will actually give US$ 480 million under the MCC fund, as it comes with strings attached. He recalled that in 2006-2007, the US promised US$ 500 million, but not a cent was given.

The US State Department said that the money could not be given because Congress was critical of Sri Lanka’s human rights record. But the fact was that the State Department did not seek Congress approval, ” Dr.Kohona said.

ACSA and SOFA

Regarding the two controversial Access and Cross Service Agreements (ACSA) and the yet to be signed Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) Dr. Kohana said that the first ACSA was signed by the Mahinda Rajapaksa government in 2007 when the Lankan armed forces were fighting the LTTE in the Eastern province.

It was a simple eight-page document and it was meant to hold joint military exercises in the Eastern province. There was a clear understanding that the US troops participating in the exercises would not render any military assistance to the Sri Lankan armed forces then fighting the LTTE,” Dr.Kohona said.

While the 2007 ACSA permitted US military vessels to anchor in Sri Lankan ports on a ‘one-off’ basis, when it was renewed in 2017, it became open-ended”, according to Sunday Times.

Dr.Kohona added that the 2017 ACSA was an 83-age document with 50 annexures.

Opposing the SOFA, Dr.Kohona said that it would lead to total violation of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty with US men and material being given free entry into the country. The reciprocity mentioned in the draft is meaningless and impractical given the very limited capabilities of the Lankan armed forces.

According to Dr.Kohona more than two million American troops would theoretically enjoy free entry into Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka could be used to store military material, station men and serve as a Rest and Recreation Center.

The US military presence in Okinawa is still an issue in Japan. The social ills generated by R and R facilities for the US military are well known. But Japanese governments have been unable to ask the Americans to leave because of the defense agreement with the US,” Dr.Kohona said.

He pointed out that many of the countries the US has signed a SOFA with, have defense treaties with the US.

But Sri Lanka is a non-aligned country with no defense pact with any country. No country is threatening Sri Lanka with an invasion. Sri Lanka wants to be friends with all because it does not want to be part of a global conflict. Agreements like SOFA will draw Sri Lanka into regional and global conflicts, especially when the US is explicit about the need to contain resurgent China,” Dr.Kohona said.

Indian Factor

The former Foreign Secretary further said that Sri Lanka would have to think of the consequences of handing over the Trincomalee harbour and the area around it to a US project.

The India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 expressly prohibits the Lankan government from allowing any of its ports to be used for military purposes by any foreign country in a manner prejudicial to India’s interests. This is a bilateral agreement which has to be adhered to,” Dr.Kohona said.

He said that he trusts that India will not send its armed forces again.

Sri Lanka and India are not friends, they are part of a family. Members of a family may quarrel on occasion, but they will always reach out to each other in times of trouble. In that sense India is family,” he added.

KAMALIKA PIERIS

The 19th amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka was passed on 28 April 2015 just four months after Yahapalana government came into being. It was passed near unanimously. Only one person voted against, Rear Admiral MP Sarath Weerasekera. 

Information on how the 19th Amendment was drafted has now come into the public domain.  A cabinet subcommittee headed by Prime Minister Wickremesinghe had initiated the project  and a committee was appointed to draft the Amendment .This committee, according to President Sirisena, consisted of Jayampathy Wickremeratne, M. A. Sumanthiran, Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu and the NGO community. Jayampathy was put in charge of drafting the Amendment.

The purpose of the 19th Amendment was to transfer executive power wholesale to the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe.  The initial draft, circulated only to a select few, in March 2015, declared that the Prime Minister would be the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers and that   the President shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister regarding the functions assigned to a Minister.

This draft had received Cabinet approval.   The draft was then made available to other political parties and once they studied it there was a discussion at the Presidential Secretariat chaired by President Sirisena, where many found fault with several provisions. They   totally opposed the move to empower Prime Minister at the expense of the President.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe had been really upset said Jayampathy. Rajiva Wijesinha described this in greater detail. Ranil started to whine, said Rajiva. Ranil then said that he would complain to Chandrika since it had been agreed earlier that Ranil would have executive power. But everyone else was adamant. It was decided instead that the draft should reduce the President’s powers in several particulars, without the wholesale transfer of them to Ranil as Ranil had wanted, concluded Rajiva.

There had also been a special Cabinet meeting and consultations with several officials, as well, including the Attorney General and the Legal Draftsman. These led to further changes. But those supporting Ranil Wickremasinghe did not give in easily. The draft that was gazetted retained the provisions about the Prime Minister being the Head of the Cabinet, and about the Prime Minister determining the number of Ministers.  But Supreme Court squashed this. The Supreme Court wanted certain other sections altered too. These clauses were later brought into the 19A through the back door contrary to the Supreme Court ruling, complained President Sirisena.

19th Amendment contains a few welcome provisions. These have been included to make the Amendment looks good. These welcome provisions include the Right to information, (Article 2 of 19th Amendment) reduction of the term of Parliament from six to five years, (Article 3) and the limit of two terms for any one President (Article 4). Two new independent commissions were created, for Audit and for National Procurement.

The 19th Amendment also has certain laughable contradictions. One clause said President can dissolve Parliament and another clause said he could not. One clause said the President was the Head of State and another clause said he was answerable to Parliament.

 The 19th Amendment has been declared to be a great improvement to the Constitution. Yahapalana admirers say it has brought democracy into an otherwise dictatorial country. It has done nothing of the sort. 19th Amendment contains provisions that seriously violate democratic and sovereign rights.  Let us look at some of these questionable provisions of the 19th Amendment.

19th Amendment created a Parliament that cannot be dissolved. Until the 19th Amendment came, the President could dissolve Parliament at any time after it had functioned for one year.But after the 19th Amendment was passed, Parliament could not be dissolved by President until   four and half years of its five year period, had passed.  During those 4 ½ years, only Parliament could dissolve itself.  Two- thirds of the Parliament had to pass a resolution requesting dissolution.

This is a unique clause, which is not found in other constitutions. All constitutions have provision for the dissolution of Parliament by the head of state. In France the President of the Republic may, after consulting the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the Houses of Parliament, declare the National Assembly dissolved.

 There cannot be such a thing as a Parliament that cannot be dissolved but that is what we have today, said Chandraprema. Only Norway has a Parliament that cannot be dissolved until its five-year term is up. That is because in Norway, the government continues in power until the King gives them permission to leave.

Yahapalana government also wanted to see Ranil Wickremasinghe continue as Prime Minister. 19th Amendment said that the Prime Minister once appointed by the President, cannot be removed thereafter.  He leaves his office only if he resigns or ceases to be an MP. This is an outrageous provision.  In all other constitutions, whether parliamentary or republic, there is provision of some sort for the removal of the Prime Minister.

19th Amendment wanted to reduce the powers of the President. As a start, the 19th Amendment created a set of duties” for the President. This is the first time that Duties” have been assigned to the President of Sri Lanka, said admirers of the 19th Amendment. Duties were not specified anywhere in the constitution before, they said.  That is not surprising.  In any public office, ‘duties’ are implied in the ‘powers’ given to the officer. Powers’ lead to ‘functions’ which lead to ‘duties.’

The first duty” of a President of a country, surely is to ensure law and order, good governance, general welfare. But the duties given to the President in the 19th Amendment do not refer to any of this.

The duties of the President as given in the 19th Amendment are, One, uphold the Constitution, Two, look after the Constitution Council, Three, see to national reconciliation and Four, see that the elections are carried out properly.” The more important functions of a President, that of summoning and dissolving parliament, announcing government policy, declaring war and peace   come second to this absurd concoction .

There is also a serious violation of sovereign powers, in the 19th Amendment. 19th Amendment says There shall be a President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, who is the Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and of the Government and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.”  Then it states that President is answerable to Parliament for everything he does. The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law,” (Article 6 of the Amendment).

  Analysts hooted at this. This meant that Executive branch of government, (President), now came under the legislative branch, (Parliament), they said. They pointed out that Legislative and Executive power are exercised separately.  The Constitution, says   (a) “the legislative power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament, (b) “the executive power of the People, shall be exercised by the President of the Republic.

Then it was the turn of the Cabinet.  19th Amendment said that the Cabinet was also answerable to Parliament. The Cabinet of Ministers shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament” it said. Critics pointed out that this also was not possible. The 19th Amendment itself had said that President shall be a member of the Cabinet of Ministers and shall be the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers.” So the Cabinet was part of the Executive branch of the government and came directly under the President

It is argued that the 19th Amendment created two power centers, one in the hands of the President and the other in the hands of the Prime Minister. That is incorrect. 19th Amendment does not give power to Prime Minister .Any power  exercised by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe was done outside the 19th Amendment . 19th Amendment keeps certain important powers in the hands of the President. Cabinet of Ministers derive their powers and function as agents of the President.

The President appoints the Cabinet. He is free to decide on the number of Cabinet ministers, and the subjects they hold. He can create ministries as he wishes. He could “at any time change the assignment of subjects and functions and the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers”. He could dismiss Cabinet ministers. He summons Cabinet meetings. 

There is now open opposition to the 19th Amendment. President Maithripala Sirisena has declared that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was a curse on the country” and should be abolished. The country should have only one leader. Either you must completely abolish the Executive Presidency and give powers to Parliament or give enough powers to the President.          

Milinda Moragoda said it is now apparent to all that the 19th Amendment has created a dysfunctional governance structure in which the Executive President, although directly elected by the people, does not carry much power. He suggests transforming the Executive Presidency into a viable institution with adequate checks and balances. (Continued)

Law & Order

පසුගියදා පැවති මාධ්‍ය ආයතන ප්‍රධානීන්ගේ මාසික හමුවේදී මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් ප්‍රකාශකර ඇති 19 ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය සකස් කළේ නීති විශාරදයන්ද එහෙම නැත්නම් දේශපාලන මකබාස්ලද කියා තමන්ට ප්‍රශ්නයක් ඇති බවද? යන ප්‍රකාශයෙන් නීතීඥවරයන් කිහිප දෙනෙකු විසින් 1988 ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණ (නීතිඥවරයන් සදහා වූ වෘත්තීය පැවැත්ම සහ ආචාර ධර්ම පිළිබද) රීති උල්ලංඝනය කිරීම් සිදුවී ඇති බවත් ජයම්පති වික්‍රමරත්න,එම්. ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් සහ පාක්‍යසෝති සරවනමුත්තු යන නීතිඥවරයන් නීතිඥ වෘත්තිය පිළිබද ඇති සමාජයේ පිළිගැනීම, ගරුත්වය සහ වෘත්තීයභාවය අභිමානය බිද වැටිය හැකි ආකාරයට ක්‍රියාකර ඇති බව දක්වමින් නීතිඥ වෘත්තීය ආචාර ධර්ම උල්ලංඝනය කිරිම සම්බන්ධව සුදුසු ක්‍රියාමාර්ග ගන්නා ලෙස ලෙස ඉල්ලා නීතිඥ අරුණ ලක්සිරි උණවටුන විසින් අගවිනිසුරුවරයා වෙත පැමිණිල්ලක් කර ඇත.

ජනාධිපතිවරයා මාධ්‍යවේදීන් හමුවේ කර ඇති ප්‍රකාශ අනුව නීතිඥවරයන් සියලු කටයුතුවලදී සෘජු ලෙස සහ අවංකව කටයුතු කළ යුතු වීම, සේවාදායකයාට අවාසිදායක හානිකර වන අකාරයකින් ක්‍රියා නොකළ යුතු වා මෙන්ම නීතිඥවරයෙකුට නුසුදුසු ආකාරයකින් කටයුතු නොකිරීමත්, වෘත්තීය කටයුත්තකදී පෞද්ගලික බැදීම් සහ පෞද්ගලික සම්බන්ධතාවලින් එයට බලපෑම් වීමට ඉඩ නොදිය යුතුය යන්නෙන් බැහැරව ජනාධිපතිවරයා සැළකුම් ලබා ඇති බව දක්වමින් ඒ සම්බන්ධව පරීක්ෂා කරන ලෙසද ඉල්ලා ඇත.

වර්ෂ 2015 අප්‍රේල් 27 වන දින පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ හැන්සාර්ඩ් වාර්තාව අනුව 19 වන ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය සම්මත කර ගැනීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවය අවධාරණය කරමින් ජනාධිපතිවරයා පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේදී අදහස් දක්වා ඇති අතර නමුත් පසුගියදා පැවති මාධ්‍ය ආයතන ප්‍රධානීන්ගේ මාසික හමුවේදී ඒ සම්බන්ධව ජනාධිපතිවරයා කර ඇති ප්‍රකාශ මගින් 19 වන ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය සම්මත කරන අවස්ථාවේදී එනම් 2015 දී  එතුමා බරපතල ලෙස නීතිමය නොමග යැවීමකට සහ රැවටීමකට ලක්ව සිට ඇති බව පැහැදිලි වන බවත් 19 වන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය මගින් ජනාධිපතිවරයකු සතුවිය යුතු රටේ ආරක්ෂාව සම්බන්ධ විධිවිධාන අහිමිකර ඇති අතර තවද ජනමතවිචාරණය සම්බන්ධව ජනතාව සතුව තිබූ ඡන්ද බලයේ එක් අවස්ථාවක් ජනතාවගේ කැමැත්තෙන් තොරව ඉවත්කර ජනතා පරමාධිපත්‍යය අභිබවා යමින් 19 වන ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය සම්මත කර ඇති බවත් අගවිනිසුරුවරයාගේ අවධානයට යොමු කර ඇත.

එකී පැමිණිල්ල පහත දැක්වේ…

Courtesy Adaderana

පොදුජන මාධ්‍ය මධ්‍යස්ථානය

ඉදිරි ජනාධිපතිවරණය ඇතුලූ අනෙකුත් මැතිවරණ සදහා සන්ධානයකින් තරග කිරිමට ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුණ සහ ඒකාබද්ධ විපක්ෂය නියෝජනය කරන දේශපාලන පක්ෂ ඇතුලූ සංවිධාන රැුසක් තීරණය කරයි.
ජනාධිපතිවරණයට පෙර නව සන්ධානය ලියාපදිංචි කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් පුලූල් සාකච්ඡුා මේ වන විට ආරම්භ කර තිබේ.
ප‍්‍රධාන පෙලේ දේශපාලන පක්ෂ, බහුජන සංවිධාන, සිවිල් සංවිධාන, වෘත්තීයවේදින්, ආගමික සංවිධාන රැුසක් නව සන්ධානය සම`ග ඒකාබද්ධ විමට තීරණය කොට ඇත.
ඒ අනුව නව සංධානයෙන් ඉදිරි මැතිවරණ ජයග‍්‍රහණය කිරීම සදහා දිවයින පුරා පුලූල් මැතිවරණ ව්‍යාපාරයක් දියත් කිරීමට ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුණ සියලූ කටයුතු සූදානම් කර ඇත.

උපුටාගැණීම ලංකාදීප

මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ විපක්ෂයේදී පසුගිය බ‍්‍රහස්පතින්දා දේශපාලන පක්ෂ නායකයන් කණ්ඩායමක් හමුවූ අතර, ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂ මහලේකම් දයාසිරි ජයසේකර මහතා අනුගමනය කරමින් සිටින විරෝධී ආකල්පය එහිදී සාකච්ඡාවට බදුන් විය. ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණේ සාමාජිකයන් වන සී.බී.රත්නායක සහ කෙහෙළිය රඹුක්වැල්ල යන මහත්වරුන් මෙහි දී දැඩි විවේචනාත්මකව අදහස් දැක්වූහ. බහුතරයක්ගේ අදහස් ද එවැනි විය. 

දයාසිරි නැවතත් එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය හා එක්වීමට ඉඩ ඇතැයි ඇතැමෙක් කීහ.

විපක්ෂයේ දේශපාලන පක්ෂ සහ ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණේ සාමාජිකයන් අවසානයේ තීරණය කළේ එළැඹෙන ජනපතිවරණයේ ජයග‍්‍රහණය තහවුරු කරගැනීම සදහා සහාය ලබාගත යුත්තේ කවුරුන්ගෙන් ද යන්න තීරණය කිරීමේ බලය මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂට මහතාටම පැවරීමටය. ඒ අනුව සුදුසු තීරණ ගැනීමේ බලය දැන් හිමිව තිබෙන්නේ ඔහුටය. 

ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂය සහ ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණ අතර පොදු සන්ධානයක් පිහිටුවා ගැනීම යථාර්ථයක් බවට පත්වුවහොත්, ඒ හරහා ප‍්‍රබල සාමාජිකයෙක් ලෙස ජනපති සිරිසේනව දිනාගත හැකිවීම අරබයා යහපත් මෙන්ම අයහපත් ප‍්‍රවණතාවයන් දෙවර්ගයම පවතී. 

යහපත් වන්නේ, එවැනි අවස්ථාවක, සුදුසු යැයි තීරණය කරගැනෙන කුමන හෝ ව්‍යුහයක් යටතේ තවදුරටත් දේශපාලන ක්ෂේත‍්‍රයේ කටයුතු කිරීමට සහ විපක්ෂයේ ජනපති අපේක්ෂකයාගේ ජයග‍්‍රහණය ඉලක්ක කරගත් සැළකිය යුතු වැඩකොටසක් ඉටුකරදීමට ජනපති සිරිසේන මහතාට අවස්ථාව හිමිවීමය. ඒ හරහා නිතැතින්ම ඔහුගේ සහ ඔහුගේ පවුලේ සාමාජිකයන්ගේ ආරක්ෂාව ද සහතික වේ. 

අයහපත් ප‍්‍රවණතාවය වන්නේ, ජනපතිවරයා අනුගමනය කරන එවැනි පියවරක් ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂයට එල්ල කෙරෙන ප‍්‍රබල මරු පහරක් වීමය. ඔහු හැරෙන්නට ජනපති අපේක්ෂකයකු ලෙස ඉදිරිපත් කළ හැකි තවත් අයෙක් ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂයට නොමැති වීම තවත් එකකි. දියාරුවී ගොස් තිබෙන පක්ෂයේ තවදුරත් රැදී සිටින සාමාජිකයන් ඉදිරි පාර්ලිමේන්තු මැතිවරණයක දී පක්ෂ සාමාජිකත්වය ලබාගත හැකිදැයි ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණ සහ එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය සමග දැනටමත් තිරය පසුපස සාකච්ඡා පවත්වමින් සිටී. 

පළමුවෙන්ම මෙම පක්ෂවල දොරට තට්ටු කළෝ දැනට ධූර කාලය අවසන්ව තිබෙන පළාත් සභාවලට පත්ව සිටි ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂ සාමාජිකයෝ සහ දැනට කි‍්‍රයාත්මක පළාත් සභාවලට පත්ව සිටින ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂ සාමාජිකයෝය. එවැනි වාතාවරණයක් හිටපු ජනපතිනි චන්ද්‍රිකා බණ්ඩානායක කුමාරතුංග මහත්මිය නැවත වරක් සකී‍්‍රය දේශපාලනයට කැදවනු ඇතිදැයි පැනයන් නැගෙමින් පවතී. 

ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂයේ උපදේශකවරියක ලෙස අද වන විට කටයුතු කරමින් සිටින ඇය, පක්ෂය මිය යන්නට නොදී ආරක්ෂා කරගත යුතුව ඇතැයි සිය පෞද්ගලික හිතවතුන් හමුවේ පවසා තිබෙන බව දැනගන්නට ඇත. නමුත් දැනට ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂය නියෝජනය කරන පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්තී‍්‍රවරුන් කී දෙනෙක් නම් ඇය පසුපස සිටිනු ඇති ද?, සිය ධූරයන් සමඟ අහිමිවන වරදාන සහ වරප‍්‍රසාදයන් ඔවුන්ව අධෛර්යමත් කරනු නොමැති ද?

ජනපති සිරිසේන මහතාගේ අපේක්ෂා ලැයිස්තුවේ වූ, යතාර්ථයක් බවට පත්කරගත නුහුණු පළමු කාරණා 4 සමානව, පස්වැනි කාරණාව ද අසාර්ථක වීමට ඉඩ ඇත. නමුත් එයට යම් ජීවයක් සපයා තිබෙන්නේ පොදු සන්ධානයක් ඇතිකරගැනීම අරබයා දිගින් දිගටම සාකච්ඡා  පැවැත්වීමට දෙපාර්ශවයටම තිබෙන වුවමනාවයි. කෙසේනමුත් මෙම සාකච්ඡා පැවැත්වෙමින් තිබෙන්නේ ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණ, ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂය කෙරේ දනවාගෙන සිටින ඉතාම දැඩි සැක සංකා මධ්‍යයේ බව කිව යුතුය. 

මෙම තත්ත්වයට ඌණ පූර්ණයක් සපයා තිබෙන්නේ ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂ මහලේකම්වරයා ප‍්‍රසිද්ධියේ දක්වන අදහස් වේ. ගෝඨාභය රාජපක්ෂ ජනපති වුවහොත්, කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලය රාජපක්ෂ පවුලේ සාමාජිකයන් 7 දෙනෙකුගෙන් සමන්විත වනු ඇති බවට ඔහු පසුගිය අගහරුවාදා පැවැති මාධ්‍ය හමුවක දී කළ ප‍්‍රකාශය එවැන්නකි. 

සන්ධානයේ ජනපති අපේක්ෂකයා ලෙස ජනපති සිරිසේන මහතාව පිළිගන්නා ලෙසට කරන ඉල්ලීමක් ලෙස අගවමින් දෝ හෝ ඔහු වැඩිදුරටත් කියා සිටියේ, තනිවම තරග වැදීම පිළිබදව මේ දක්වාම අවසන් තීරණයක් ගෙන නොමැති බවය.

2018 වසරේ පැවැති පළාත් පාලන මැතිවරණයේ දී ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණ දිනාගත් ලක්ෂ 50ක ඡන්ද, එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය දිනාගත් ලක්ෂ 65ක ඡන්ද, සහ එක්සත් ජනතා නිදහස් සන්ධානය දිනාගත් ලක්ෂ 14ක පමණ ඡන්ද, ගෙනහැර දැක්වූ ජයසේකර මහතා එම සංඛ්‍යා මත පිහිටා තර්කානුකූල අදහස් දැක්වීමක යෙදුනේ ය.

”ජයග‍්‍රහණය කරන්නට නම් ජනපති අපේක්ෂකයාට ඡුන්ද ලක්ෂ 60ත්- 65ත් අතර ප‍්‍රමාණයක් ලැබෙන්නට  ඕනේ. ඒ නිසා තමයි අපි කියන්නේ දෙපාර්ශවය එක්විය යුතු බව. ඔහු පෙන්වා දුන්නේ ය.

මේ යටතේ ජනපති සිරිසේන මහතා වෙනුවෙන් ජයසේකර මහතා තර්කානුකූල පදනමක් සකස් කිරීමේ යෙදෙන බවක් පෙනෙන්නට ඇත. ගෝඨාභයට එරෙහිව ගොනු කර තිබෙන චෝදනාවලට අදාළ නඩු කටයුතු කඩිනම් කරන ලෙස ජනපතිවරයා දැනටමත් නීතිපතිවරයාට උපදෙස් දී තිබෙන අතර, එහි පීඩනය යොදවා යෝජිත පොදු සන්ධානයේ අපේක්ෂකයා ලෙස තමාව තෝරා ගැනීම සදහා ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණ නම්මා ගැනීම ඔහුගේ අපේක්ෂාවයි. කෙසේවුවත් මෙය එම පක්ෂයේ අතීත කටයුතු කිසිසේත්ම වෙනස් කරන්නක් නොවනු ඇත. 

ගෝඨාභයට නැගී තිබෙන චෝදනා සහ ඒවා සම්බන්ධයෙන් කටයුතු කිරීමට යන ආකාරය මත පිහිටා ජනපති සිරිසේනට දේශපාලනමය වශයෙන් සුදුසු පදනමක් ගොඩනගාදීම කෙරේ දෙපාර්ශවය ඇතැම් විට එකගවීමට ඉඩ තිබේ.පසුගිය සදුදා පැවැත්වීමට නියමිතව තිබූ ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂ – ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණු සාකච්ඡd, නිදහස් පක්ෂයේ සාමාජික තිලංග සුමතිපාල මහතා, ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණේ සාමාජික ඩලස් අලහප්පෙරුම මහතාගෙන් කළ ඉල්ලීමක් ප‍්‍රකාරව කල් දැමිණ.

ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂයේ  ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ නියෝජ්‍ය නායක නිමල් සිරිපාල ද සිල්වා මහතා පොදු සන්ධානයක් ඇතිකර ගැනීම අරබයා ඉදිරිපත් කළ ව්‍යවස්ථා කෙටුම්පත ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණ මේ වන විට සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම අධ්‍යනය කර අවසන්ව තිබේ.  ඊළග පියවර වන්නේ කෙටුම්පත අධ්‍යනය කිරීම සදහා පත්කෙරෙන ඒකාබද්ධ කමිටුවකට දෙපාර්ශවයෙන් එක් සාමාජිකයෙක් බැගින් නම් කර ඔවුන් හරහා එක් එක් පාර්ශවයේ යෝජනා ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමයි. 

ව්‍යවස්ථාව අරබයා ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂය සමග එකගතාවයක් ඇතිකර ගැනීමෙන් පසුව තමන් නියෝජනය කරන අනෙක් දේශපාලන පක්ෂවල සහාය එය කෙරේ දිනාගැනීමට ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා පොදු ජන පෙරමුණ කටයුතු කරනු ඇත. ඒ සම්බන්ධයෙන් දැනටමත් පොදු අවබෝධයක් ගොඩනැගී තිබේ. ක්ෂණිකව වෙනස් වන වර්තමාන දේශපාලන පරිසරයේ, විශේෂයෙන්ම පශ්චාත් පාස්කු ඉරිදා සංහාරය සමයේ, අවිනිශ්චිතතාව යනු ප‍්‍රධාන ලක්ෂණයකි. කෙසේවුවත්, ජනපතිවරණ අපේක්ෂකයකු ලෙස ඉදිරිපත් නොවීමට ජනපති සිරිසේන මහතා තීරණය කර තිබෙන බවක් පෙනෙන්නට ඇත. එවැනි තීරණයක් ඔහු ගෙන තිබෙන්නේ ඔහුට සහාය දක්වන ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්තී‍්‍රවරුන් 24 දෙනෙකුගේ සහ තවත් සුළු පිරිසකගේ සහායෙනි.  පරාජය තමා පිළිගන්නට බලා සිටින බව ඔහු හොදින්ම දනී.

ලෝක කුසලාන තරගාවලියට එක්ව සිටින අපගේ ශී‍්‍ර ලංකා කි‍්‍රකට් කණ්ඩායම හා සමානවම ඔහු තරග රැසක් කී‍්‍රඩා කර ඇතත්, ඒ සෑම අවස්ථාවකදීම ජනපතිවරයා පරාජයේ ඉම දක්වා කොටු කිරීමට සමර්ථකම් දක්වා තිබෙන්නේ විපක්ෂය නොව ඔහුගේම ආණ්ඩු සගයා වන එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයයි. කොතරම් පන්දු යැව්ව ද, සම්පූර්ණ එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයම දවා ගැනීමට ඔහුට මේ දක්වාම හැකියාවක් ලැබී නොමැත. කෙසේවුවත්, නොයෙක් බාධා මැද කඩුල්ලේ රැදී සිටියේ ඔහුම බැවින් තරගයේ වීරයා ලෙස තමන්ව හදුන්වාගැනීමට ද ජනපතිවරයාට සාධාරණ හැකියාවක් තිබේ.

අනෙක් පසින්, එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය නියෝජනය කරමින් පිටියට පිවිස සිටින අගමැති රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ මහතා, දේශපාලන පිටියේ දක්ෂ පිතිකරුවකු මෙන්ම පන්දු යවන්නකු ලෙසට ඔහුට අත්ව තිබෙන කීර්තිය එළෙසම රදවා ගනිමින් ජනපතිවරයා යොමු කරන සෑම අභියෝගයකටම සාර්ථකව මුහුණ දුන්නේය. දැන් ඔහුගේ කණ්ඩායමේ බොහෝ දෙනෙකුට අවශ්‍යව තිබෙන්නේ නායක පුටුව දිනාගැනීමටය. ඒ අරබයා දැනටමත් ප‍්‍රචාරණ ව්‍යාපාර කි‍්‍රයාත්මකය.  ශී‍්‍ර ලංකාවේ මේ දිනවල කි‍්‍රයාත්මක දේශපාලනය ලෝක කුසලාන තරගාවලියේ ස්වභාවය වැනිය. පේ‍්‍රක්ෂකයෝ, හෙවත් ඡන්ද දායකයෝ බලා සිටින්නේ ජයග‍්‍රාහකයා කවුරුන් වනු ඇතිදැයි දැනගැනීමට මැතිවරණයක් පැමිණෙන තෙක්ය. එසේ එන මැතිවරණය, දෙපාර්ශවයේ කිසිවෙකුටත් ලෙහෙසි පහසු අභියෝගයක් නම් නොවනු ඇත.

By Dr. Tilak S. Fernando Courtesy Ceylon Today

Women’s dress code in Sri Lanka, especially after the Easter Sunday massacre, has become the talk of the town. This was attributed to the carnage carried out by young Islamic Terrorists (Wahhabis) espousing suicide bombers. Being educated and hailing from comfortable families, it remains an unresolved setback as to how those young hearts impregnated with celestial fire were converted into terrorists, and to the extent of completely brainwashing, to believe in a theory of dying as martyrs for Islam and religion would take them through the portals of Heaven in a beeline!

This goes to prove the harsh reality of brainwashing done by warped minds of Wahhabis, as no religion on earth would advocate killing of another person or committing suicide and self-destruction, the punishment for which is known to be directly to Hell.

The Abaya

The question of women’s dress code came to the forefront after a man dressed in an Abaya was arrested by Police, immediately after the Easter Sunday massacre. Abaya is a long and loose black garment covering the entire body, whereas a niqab is a veil covering a woman’s face, ears, and hair leaving only the eyes exposed. This is most common across the Muslim world where fashionable women wear hijabs or scarves in the presence of any male outside of their immediate family. Some women, of course, wear hijabs not having a choice, as it’s their culture or families mandate. Generally Muslim women cover their head and the face because they chose to, as an expression of their modesty towards religious conviction and devotion to Allah.

After a man was arrested wearing an Abaya following the unfortunate calamity,  it was natural for the general public to generate a certain amount of  fear psychosis, the worst being some assumptions were allowed to gain control by assuming that ‘every Muslim person is a terrorist’! This was a spontaneous feeling among the citizenry when caches of weapons and ammunition were detected by Security Forces immediately after the massacre, but the veracity of it was that most of the tip-offs came from the Muslim Sufis themselves.

Official circular

Following the unpleasant incident of 21 April,  the Ministry of Public Administration made it compulsory for all female employees in Government Institutions to wear saris or Kandyan ; males had to  wear shirts and trousers, or national dress. Immediately, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka received complaints against the Public Administration Circular No.13/2019 for violating fundamental rights of female officers, particularly. The Ministry later announced that the Circular was issued to ensure the security of public officers at Government institutions.

This unprompted situation surfaced as some of the Muslim women in Sri Lanka had decided to wear the Abaya as part of their daily dress, of late, after being influenced by  Saudi Arabian Wahhabis. Sufis believe in angels as opposed to Wahhabis who do not entertain such ideas, but act against anyone who denigrates Islam and believes should be eradicated ! The Islamic community in Sri Lanka has been an entirely different breed from those in Saudi Arabian Wahhabis.

In a broad generalisation, it is a woman’s prerogative to enjoy privileges for protection and self-defence. By nature, the woman is protected by a self defence system where women will be able to accuse or blame any man and get away with ‘murder’, which expresses in an English idiom as,  ‘hell has no fury  like  a woman scorned,’ meaning there is nothing unpleasant as a woman  turned nasty when offended! That may be the reason why in a Court of Law or inside a Police station, women are at an advantage over any third-party asseverations!

For centuries women have been given a raw deal in search of righteousness and beauty, particularly in the Middle Eastern countries. In Saudi Arabia, for example, where religion has become a pedantic tool, women have had to put up with numerous restraints. Women there are apparently treated as men’s slaves and believe that a woman’s role is only to breed!!!

In Turkey, hijab is usually considered chic and elegant, so women wear coloured fabrics and silk scarves with beautiful prints. Persian women wear loose rusari scarves,  in preference to black chadors preferred by conservative Shiite women in Iran. In northern Sudan, the law requires women to dress in moderation or risk whipping or flogging. Women in the Gulf Arab usually wear both the abaya and niqab in public and in mixed company. It is also said that for a woman in ‘Afghanistan not wearing a headscarf is almost as scandalous as a woman in America appearing naked in public.’

Female elegance

The elegance of a female figure is projected when she wears a sari as opposed to any other dress. The origin of the sari goes back to an ancient Indus Valley Civilisation in  Pakistan  and the Northwest  of India. The dress evolved from a three-piece ensemble comprising the lower garment, the tail end worn over the shoulder, and a blouse covering the chest. This is recorded in the 6th century B.C.  Subsequently, the lower garment and the veil merged to form single apparel called the sari.  

The sari, therefore, being one of the oldest forms of women’s attire, dating back to 5000 years, is draped in different styles in various regions of Asia. Likewise, osariya is well known in Sri Lanka as the Kandyan sari, which has its unique style of draping and is often considered as the national dress in Sri Lanka, particularly among the Kandyan women. In India the draping of the sari is wide and varied according to many styles dependant on the area one lives in .For example, the most popular style is known as the Bengali styles of Nivi and Kappulu arrangement, which is common in Andhra Pradesh. Mekhela drape comes from Assam, Nauvari drape from Maharashtra, Mohini attam drape from Kerala, Seedha Pallu drape in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha and Surguja drape in Chhattisgarh.

The Osariya worn by Sri Lankan women originated from fashions in South India. It is believed to have had an influence on Nayakkar Kings who were the rulers of Kandyan Kingdom between 1739 and 1815, prior to the arrival of the British rule. What makes the Osariya divergent from other styles of sari draping in India is its additional elaborate frill at the side of the waist, which is called the   ‘Odokkuwa’ and the frilled boards of the shoulder, which is commonly known as the ‘ Osari Pota’.

The length of a sari drape varies from five to nine yards in length and two to four feet in breadth and is typically enfolded around the waist, with one end arranged over the shoulder, baring the midriff. A woman’s navel has always been symbolic feature with her sensuality, and the sari does a perfect job in highlighting, it in a subtle, yet sexy way to create a sensuous look. Hipster style is ideal for slimmer shapely women with a deep round navel, while their hips ripple when they walk! Such women may be able  send onlookers aghast as opposed to some women, who do  not have a faintest sense of their figure, with a pot belly  (no offence intended) wearing hipster sari for the sake of being fashionable, influenced by the ‘sexy chicks’ who expose their belly buttons and midriffs, a few inches  below the navel!

There are still a few women who adopt a style of their own to cover the entire midriff with the jacket material. There are many theories about the women’s dress code. The Government in Sri Lanka has made it compulsory for women officials in Government service to wear saris after the carnage on the Easter Sunday. There are many choices and fashions, when it comes to draping a sari that is personal to each woman. Some would like to wear deep neck and backless blouses, while others may feel wearing a backless blouse to an office is vulgar or indecent and sari blouses that expose an uplifted bustier and the deep cleavage, with the third button undone, is only appropriate in a frenzied social gatherings!

However, the society has changed to such an extent that, currently many girls as well as middle-aged women don’t feel shy to flaunt their bodies, wear a hipster exposing their six-inch midriff in order exhibit the belly button (at times with a colourful stud) or their deep cleavage as fashion at parties and wedding ceremonies.

tilakfernnando@gmail.com

By Lucian Rajakarunanayake Courtesy The Island

June 28, 2019, 8:41 pm 

Is the Head of State and Government, the Commander-in-Chief of forces one who is mentally suitable to hold such office?

Recent statements by President Sirisena have raised major questions about the status of mind of the person, and his commitment to both the process and the principles that saw his election as President of this country. The most striking of these is his call to remove both the 18th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution.

Let us be kind, and consider him as a forgetful person, on his call to remove the 18th Amendment. It has been repealed, and was so done under his leadership in adopting the 19th Amendment, and that was passed in Parliament on May 15, 2015. Does he not remember the statement he made to the nation on his own role in getting this adopted with a huge majority in Parliament? Such forgetfulness could be one of political expediency and not that of mental unsuitability.

Has he also forgotten what the 18A was and why it had to be removed? Has he completely forgotten what the Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera had said of the need to remove 18A? Does he not know that 18A was how Mahinda Rajapaksa abolished the two term limit on the presidency, making it possible for him to hold office as long as possible or needed (by him) till his son Namal was groomed for the Office?

Do the twists and turns in presidential thinking make him unaware that it was the abolition of 18A and the adoption of 19A that has made Namal Rajapaksa too young to take over the presidency today at 30; something his father and possibly the rest of the Rajapaksa Regime would have liked?

Forgetfulness of such scope goes beyond mental imbalance, having a strong connect with the politically crooked. Is Maithripala Sirisena trying to prove to us he is not the person the people elected as the Common Candidate in January 2015? He need not try so hard, we know it, and have done so for some time.

He was Rising Star of Crookedness in the politics and governance of Sri Lanka, who has been playing his own game in politics to retain the powers of the Executive Presidency that he certainly helped remove to a large extent in the aurora of a new phase in our politics. When he wants the 18A removed, he must be having touching memories of how he, as so many others, voted to bring in that Amendment, which was disastrous to democracy. Is he now trying to ease such pain of mind by calling for removal of 19A?

Let us not forget, as Sirisena tries to bend our minds, that the 19A saw a return to a more democratic form of government and constitutional politics, in contrast to the crooked authoritarian policies of the Rajapaksa Regime. 19A was certainly not good enough for the majority of voters in January 2015, who sought the abolition of the Executive Presidency. That is a problem the people will have to face and take necessary steps in time to come.

But the Sirisena mindset of political amnesia and survival of the crooked is certainly not the stuff of political necessity today, even after all those failures and disasters in governance we have seen in Yahapalanaya.

Sirisena’s twists and bends in politics and governance is less to do with the people, and much more to do with the Rajapaksas. His mind is engulfed in the move to bring the defeated Mahinda Rajapaksa to office as Prime Minister in that October 26 coup of the crooked last year. Over and over we see that Maithripala Sirisena did not want to defeat Rajapaksa. It just happened, because that is what the people wanted, not what he wanted!

His efforts today are all tied at having some new deal with the Rajapaksas. Issue puzzling statements about him being the next SLFP presidential candidate; Have increased hope in the rising difficulties faced by Gotabaya…the theme goes on with steps in a new political dance of the SLFP and SLPP. The goal is the Presidency, with the reduced powers of the 19A (which he wants removed) and Mahinda Rajapaksa serving as Prime Minister – under Sirisena!

Just now, another presidential term for Sirisena remains in his dream world. But the stuff of crooked politics is such that dreams of such survival are not beyond expectation. Retirement at Polonnaruwa is not the goal of Sirisena today, just as retirement at Hambantota was not that of Mahinda Rajapaksa.

We are at the rise of the Sirisena –Rajapaksa Naadagama, a performance of dirty politics that could take the country to disasters worse than Easter Sunday. Race and Religion are the themes of both performers, with plenty of the corrupt and crooked providing the stagecraft.

We must also not forget the other solo player in the presidential dance. Ranil Wickremesinghe, one who has lost public support, but holding on to party manipulation. Just now, Sirisena has burnt his boats with Ranil. But, the flexing capacity of the crooked leaves room for more convoluted political relations; and Sirisena is a long jumper of the crooked, and not a high jumper of the just.

Getting back to the memories and mindset of Sirisena, he will realize that 18A is no more, and 19A will remain, unless removed by another 2/3 majority in parliament. Sirisena has no call for such a majority today; in fact his reality is one of a decreasing minority.

We will soon have much more of mental instability in the highest seat of Office!

Courtesy Adaderana

Leader of the Opposition Mahinda Rajapaksa says he is personally against the implementation of the death penalty.

He made this comment addressing the media following a religious event held at Horapawita Sri Vijayasundara Pirivena in Kamburupitiya, Matara today (28).

The event, joined by Mahanayake of Ramanna Maha Nikaya Venerable Napane Pemasiri Thero, was held under the patronage of Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa.