By Sean Martin Courtesy express.co.uk

HUMAN DNA was designed by ALIENS, scientists who spent 13 years working on the human genome have sensationally claimed.

Proof of aliens? These are signs that ‘prove’ we are not alone

MIND-BLOWING signs that aliens exist.

Play slideshow

Courtesy commodityonline.com

The coordinator of the Kerala chapter of Indian Pepper and Spice Traders, Growers , Planters Consortium said in a letter to commerce minister, that Sri Lankan minister has said that he hasn’t been able to prevent the export of 156 containers of Vietnam Pepper to India with certificate of origin from Sri Lanka as it is a racket similar to narcotics trafficking.

The Pepper traders have appealed to the commerce ministry to take steps to raise vigil to prevent the import of Pepper from Vietnam through Sri Lanka with origin of certificate from the latter, citing the recent statement by a Sri Lankan minister in media.

Sri Lanka has been cautioning Indian government since last week of January that 180 containers of about 1800 to 2000 tonnes of such Pepper have left Sri Lankan coast. This is over and above the Pepper smuggled to India from Myanmar, Bangladesh and Nepal.

The supply of Vietnam Pepper is happening by evading duty to the tune of 43% as the duty for import from Vietnam is 51% against 8% for Sri Lanka under India Sri lanka Free Trade Agreement, avoiding the minimum import price of Rs 500 per kg fixed by India for Pepper imports.

Editorial Courtesy The Island

Thursday 14th February, 2019

A new law has been enacted to enable the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to use the findings of presidential commissions of inquiry (PCoIs) for prosecutorial purposes. The government kept dragging its feet on the vote on the Bill concerned, but finally buckled under pressure. Parliament passed it unanimously, in the end, because no party wanted to be seen to be partial to the corrupt. The new legislation is aimed at saving the CIABOC the trouble of reinventing the wheel or conducting fresh investigations into issues that have already been probed by PCoIs.

One, however, should not be so naïve as to expect the CIABOC to get cracking simply because the new law enables it to use the PCoI findings against the bond racketeers. It has not questioned the ruling party politicians under a cloud in keeping with the bond probe commission recommendations.

Curiously, none of the anti-corruption activists have cared to pressure the CIABOC to release the list of government ministers against whom complaints of bribery and corruption have been made, and reveal whether investigations have been conducted into them.

The yahapalana government is all out to prevent allegations against its leaders being probed. It took to thieving while purportedly trying to catch thieves and got exposed for the biggest ever financial crime—the bond scams—within the first few weeks of its formation in 2015. Now, justice is being hurried, by way of high-speed trials against Opposition politicians in view of elections.

It is only wishful thinking that the incumbent government will allow its grandees to be probed over the bond scams as the UNF does not want its chances of winning an election ruined again. For a government that has rendered the National Election Commission impotent, preventing the CIABOC from probing its big kahunas is child’s play.

The so-called civil society is partial to the incumbent government and, therefore, does not care a damn about corruption and the abuse of power, at present. The TNA and the JVP are handmaidens of the ruling UNF. The UPFA and the Joint Opposition are scared of taking on the government because its leaders’ cupboards are full of skeletons. The PRECIFAC (Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate and inquire into Serious Acts of Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power, State Resources and Privileges) report has revealed their wrongdoings; if they are prosecuted for corruption and abuse of power, some of them will have to spend the rest of their lives behind bars. So, the Opposition baulks at ratcheting up pressure on the CIABOC to institute legal action against the politicians involved in the bond scams.

Perhaps, the bond racketeers will be able to get away with their crimes easily if there occurs a change of government, for they are very close to the Opposition big guns who have a history of granting presidential pardons even to convicted murderers and drug offenders.

The only person who seems keen to bring all those involved in the bond scams to justice is President Maithripala Sirisena. He will spare no pains to inflict the maximum possible damage on the UNP in time for the next election. His war on drugs has endeared him to the people and his popularity ratings will increase further if he can see to it that legal action is instituted against those exposed by the bond probe commission. He should ensure that the recommendations in the PRECIFAC report are also fully implemented.

P.S.MAHAWATTE Colombo 5. Courtesy The Island

This relates to The Island of 7th Feb, article captioned “UK urged again to bring closure UN Resolution, Lord Naseby reminds UK govt. of US pullout from Geneva body”.

Lord Naseby further states addressing the House of Commons “My Lords, it is my privilege to introduce this debate this evening. In doing so, I declare an interest in that I started The All Party Parliamentary Group on Sri Lanka in 1975 and had the privilege of being made its Honorary President four years ago”. He continues “I have done a great deal of Research. Nearly three years ago I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act and secured the publication of Colonel Gash’s dispatches to the United Kingdom. I have 40 pages of them here and some of which have been totally redacted, and I shall quote from one this evening”. He concludes “I submit that Her Majesty’s Government should show some leadership, bring closure to the UN Resolution and in doing so make it quite clear that there were not 40,000 civilians killed- and if it helps, I will give all the evidence I have to my noble friend on the Front Bench, so that he can be totally convinced that that is indeed the case”.

In The Island of 8th February captioned “UK demands full implementation of Geneva Resolution on Lanka” by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and says “US pullout from Geneva body irrelevant”.

How can it be irrelevant? the US pulled out of the UNHRC and the US Ambassador Nicky Hayley condemned it as “A CESSPOOL OF POLITICAL BIAS AND AS A HYPOCRITICAL AND SELF SERVING BODY”.

In an earlier letter of 19th Jan., I suggested that “Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was deprived of his effort to get a General Election, could now devote his efforts to get this damning UNHRC Resolution withdrawn by the sponsors”. He cannot get a better ally than Lord Naseby, who has enough evidence to establish that our security forces never killed 40,000 civilians.

I remember seeing in TV news during the war, that our courageous young men, attached to TV companies, taking pictures of young and old men and women carrying little children escaping from the LTTE, most of them pregnant and hardly able to walk, being assisted by our women security forces personnel to carry these little infants, and our men soldiers carrying old women and offering their own rations of water and food to these escapees!

The parliamentary opposition instead of shouting about Drug Menace, new constitutions, etc., which are well planned diversions to avoid holding elections, could use their positions and time to saving the reputation of our valiant security forces, who succeeded in destroying the most ruthless terrorists which the sponsors of this resolution warned could not be destroyed, and visited in hoards, to persuade then President Mahinda Rajapaksa to stop the war!

Why I have written about this subject several times is because as long as this damning resolution exists, it will be impossible to bring about the reconciliation with all communities, which we all communities want but is being used as the beggars wound (Hingannage thuvale vagey)!

P.S.MAHAWATTE

Colombo 5.

By Laksiri Fernando Courtesy The Island

It is not only the ‘aekeeya/orumiththandu’ confusion and the ‘draft provisions’ for a new constitution that are questionable, but also the procedure and the process that were followed in drafting them. Under the present circumstances, there is no possibility of a single major party inaugurating a new constitution even if with minority party support. A new constitution requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament at least as the first hurdle.

There was no apparent leadership for a new constitution and no purposeful effort to build bipartisan consensus among parties or the people. If the present draft is proposed to the Parliament, it would be like the proposal to have another ‘national government’ with one MP from the SLMC participating with the UNF!

For the 1947 constitution, there were two names behind, Lord Soulbury and Ivor Jennings. For the 1972 constitution, Colvin R. de Silva clearly was the brain or the hand behind although he later excused himself from its ‘unitary’ characterization. The disastrous 1978 constitution undisputedly was the creation of J. R. Jayewardene.

Can that be said about the proposed draft or the ‘aekeeya/orumiththandu’ formulation? It is just an Expert Report of originally 10 members, four of them clearly dissenting or expressing their own views. The 10 has become reduced to six. This is apart from various political parties in the Constitutional Assembly or in the Steering Committee dissenting or disagreeing on very many matters, except on few subjects like ‘fundamental rights, freedom, language rights and directive principles of state policy.’

Failure of consensus building

Dissention or different views cannot be completely eliminated in a constitution making processes. However, those should be reduced to the minimum or to clearly identifiable matters. That should be the merit or the objective of a constitution making process. Otherwise, when a draft comes to Parliament there can be confusion or chaos.

Even with a clearly written draft in August 2000, and apparent consensus between the SLFP, and the UNP, when it was proposed in Parliament, the opposition UNP created enormous chaos. It would be extremely difficult for the UNP to get rid of this negative legacy however much they have the support from the ‘international community’ or (for some valid reasons) from the minority political parties. One reason for this unfortunate situation was the delay in formulating the draft and proposing it in Parliament at the very end of the parliamentary and presidential tenures in 2000. The same goes for the present situation.

There has been some kind of stubbornness or rather ‘pig-headedness’ on the part of at least some of the new constitution makers, whether they were political leaders or the so-called constitutional experts. However much they talk or preach to others about plurality, diversity and tolerance, they were not ready to take other people’s views at least in terms of a dialogue.

Without going into details let me quote from a letter submitted to the Chair of the Steering Committee dated 8 August 2018 by two experts of the Panel, Prof. Camena Guneratne, Professor of Legal Studies, Open University, and Prof. Kapila Perera, Vice Chancellor of the University of Moratuwa.

“At the last Steering Committee meeting held on 18th July 2018, two documents were produced by the Experts. The Second (Mapping) Document submitted in the form of separate booklets with a mapping of the reforms was submitted as it was felt that this is what required as per indications given by the Steering Committee at that meeting held on 24th May 2018. The discussion paper which is to be produced today [8 August 2018] is being submitted further to the directives given to the Panel to produce one document that could be a working paper for the Steering Committee.”

What does this mean? There had been a sudden ‘leap forward’ from May 2018 to July 2018, virtually annihilating the Mapping Document, and ‘some experts’ being asked to produce one document, an apparently a ‘draft constitution,’ now produced as ‘A Report Prepared by the Panel of Experts’ in the Constitutional Assembly website.

What has happened to the Mapping Document?

It is intriguing to note that the Mapping Document is suppressed. It is difficult to talk about the merits or faults of this document/s without knowing the contents. However for the citizens and those who research on constitutional matters this document seems to be crucially important particularly in the context of different views apparently appeared among the Panel of Experts. This suppression cannot be appreciated as ‘transparency’ in ‘good governance.’ This is also not fair for the experts who have produced this document although their letter that I have quoted above appears in Schedule II.

It seems that the Mapping Document has given a good overview of views expressed by political parties in the Steering Committee or in their written submissions. Although these are said to be incorporated as Schedule I to the said Report, it is difficult to judge whether those representations are accurate, complete and fair.

Let me quote the very last paragraph of Schedule I. It pertains to ‘State Land.’ Under EPDP, it just says, “EPDP • State Land -Dispute Resolution (Item 15) – total number in the arbitration panel is confusing.” Is this a fair, comprehensive or a clear description of the EPDP view?

There are two other important matters that the two experts have revealed in respect of the so-called ‘Report of the Expert Panel,’ aka the ‘draft constitution.’

“Firstly, in regard to the format of the discussion paper, it has been decided by a majority of the Panel that the format of the first document endorsed by six Panel members, which was submitted to the Steering Committee meeting of 18th July 2018 should be retained in drafting this discussion paper of the Panel of Experts.”

They have said to the whole world quite loudly that this document is not from all, but from six persons and the format was decided by those six or someone else. More important is what they have said about the contents as follows in two final paragraphs.

“We further note that this discussion paper and the Mapping Document are compatible/consistent to some extent as both are based on the provisions of the 1978 Constitution. However, there are also differences, mainly provisions in this discussion paper which do not appear in the Mapping document.”

“We wish to acknowledge the work of our colleagues on the Panel of Experts in preparing this discussion paper….However, we disclaim all responsibility for any specific formulations of provisions which are found in this discussion paper but which are not found in the Mapping Document of the other experts that was submitted at the Steering Committee meeting of 18th July 2018.” (My emphasis).

In the first sentences they have extremely been polite to others. However, they differ and disassociate strongly on the matters of ‘specific formulations of provisions.’

What are these formulations?

Apart from Camena Guneratne and Kapila Perera, there are two others, Prof. Austin Pulle and Ms Chamindry Saparamadu who have expressed dissent or different views as incorporated also in Schedule II. Most significant is the complete disassociation of the two academics, Guneratne and Perera, from what they have called the ‘specific formulations of provisions’ which have apparently come into the draft ‘which are not found in the Mapping Document.’

It is difficult to speculate on the exact formulations or provisions that they disagree with and ‘disclaim all responsibility.’ However, when one goes through the Report or the draft, there are abundance of them which could be considered questionable, controversial or out of line with the requirements of consensual constitution making. Let me take one formulation from the very Preamble and another more hilarious formulation from the proposed Article 1.

How do the ‘experts’ propose to inaugurate the new constitution? This is what the Preamble says:

“NOW THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF SRI LANKA celebrating our rich ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural diversity, in the exercise of our sovereignty, hereby give ourselves, and the future generations of Sri Lankans, this CONSTITUTION.” (My emphasis).

What is wrong with this formulation? This is conceptually wrong for the situation in Sri Lanka. It is not at least ‘unity in diversity’ which is ‘celebrated’ in this declaration, but just diversity. Of course the first paragraph of the Preamble gives more agreeable formulation, but negated by the second or the last paragraph quoted above.

Why do they bring ‘ethnic, religious and cultural matters’ into the forefront, although called ‘rich’? Those who oppose a new constitution on majoritarian lines, rejecting any kind of plurality or diversity in the country will rejoice on these kind of formulations for the opposite reasons. They will brand the ‘new constitution’ as a clear effort in dividing the country on ethnic, religious and cultural lines. There is clearly a ‘divisive thinking’ behind such formulations even in my opinion.

Aekeeya/Orumiththandu Confusion

The confusion about the characterization of the state and the constitution is not an isolated matter as ‘aekeeya/orumiththandu,’ but follows from the erroneous constitution making process that we have been talking about. The following is what the draft Article 1 says in full.

“Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is a free, sovereign and independent Republic which is an aekiya rajyaya / orumiththa nadu, consisting of the institutions of the Centre and of the Provinces which shall exercise power as laid down in the Constitution. In this Article aekeeya rajyaya / orumiththa nadu means a State which is undivided and indivisible, and in which the power to amend the Constitution, or to repeal and replace the Constitution, shall remain with the Legislature and the People of Sri Lanka as provided in this Constitution.”

The article has conveniently dropped the ‘socialist’ characterization of the republic. It has also dropped the unitary characterization although its Sinhala and Tamil equivalents (aekeeya rajyaya/ orumiththa nadu) are introduced instead to create an apparent confusion. I am not competent to talk about the Tamil term, but any political science student in Sinhala medium should know that ‘Aekeeya Rajyaya’ is used in political science and law to mean ‘unitary state.’ That is also the case in the present constitution, while unitary term is retained in the English version.

Therefore why these Sinhala and Tamil terms are used in the English version/draft is not explained, other than some arguing ‘let us look beyond the words.’ These are not just words, but technical terms with definitions in constitution making. I am not a person who would simply oppose federalism, but my concern is about its practicality or rationality at present. When ‘Aekeeya Rajyaya / Orumiththa Nnadu’ are used without using ‘unitary state’ and defined as ‘consisting of the institutions of the Centre and the Provinces’ that give rise to suspicion as an effort of smuggling ‘federalism’ through the backdoor. My main criticism is for this devious manner of constitution making without being straight forward, frank and open.

Kelum Bandara Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa said two individuals were behind the assassination of Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge, the assault on journalist Keith Noyahr and the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda.

In an interview with the Daily Mirror, Mr. Rajapaksa said he was not involved in any of these things including the disappearance of Ekneligoda.

We did not want to do such things. These were done purely for personal reasons by two individuals. I do not want to name them. Immediately after Lasantha’s killing, the then Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and former MP Joseph Michael Perera categorically said in parliament that it was the work of the then army commander. After that when the army commander joined hands with them and decided to contest elections in 2010, they did not talk about it. Thereafter, they put the blame on me,” he said.

When asked why he didn’t look into these cases as the then Defence Secretary, Mr. Rajapaksa said he was concentrating fully on the war.

That is true. Under such circumstances, we cannot stop the war to devote ourselves fully on various investigations. The CID and the intelligence authorities had a task assigned to them. With bombs going on around the country and killings by terrorists happening everywhere we had to direct our resources to counter them. That was the reality.

After the then army commander sided with the other side later, we never hunted him for personal reasons. We went after him with proper charges only. I asked the CID to do proper investigations regarding these matters and they carried out such investigations with proper evidence.

If the present government is genuine, it must target people on legitimate charges. It is unjust and unfair to put the blame on anyone sans a legitimate basis. True to my heart, I know I was never involved in any of these murders.

Q: However in a recent newspaper article written by Lasantha Wickremetunga’s daughter in connection with his death anniversary, she had drawn a link between the murder and the articles carried in the newspaper regarding the MiG deal in which your name too was implicated. Your comments?

I have to tell you that whatever he (Lasantha) wrote was wrong and I went to court on that.

He also wrote even worse articles criticising the then army commander. At that time, if anyone wrote anything against the then commander, some incident took place. On the other hand what happened during the time of former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga? Lasantha wrote extensively against Chandrika, Mangala and others as well. Why aren’t those things brought out? Why is there reference only to this particular article?

What I did was to take the proper course of action and go to court against that article. I did the proper thing. In the history of the war, the MiG deal was the most transparent transaction. We have proven it. In short, the Air Force asked for MiG attack aircraft. That request had been made since the time of Chandrika’s Presidency. It was a genuine requirement. The selection was done by them. During purchasing, the Air Force was involved. It is not that I got involved. It is the whole process. It was one of the earliest purchases we made. I followed the exact procedure, examining financial evaluation and appointing tender boards and negotiation committees. It is not a one man operation. There were a whole lot of officials involved. The negotiation committee chairman became the auditor general later on.

The Ukrainian Government submitted proposals. A team from the Air Force visited Ukraine. They had discussions in Ukraine. Two air force commanders were involved.

If somebody says that Lasantha was targeted because of this article, then, what about other articles written by him against other people?  On one previous occasion, much before we came to power, Lasantha and his wife were attacked. Once, Mangala Samaraweera called Lasantha an unpatriotic person as well.

By Rohana R. Wasala

Our future is a race  between the growing power of our technology and the wisdom with which we use it. Let’s make sure that wisdom wins.-Stephen Hawking

(The following essay by me as a nontechnical reader of BRIEF ANSWERS TO THE BIG QUESTIONS and a longtime Hawking fan refers to its Hardback edition {ISBN 978-1-473-69598-6} John Murray (Publishers), Carmelite House, 50 Victoria Embankment, London EC4Y, ODZ, 2018. The copy of the book before me was printed and bound in Australia by McPhersons Printing Group. 232 pp)

Renowned theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author  Stephen Hawking’s first popular book about space and time ‘A Brief History of Time’ was published in 1988. He was a theoretical physicist with a passionate interest in cosmology. Hawking made history with his discoveries in the field. I well remember that, in its cover story with the headline Reading God’s Mind”, the June 13, 1988 issue of the weekly Newsweek magazine described Stephen Hawking as the ‘Master of the Universe’. I was delighted to re-read that original article, written by Jerry Adler et al, on the Newsweek website on March 30, 2018, just over two weeks after the scientist’s death; it was a reproduction in memory of Stephen Hawking who had died, at the age of seventy-six, in the early hours (local time) of Wednesday, March 14, at Cambridge UK.

My interest in Stephen Hawking turned into a kind of fandom when I was able to find and read a copy of the aforementioned book at some time in the 1991-1992 period. By then the book had for years been a record-breaking bestseller, and its author of ‘wheelchair genius’ fame a brilliant star in the media world where, though, theoretical cosmological research was a nebular region as far as we ordinary people were concerned. I found, ‘A Brief History of Time’ to be a difficult book to read, as millions of other readers around the world did. Concepts like ‘sum over histories’ or ‘imaginary time’ that he introduced into the text  made little sense to me as it probably did to many others, but I managed to get some general idea about what Hawking was trying to communicate. (Hawking himself later admitted that he used these terms without adequate explanation of their meaning.  In literature I read subsequently, I found that ‘sum over histories’ refers to a mathematical technique originally developed by Richard Feynman to analyze an event in quantum mechanics, and that ‘imaginary time’ refers to time measured in ‘imaginary numbers’, which itself refers to a mathematical device.  Stephen Hawking and his friend Jim Hartle of the then {early 1980s} newly created Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, used the imaginary numbers technique to calculate the square root of negative numbers. Explanations of ‘imaginary time’ and ‘sum over history’ are found, for example, in Stephen Hawking’s collection of essays ‘BLACK HOLES AND BABY UNIVERSES and Other Essays’, 1993, Bantam Book edition first published by Transworld Publishers, London, UK, in 1994, on pp 74-6 and 84-5 respectively. The fifth essay in the book under the heading ‘A Brief History of a Brief History’ between  pp 29-34 is interesting to read in this connection.) The mass appeal of the book, despite it not being an ‘easygoing’ book (Hawking’s own description) he attributed partly to people’s interest in him as a disabled person, an idea that he repeats in the introductory chapter of BRIEF ANSWERS TO THE BIG QUESTIONS about the phenomenal success of his first popular book of space and time: ‘Undoubtedly, the human-interest story of how I have managed to be a theoretical physicist and a bestselling author despite my disabilities has helped’ (p.19).

I, as a person  with an abiding interest in science and things scientific, immediately became an avid reader of his books,  essays, and journal articles, and what others have written about him and his work. Stephen Hawking: the man and the star” was the title of an article of mine published in The Island on January 14, 2000, that is, just over nineteen years ago. It was inspired by the genuine admiration I felt for him as the person who had already become the most celebrated living scientist in the world at the time. He had by then begun to be compared to Albert Einstein, who is still remembered by many as the greatest scientist of the last (i.e., 20^th) century. Hawking had already been honoured by being implicitly compared to Isaac Newton (1642-1726) about whom his junior contemporary  Alexander Pope the poet wrote: ‘Nature and nature’s laws lay hid in night – God said Let Newton be” and all was light’. Hawking was appointed to the Lucasian Chair in Mathematics at Cambridge University in November 1979. Newton was the second to hold that position.  Like Newton himself (‘If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’), Stephen Hawking was modest about his achievements, as seen above when he attributed the popularity of his A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME to people’s interest in the stark contradiction between his genius and his physical disabilities. Incidentally, the title of the collection of scientific writings dealing with the ideas of  five intellectual ‘giants’ who figured most prominently in the scientific revolution of the past five hundred years (Nicolaus Copernicus,   Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein) compiled by Stephen Hawking ‘ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS’, published by Running Press, US, in 2002, was obviously inspired by  Isaac Newton’s self effacing acknowledgement quoted above of his debt to previous scientists from whom he had learned.

Outside of the academic sphere too, Hawking managed to lead a normal life as a family man and as an ordinary citizen, that is, he managed to live as normal a life as possible in his circumstances, with human life’s inevitable highs and lows, as so touchingly delineated in the autobiographical book ‘Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen’, 1999, written by Jane Hawking his college sweetheart and wife of thirty years until their official separation in 1995 and his marriage the same year to his second wife Elaine; Jane is also the mother of his three children Robert, Lucy, and Timothy. The 2014 motion picture directed by James Marsh ‘The Theory of Everything’ was based on Jane Hawking’s book ‘Travelling to Infinity’ aforementioned. Actor Edward Redmayne who portrayed Stephen Hawking in the movie writes the Foreword to BRIEF ANSWERS TO THE BIG QUESTIONS  as Eddie Redmayne. It was after having done several months’ research in preparation for the role that he went to see his iconic subject in person for the first time. Redmayne writes that he ‘was struck by his extraordinary power and his vulnerability’ on meeting the electric wheelchair-borne scientist on that occasion. He was flabbergasted by ‘this scientist of phenomenal talent, whose main communication was through a computerized voice along with a pair of exceptionally expressive eyebrows’. Redmayne also tells us what Hawking told him when he went to see him after the screening of the film. He said he had seen the film and had enjoyed it. ‘He was moved by it, but famously he also stated that he thought there should have been more physics and fewer feelings’, something ‘impossible to argue with’, writes Redmayne.

While not ignoring matters of mundane existence, Hawking was most focused as a scientist and as an acdemic.  We come across a  number of instances where he makes lighthearted comments about such less exalted things as the rising cost of living in his home country and the alleged craziness of Trump politics in America. Thus, not only was he the ‘Master of the Universe’, but he was the master of his own fate. Had it not been for his triumph over himself in his physically paralyzed state, he would not have achieved  the leading position he occupied in the field of cosmological research. At the time of his death, Hawking was the Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, University of Cambridge. His daughter Lucy, in her Afterword to the book, writes: ‘My father never gave up, he never shied away from the fight. At the age of seventy-five, completely paralysed and able to move only a few facial muscles, he still got up everyday, put on a suit and went to work. He had stuff to do and was not going to let a few trivialities get in his way.’ (p.217)

Cosmological physics tends to distantiate most people who are not physicists with its esoteric equations, abstract theories, and futuristic propositions that seem (to lay persons like me, at least) too unrealistic to become implementable at any time before the human race goes extinct, but Hawking’s ability to explain his views with great lucidness and frequent flashes of humour makes reading him fun.  ‘A Brief History of Time’ of 1988 was addressed to a popular readership. Similarly, BRIEF ANSWERS TO THE BIG QUESTIONS of 2018 is meant for ordinary readers, especially the ‘interested and engaged’ young readers; it gives a clear idea of the ‘Big Questions’ that confront our contemporary world and  Hawking’s own scientifically informed forward-looking ‘Brief Answers’ to them. It is significant that while the introduction to his first popular book of science A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME was written by the famous astronomer, cosmologist, extraterrestrial life researcher, author and science popularizer Professor of Cornell University the late Carl Sagan, the introduction to BRIEF ANSWERS TO THE BIG QUESTIONS, has been written by his friend astrophysicist and cosmologist, Nobel laureate  Professor Kip Thorne of California Institute of Technology. Both of them were longtime close friends and colleagues of Hawking.  It is as if the compilers of the latter book wanted to frame Hawking’s thirty years (1988-2018) of popular science writing as a single and singular continuum, with his theoretical launch pads as firm as ever, in his human welfare directed exploration of the Cosmos.

Hawking was unostentatiously proud about the contribution he was able to make to science, but his characteristic humility remained intact. His rare physical disability was well known to all around the world who took an interest. But what asserted itself in his life was his amazing intellect, which more than compensated for his bodily handicap caused by a form of motor neuron disease known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). He was diagnosed with this disease at the age of 21 in 1963. (Hawking was given only two years to live by the doctors, but he beat their prognosis by at least 53 years!)  In Chapter 9 which involves a discussion of the future progress and prospects for humanity of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Hawking writes: ‘Intelligence is central to what it means to be human. Everything that civilization has to offer is a product of human intelligence’ (p.183).

Products of human intelligence were what he had to offer to the scientific  world, and through it, to all humankind. This devastatingly disabling disease leaves the affected person almost completely paralyzed because it kills the neurons that control the voluntary muscles in the body. In Hawking’s case, it was a perfect illustration of cosmic irony: The most frustrating result of ALS for Hawking was that it took away his ability to speak and communicate his thoughts and ideas to others. In this context, more important and more remarkable than even his extraordinary intellectual abilities was, I think, his great moral courage, and his sense of fortitude that enabled him to remain mentally focused despite his physical affliction, and to make available to the world the results of his unique intellectual capacity. After reading his posthumously published last book, I feel confirmed in my belief that Hawking wanted to devote his life in science to the general welfare, including particularly world peace and the economic wellbeing, of the whole human race and was apparently least  worried about his own incurable physical condition. He was determined to popularize the study of theoretical physics  and to work on related research subjects such as artificial intelligence, particularly, among the young by demonstrating its attractions to them. He was fully aware of AI’s enormous possibilities as well as its potential dangers, abuses, and pitfalls, which he took care to warn them about.  In my opinion, Hawking’s behaviour was as close as was humanly possible to what neuroscientist Jorge Moll and co-researchers into the moral dimension of human actions categorize as ‘genuine altruism’: ‘Actions that are beneficial to others, with no direct personal benefits (material or reputation gains) and no expected reciprocation’ (as quoted in the 2010 Sam Harris book ‘THE MORAL LANDSCAPE – How Science Can Determine Human Values’, p. 122)

Stephen Hawking’s BRIEF ANSWERS TO THE BIG QUESTIONS was published about seven months after his death, but it was one of the undertakings he worked on in what he didn’t know was going to be the last year of his life.  According to Lucy Hawking, her father’s intention was to bring his contemporary writings into a single volume. The publisher says that the compilers of the book drew upon the enormous personal archive  that Stephen Hawking maintained of his responses (in the form of speeches, interviews and essays) to the ‘big questions’ about which scientists, technological entrepreneurs, senior business figures, political leaders and the general public asked him to express his ideas.

In BRIEF ANSWERS TO THE BIG QUESTIONS, Hawking expresses himself on ten ‘big’ questions. There are  eleven chapters in the book, but the opening chapter is not numbered; it stands by itself. It is self-explanatorily headlined ‘Why we must ask the big questions’.  The ten big questions form the headings of the other chapters of the book numbered from 1 to 10:  Is there a God? How did it all begin? Is there other intelligent life in the universe? Can we predict the future? What is inside a black hole? Is time travel possible? Will we survive on Earth? Should we colonise space? Will artificial intelligence outsmart us?  How do we shape the future? Hawking believes that one day we will know the answers to all these questions (through science).

His answer to the first big question is as unequivocal as it was in the 1988 ‘A Brief History of Time’, where he said that a Creator God had no choice in creating the universe. In this his final book Hawking repeats the argument that since the laws of nature are fixed God has no role to play in it. He totally rejects belief in an anthropomorphic personal God. He claims that he uses the word ‘God’ in an impersonal sense, like Einstein did, for laws of nature, so knowing the mind of God ( a phrase first used in ‘A Brief History of Time’ that was snatched by  Creator God apologists to mislead people to assume that Hawking was a theist) is knowing the laws of nature. He points out that science is answering questions that used to be the province of religion. (Please look at my casual reference to Sam Harris’s book ‘The Moral Landscape’ above relating to human morality, which used to be generally considered the exclusive domain of religion. – RRW). The answer he proposes to the second big question confirms his firm God-denial. Talking about the beginning of the universe he maintains that space and energy were invented in an event  we now call the Big Bang. Space and time also began at the Big Bang. There is no role for a Creator God. These things have been confirmed by scientific observations done since Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1915, which unified time and space. Hawking does not rule out the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  His answers to the other big questions are similarly based on scientific reason.

Early in the partly biographical introductory chapter mentioned above (‘Why we must ask the big questions’ pp. 3-22) he hints at what motivated his life in science: ‘I am a scientist. And a scientist with a deep fascination with physics, cosmology, the universe and the future of humanity. I was brought up by my parents to have an unwavering curiosity and, like my father, to research and try to answer the many questions that science asks us…’ (p.3). He says that one of the great revelations of the space age (that we live in) has been the perspective it has given us humans on ourselves: ‘When we see the Earth from space, we see ourselves as a whole. We see the unity, and not the divisions. It is such a simple image with a compelling message; one planet, one human race./I want to add my voice to those who demand immediate action on the key challenges for our global community. I hope that going forward, even when I am no longer here, people with power can show creativity, courage and leadership. Let them rise to the challenge of the sustainable development goals, and act, not out of self-interest, but out of common interest. I am very aware of the preciousness of time. Seize the moment. Act now.’ (pp. 4-5) The challenges meant here are those touched on in addition to the big questions specifically dealt with such as how to feed an ever growing population, provide clean water, generate renewable energy, prevent and cure disease, and slow down global climate change. Hawking is hopeful that science and technology will offer the answers to these; but this will need a new generation who are interested and engaged and have an understanding of science. Asked  ‘What world-changing idea, small or big, would you like to see implemented by humanity?’, Hawking  answered: ‘I would like to see the development of fusion power to give an unlimited  supply of clean energy, and a switch to electric cars. Nuclear fusion would become a practical power source and would provide us with an inexhaustible supply of energy, without pollution or global warming.’ (p. 209)

Hawking accepted life with great courage: ‘I have been enormously privileged, through my work, in being able to contribute to our understanding of the universe. But it would be an empty universe indeed if it were not for the people I love, and who love me. Without them , the wonder of it all would be lost on me’ (p.21). With an implicit reference to himself as a model for inspiration, Hawking addresses the final words of the introductory chapter to young readers: ‘Be brave, be curious, be determined, overcome the odds. It can be done’ (p.22), as if they were his own children. That was the advice that his father gave him and that he gave his children.

BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

I read many articles and listen to speeches and discussions of academics and politicians in Sri Lanka regarding the constitutional reforms.  Many articles, speeches, and discussions attempted to point the figure to the 19^th amendment, which was enacted on 28.04.2015, the current constitution after this amendment has created a puzzle in which the role and functions of the government as well as the laws and regulations of the country, have put into a mess.  The amendment was approved by the parliament before the general election of 2015, and it also assumed that the enactment of the amendment was animated without a referendum of people and during the presidential election in 2015, the elected candidates did not give a halcyon promise to change the constitution with a view to considering the election result as a referendum to amend the constitution.   After the approval of the 19^th amendment, several cases gone to the supreme court and many citizens of the country believed that the amendment does not balance and reconcile legal political and social functions of the country.

Who was responsible for the amendment? There is no clear view about the responsible people to the amendment, but it is assumable that members of the parliament, who raised hands to pass the amendment was directly responsible to the mess and some people now ask a question what kind of role was played by the judiciary in this situation.  As the current constitution clearly states that the role of interpreting contents of the constitution is played by the Supreme Court, the court also needs taking responsibility for the 19^th amendment to a certain extent. There were six members of the parliament did not involve in the approval of the amendment and others were supported without party differences.  Therefore, many members of the current parliament cannot deny the responsibility for the mistake they have done, and some members of the parliament attempt to show that they were not responsible, it is unacceptable.

A constitution of a country balances and reconciles legal, political and social functions. A procedural constitution defines the legal and political structures of public institutions and set out legal limits of government power and order to protect the democratic process and the fundamental human rights (www.quora.com).  The main part of the puzzle of the 19^th amendment is whether this internationally accepted principle regarding constitution was respected by lawmakers passing the amendment. The Public in Sri Lanka have no understanding about the significant roles and they are silent on these matters.  However, it is possible to ask a question, was the19^th amendment activated after the presidential election in 2015 a similar type of occurrence to MAGNA CARTA in the UK as the 19^th amendment reduced the power of the president. Did president not aware of the changes affected or he was not educated by his legal advisers. The best example was the dissolution of the parliament by the president in 2018 and the judgment of the supreme court regarding the decision of the president imitated that the president did not aware of taking aware his power. After the Supreme Court decision, many educated lawyers published articles in electronic and printed media, one of the lawyers was Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama and he also questioned about the education of the president on the contents of the amendment.

If we compare the 19^th amendment to MAGNA CARTA, who acted as barons may be a question or not clear reflection in the drama because at the 2015 presidential election, Mr. Sirisena was supported by UNP and NGOs and Mr. Sirisena was not aware of the policies the yahapalana regime. UNP never publicly express that the party is against the executive presidency because it was an invention of UNP and Mr. J.R. Jayewardene and Mr. R. Premadasa efficaciously used the power of executive presidency with a view to making right decisions for crisis situations.  Barons War in the UK was highly successful in reducing the power of King John.  Was the 19^th amendment work like MAGNA CARTA? No, it wasn’t, the answer to the question.

Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa also used presidential power for the benefits of the country and his decision to make 18^th amendment to the constitution was criticized by many academics in the country, however, there was an environment at the global level that effective presidents should be given the opportunity to stay in the job for more than two times for the benefits of the countries. This debate was in the USA, Russia, Brazil, and other countries.

Some academics are of opinion that the hidden purpose of the 19^th amendment to the constitution was to take revenge from Rajapaksa family to prevent people with the name of Rajapaksa becoming the president of Sri Lanka rather than creating active democratic administration or introducing such a democratic rule to the country.  After the 19^th amendment so-called democratic lawyers expressed that the best outcome of the 19^th amendment was the introduction of committee system to the country.  The operation of committees during the past several years have clearly proven that it is an inefficient system that helped to promote corruptions in the country.

From the management point of views, the committee system working in private and public sector organizations in the 1970s in Sri Lanka was not acknowledged the purpose, later found that management committees ignored the accountability in decision making as the members of the committees attempted to push the responsibility to one member to others without taking collective responsibility.  Especially in developing countries committee-based management ignores the accountability for decisions.  For example, when approving credit packages in banks has proven that the accountability for credit decisions was a serious problem and the accountability for the credit decision pushes one member to other and no one takes responsibility for the decision.  It is a truth that quality circles or committees in the Japanese management environment operate successfully despite the ineffective operations in developing countries. Many Western countries operate a committee system in public administration and they are successful.

The major committees appointed after the 19^th amendment divulged that they were biased toward the government or slow in decision making or attempted to mislead people, the best examples were Election Committee, Constitutional Committee, and others.  Conceptually, the committee system shows democratic features, despite the democratic nature, more members were appointed from the government side, real professionals were not appointed, the government appointed favorites as an appreciation for supports and many problems displayed with the appointments and operations.  A Constitutional Committee appointed but it was unable to produce a draft constitution for four years and wasted lots of funds for operations.

The 19^th amendment also failed to give authority to the president for dissolving the parliament in September 2018 and it was a real disappointment of people as the people of the country expected an election elect new representatives to the parliament as the image of current members already lost. The entire public sector depressed with lacking active decisions and ultimately people must suffer in the name of democracy or the sovereignty of people.

Developing a constitution is an authentic and genuine task, which needs listening to all citizens of the country.  The attempt of the government through the 19^th amendment was making a constitution with patches and ad-hoc way and without communication the true intention to people. The disguise intention of the political parties of the government was to stress public that they have done the right thing to attract votes in the next election than making a constitution that balances and reconcile the country.

Sri Lanka has a history of making constitutions but all constitutions and amendments have failed and the major reason for the failure was the absence of consultation of people openly giving the content of drafted constitution to people for a constructive debate.  It is not a Machiavellian task and the drafted constitution must be allowed to debate from school level to various forums in the country for at least three years.  It is not a task of party politics and it must be a   national task beyond the party politics.

KAMALIKA PIERIS

‘Sinhala Only’ was not going to be allowed to live happily ever after. The Tamil language was determined to get its place in the sun,  to somehow see that Tamil ranked equally with Sinhala  island wide, even if it could not dislodge Sinhala altogether. Tamil’s chance came with the   1977 Constitution (effective   September 1978).

1. 1978 CONSTITUTION

The 1978 Constitution has a separate chapter on Language. This chapter is all about Tamil, about entrenching Tamil in key areas of state activity. This shows that a Tamil lobby has been at work.  We do not know the names of all the Tamils active in this lobby but one name is publicly available, that of A.J.Wilson, a respected   Professor of Political theory and son-in- law of S.J.V Chelvanayagam.

Wilson by his own admission was   a close advisor to J.R. Jayewardene before and   during Jayewardene’s rule as President. ’ I was in close touch with President J.R. Jayewardene, when he was in the opposition. I had advised him on questions relating to 1978 Constitution of which the President had been the principal architect’, said Wilson. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/JCS/article/viewFile/14564/15633

Laksiri Fernando, a student of Wilson who had remained close to him, stated that It is on record that Wilson helped the drafting of the 1978 Constitution  [He] opted to support and in fact helped to draft [it], I have met him several times during his visits in 1977 and 1983.  Mrs. A.J.Wilson however has stated firmly that her husband ‘was not involved in the preparation or drafting of the constitution for Sri Lanka.’ But she confirmed that ‘Professor Wilson acted as an advisor to ensure that the Tamil voice and views was expressed and heard in the political process.”

In the 1970s Tamil was still very much a minority language. According to the 1971 Census of Population   there were 9,131,243   Sinhalese and 1,423,981 Tamils. The percentages were Sinhalese 71.96% and Tamils 11.22%.  The 1978 Constitution however, recognized Tamil and gave it much prominence.

The 1978 Constitution   said that Sinhala shall be the official language (sec 18) but that there would be two national languages, Sinhala and Tamil. (Sec 19). All the rights enjoyed in the Tamil (Special Provisions) Act of 1958 were incorporated into the 1978 Constitution and cannot now be changed except by constitutional amendment, observed KM de Silva.     The Official Languages Department was re-established once the Constitution was approved. The Department had lost much of its importance in the 1970s and had been reduced to the status of a mere division in the Ministry of Public Administration.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER IV: LANGUAGE” OF THE 1978 CONSTITUTION:

18. The Official Language of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala. (1978)
19. The National Languages of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala and Tamil, (1978)
20. A Member of Parliament or a member of a local authority shall be entitled to perform his duties and discharge his functions in Parliament or in such local authority in either of the National Languages. (1978)

21/1 a person shall be entitled to be educated through the medium of either of the National Languages, (1978

21/2 Where one National Language is a medium of instruction for or in any course, department or faculty of any University directly or indirectly financed by the State, the other National Language shall also be made a medium of instruction for or in such course, department or faculty for students who prior to their admission to such University, were educated through the medium of such other National Language :Provided that compliance with the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not be obligatory if such other National Language is the medium of instruction for or in any like course, department or faculty either at any other campus or branch of such University or of any other like University. (1978

Provided that the Tamil Language shall also be used as the language of administration for the maintenance of public records and the transaction of all business by public institutions in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. (1978

22/1 The Official Language shall be Language of the language of administration throughout administration, provided that the Tamil Language shall also be used as the language of administration for the maintenance of public records and the transaction of all business by public institutions in the Northern and Eastern Provinces(1978.

22/2 a A person, other than an official acting in his official capacity, shall be entitled-(a) to receive communications from, and to communicate and transact business with, any official in his official capacity, in either of the National Languages (1978)

22/2/b if the law recognizes his right to inspect or to obtain copies of or extracts from any official register, record, publication or other document, to obtain a copy of, or an extract from such register, record, publication or other document, or a translation thereof, as the case maybe, in either of the National Languages: (1978

22/2/c where a document is executed by any official for the purpose of being issued to him, to obtain such document or a translation thereof, in either of the National Languages. (1978)

22/3) A local authority in the Northern or Eastern Province which conducts its business in either of the National Languages shall be entitled to receive communications from, and to communicate and transact business with, any official in his official capacity, in such National Language. (1978)

22/4 All Orders, Proclamations, rules, by-laws, regulations and notifications made or issued under any written law, the Gazette, and all other official documents including circulars and forms issued or used by any public institution or local authority, shall be published in both National Languages(1978)

.22/5 A person shall be entitled to be examined through the medium of either of the National Languages at any examination for the admission of persons to the Public Service, Judicial Service, Local Government Service, a public corporation or statutory institution, subject to the condition that he may be required to acquire a sufficient knowledge of the Official Language within a reasonable time after admission to any such Service, public corporation or statutory institution where such knowledge is reasonably necessary for the discharge of his duties: Provided that a person may be required to have a sufficient knowledge of the Official Language as a condition for admission to any such Service, public corporation or statutory institution where no function of the office or employment for which he is recruited can be discharged otherwise than with a sufficient knowledge of the Official Language(1978)

22/6) In this Article-“official” means the President, any Minister, Deputy Minister, or any officer of a public institution or local authority; and” public institution ” means a department or institution of the Government, a public corporation or statutory institution(1978)

23/1 All laws and subordinate Language of legislation shall be enacted or made, and Legislation published, in both National Languages together with a translation in the English Language. In the event of any inconsistency between any two texts, the text in the Official Language shall prevail (1978)

23/2 all laws and subordinate legislation in force immediately prior to the commencement of the Constitution, shall be published in the Gazette in both National Languages as expeditiously as possible. (1978)

23/3 the law published in Sinhala under the provisions of paragraph (2) of this Article, shall, as from the date of such publication, be deemed to be the law and supersede the corresponding law in English. (1978)

24/1 The Official Language shall be Language of the language o f the courts throughout Sri the courts. Lanka and accordingly their records and proceedings shall be in the Official Language: Provided that the language of the courts exercising original jurisdiction in the Northern and Eastern Provinces shall also be Tamil and their records and proceedings shall be in the Tamil Language. In the event of an appeal from any such court, records in both National Languages shall be prepared for the use of the court hearing such appeal; (1978)

24/1/1 the record of any particular proceeding in such court shall also be maintained in the Official Language if so required by the judge of such court, or by any party or applicant or any person legally entitled to represent such party or applicant in such proceeding, where such judge, party, applicant or person is not conversant with the Tamil Language.

24/1/2 Any party or applicant or any person legally entitled to represent such party or applicant may initiate proceedings, and submit to court pleadings and other documents, and participate in the proceedings in court, in either of the National Languages.

(24/1/3 Any judge, juror, party or applicant or any person legally entitled to represent such party or applicant, who is not conversant with the language used in a court, shall be entitled to interpretation and to translation into the appropriate National Language, provided by the State, to enable him to understand and participate in the proceedings before such court, and shall also be entitled to obtain in either of the National Languages, any such part of the record or a translation thereof, as the case may be, as he may be entitled to obtain according to law.

24/1/4 The Minister in charge of the subject of Justice may, with the concurrence of the Cabinet of Ministers, issue directions permitting the use of a language other than national Language in or in relation to the records and proceedings in any court for all purposes or for such purposes as may be specified therein. Every judge shall be bound to implement such directions. (1978)

2. 13^th AMENDMENT

The 13^th amendment of 1987 raised Tamil from the earlier level of national language to the higher level of Official language. This Amendment stated that in addition to Sinhala, I) Tamil shall also be an official language 2)English shall be the  link language 3) Parliament shall by law provide for the implementation of the provisions in this> chapter.” (Article 2)

3. 16^TH AMENDMENT

The 16 amendment of 1988 repealed sections 22 and 23 of the 1978 Constitution.  It made Tamil   a language of administration, legislation and the law courts. The transformation of Tamil from a minority language to an official language  was now complete.

Devanesan Nesiah explains, in the 16^th amendment of 1988 Tamil was included as a language of administration throughout Sri Lanka. Tamil became an official administrative and court language and English is the link language also used in administration  .

The revised article 22(1, 2, 3) now read as follows ‘Sinhala and Tamil shall be the Language  of administration throughout Sri Lanka, and Sinhala shall be the language of administration  be used for maintenance of public records and the transaction of all business by public institutions of all provinces other than the north and east where Tamil shall also be used.   Provided that the President having regard to the proportion which the Sinhala or Tamil linguistic minority population in any unit comprising a division of an AGA bears to the total of population in that area, direct htat both Sinhala and Tamil  be used as the language of administration   for such area.  In any area where Sinhala is  used as the language of administration a person other than an official shall be entitled to received communication and transact business with an official in either Tamil or English or ask for documents translated to Tamil or English. And also get a document executed in Tamil or English. The reverse shall also apply and the same services can be demanded in Sinhala.

Revised article 24(1) now reads Sinhala & Tamil shall be the Language  of court throughout Sri Lanka and Sinhala shall be used as the language of courts except in any area where Tamil is the Language of administration  concluded Nesiah.

HERE IS SOME OF THE TEXT OF THE 16^TH AMENDMENT:.

Section 3 Replacement of Article 22 and 23 of the Constitution

3. Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution are hereby re-pealed and the following Articles substituted therefore; –

22 (Languages of Administration)

(1) Sinhala and Tamil shall be the language: of administration throughout Sri Lanka and Sinhala shall be the language of administration and be used for the maintenance of public records and the transaction or all business by public institutions of all the provinces of Sri Lanka other than the Northern and Eastern Provinces where Tamil shall be so used:

(2) in any area where Sinhala is used as the language of administration a person other than an official acting in his official capacity, shall be entitled –

(a) to receive communications from and to communicate and transact business with, any official in his official capacity, in either Tamil or English;

(b) if the law recognizes his right to inspector to obtain copies of or extracts from any official register, record, publication or other document, to obtain a copy of, or an extract from such register, record, publication) or other document, or a translation thereof, as the case may be, in either Tamil or English ;

(c) where a document is executed by any official for the purpose of being issued to him, to obtain such document or a translation thereof, in either Tamil or English.

(3) In any area where Tamil is used as the language of administration, a person other than an official acting in his official capacity, shall be entitled to exercise the rights and to obtain the services, referred to in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph (2) of this Article, in Sinhala or English.

(4) A Provincial Council or a local authority which conducts its business in Sinhala shall be entitled to receive communications from and to communicate and transact business with, any official in his official capacity, in Sinhala, and a Provincial Council or a local authority which conducts its business in Tamil shall be entitled to receive communications from and to communicate and transact business with, any official in his official capacity, in Tamil :

(5) A person shall be entitled to be examined through the medium of either Sinhala or Tamil or a language of his choice at any examination for the admission of persons to the Public Service, Judicial Service, Provincial Public Service, Local Government Ser-vice or any public institution, subject to the condition that he may be required to acquire a sufficient knowledge of Tamil or Sinhala, as the case may be, within a reasonable time after admission to such service or public institution where such knowledge is reasonably necessary for the discharge of his duties:

(6) In this Article-

23 (Language of Legislation)

(1) All laws and subordinate legislation shall be enacted or Made’! and published in Sinhala and Tamil, together with a translation thereof in English :

(2) All Orders, Proclamations. rules, by-laws, -regulations and notifications made or issued under any written law other than ‘ by a Provincial Council or a local authority, and the Gazette shall be published in Sinhala and Tamil together “with a translation thereof in English.

(3) All Orders, Proclamations rules. by-laws, regulations and notifications made or issued under any written law by any Provincial Council or local authority, and all documents including circulars and forms issued or used by such body or any public institution shall be published in the language used in the administration in the respective areas in which they function, together with a translation thereof in English.

(4) All laws and subordinate legislation in force immediately prior to the commencement of the Constitution, shall be published in the Gazette in the Sinhala and Tamil languages as expeditiously as possible.

Section 4 Amendment of Article 34 of the Constitution

4. Article 24 of the Constitution is hereby amended as follows:-

(1) by the repeal of paragraph 0) of that Article and the substitution of the following paragraph there-for :-

“(1) Sinhala and Tamil shall be the languages of the courts throughout Sri Lanka and Sinhala shall be used as the language of the court situated in all the areas of Sri Lanka except those in any area where Tamil is the language of administration. The record and proceedings shall be in the language of the, court. In the event of an appeal from any court records shall also be prepared in the language of the court hearing the appeal, if the language of such court is other than the language used by the court from which the appeal is preferred :

(2) in paragraph (2) of that Article by the substitution for the words ” in either of the National Languages “, of the words ” in either Sinhala or Tamil” :

(3) in paragraph (3) of that Article – (a) by, the substitution, for the words “the appropriate National, Language ” , of the words “Sinhala or Tamil”, and (1) by the substitution, for the words ” either of the National Languages”, of the words ” such language ” ;

(4) in paragraph (1) of that Article by the substitution for the word ” the use of a language other than a National Language”, of the words “the use of English”,

Section 3 Replacement of Article 22 and 23 of the Constitution

3. Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution are hereby re-pealed and the following Articles substituted therefore; –

22 (Languages of Administration)

(1) Sinhala and Tamil shall be the language: of administration throughout Sri Lanka and Sinhala shall be the language of administration and be used for the maintenance of public records and the transaction or all business by public institutions of all the provinces of Sri Lanka other than the Northern and Eastern Provinces where Tamil shall be so used:

(2) in any area where Sinhala is used as the language of administration a person other than an official acting in his official capacity, shall be entitled –

(a) to receive communications from and to communicate and transact business with, any official in his official capacity, in either Tamil or English;

(b) if the law recognizes his right to inspector to obtain copies of or extracts from any official register, record, publication or other document, to obtain a copy of, or an extract from such register, record, publication) or other document, or a translation thereof, as the case may be, in either Tamil or English ;

(c) where a document is executed by any official for the purpose of being issued to him, to obtain such document or a translation thereof, in either Tamil or English.

(3) In any area where Tamil is used as the language of administration, a person other than an official acting in his official capacity, shall be entitled to exercise the rights and to obtain the services, referred to in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph (2) of this Article, in Sinhala or English.

(4) A Provincial Council or a local authority which conducts its business in Sinhala shall be entitled to receive communications from and to communicate and transact business with, any official in his official capacity, in Sinhala, and a Provincial Council or a local authority which conducts its business in Tamil shall be entitled to receive communications from and to communicate and transact business with, any official in his official capacity, in Tamil :

(5) A person shall be entitled to be examined through the medium of either Sinhala or Tamil or a language of his choice at any examination for the admission of persons to the Public Service, Judicial Service, Provincial Public Service, Local Government Ser-vice or any public institution, subject to the condition that he may be required to acquire a sufficient knowledge of Tamil or Sinhala, as the case may be, within a reasonable time after admission to such service or public institution where such knowledge is reasonably necessary for the discharge of his duties:

(6) In this Article-

23 (Language of Legislation)

(1) All laws and subordinate legislation shall be enacted or Made’! and published in Sinhala and Tamil, together with a translation thereof in English :

(2) All Orders, Proclamations. rules, by-laws, -regulations and notifications made or issued under any written law other than ‘ by a Provincial Council or a local authority, and the Gazette shall be published in Sinhala and Tamil together “with a translation thereof in English.

(3) All Orders, Proclamations rules. by-laws, regulations and notifications made or issued under any written law by any Provincial Council or local authority, and all documents including circulars and forms issued or used by such body or any public institution shall be published in the language used in the administration in the respective areas in which they function, together with a translation thereof in English.

(4) All laws and subordinate legislation in force immediately prior to the commencement of the Constitution, shall be published in the Gazette in the Sinhala and Tamil languages as expeditiously as possible.

Section 4 Amendment of Article 34 of the Constitution

4. Article 24 of the Constitution is hereby amended as follows:-

(1) by the repeal of paragraph 0) of that Article and the substitution of the following paragraph there-for :-

“(1) Sinhala and Tamil shall be the languages of the courts throughout Sri Lanka and Sinhala shall be used as the language of the court situated in all the areas of Sri Lanka except those in any area where Tamil is the language of administration. The record and proceedings shall be in the language of the, court. In the event of an appeal from any court records shall also be prepared in the language of the court hearing the appeal, if the language of such court is other than the language used by the court from which the appeal is preferred :

(2) in paragraph (2) of that Article by the substitution for the words ” in either of the National Languages “, of the words ” in either Sinhala or Tamil” :

(3) in paragraph (3) of that Article – (a) by, the substitution, for the words “the appropriate National, Language ” , of the words “Sinhala or Tamil”, and (1) by the substitution, for the words ” either of the National Languages”, of the words ” such language ” ;

(4) in paragraph (1) of that Article by the substitution for the word ” the use of a language other than a National Language”,of the words “the use of English”,( continued)

By Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

Oct 2018 in Colombo: Mark Field received an assurance from Marapana as regards Sri Lanka’s commitment to Geneva process. The meeting took place a few weeks before Oct 26, 2018 constitutional change.

Thanks to UK Human Rights Minister Tariq Mahmood Ahmad (Baron Ahmad of Wimbledon- Conservative) we now know, instead of using Lord Naseby’s disclosure in Oct. 2017 in the House of Lords to defend Sri Lanka on the Geneva ‘front’, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, in Oct. 2018, and the UNP, in January 2019, reassured Sri Lanka’s commitment to those controversial punitive UNHRC Resolutions.

On the basis of UK military dispatches from Colombo, in 2009 (January-May), Lord Naseby, in Oct 2017, revealed the maximum number of Tamil civilians killed was about 6,000 and not 40,000, as alleged by the UN Panel of Experts, and that the Mahinda Rajapaksa government never deliberately targeted the civilian community.

Jan 2019 in London: Lord Ahmad received a commitment from Samaraweera as regards Sri Lanka’s commitment to Geneva process.

Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana, PC, in late Nov. 2017, assured Parliament that Lord Naseby’s revelations would be used at the appropriate time to defend Sri Lanka. Marapana is yet to carry through his promise.

Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, on Feb. 05, 2019, made the revelation, regarding Sri Lanka’s unwavering commitment to the Geneva Resolutions, in his response to Lord Naseby’s call made during the House of Commons debate on UNHRC Resolutions – 30/1 in Oct. 2015 and 34/1 in March 2017. Lord Naseby initiated the debate, in his capacity as the President of the All Party British Sri Lanka Parliamentary Group.

Let me reproduce, verbatim, the section that dealt with the UK Ministers’ discussions with the Sri Lankan ministers. Declaring that the UK repeatedly urged Sri Lanka to go further and faster, Lord Ahmad, of Wimbledon, who is also a key member of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, founded in Punjab, said: “On 21 January, I met the Minister of Finance and Mass Media, Mangala Samaraweera, in London. He has been a strong supporter of Sri Lanka’s commitments to Resolution 30/1. It was a pleasant and constructive meeting, during which he took the opportunity to engage directly with representatives of the diaspora in the UK, including members of the Tamil community. My honourable friend, the Minister for Asia and the Pacific, Mark Field, did the same when he met Foreign Minister Marapana and a number of other Sri Lankan Ministers and officials, in Colombo, last October. Last September, the UK led a statement on behalf of the core group at the 39th session of the Human Rights Council, urging Sri Lanka to prioritize and drive forward the implementation of its commitments.”

Lord Ahmad’s declaration is evidence that Geneva process is firmly on track, ahead of reviewing of UN Resolutions, titled ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights, in Sri Lanka.’

Did Mangala Samaraweera represent Marapana in London? Samaraweera served as Foreign Minister (Nov 2005-early 2007) at the onset of the Eelam War, under President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Samaraweera received the same portfolio, in January 2015. President Sirisena replaced Samaraweera in May 2017 following media furore over Samaraweera, in his capacity as the Foreign Minister co-sponsoring the first Geneva Resolution in Oct 2015.

During Samaraweera’s tenure, as the Foreign Minister, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration cancelled the annual ‘Victory Parade’, in May, to celebrate Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism. The cancellation followed the then Canadian High Commissioner, Shelly Whiting, demanding Sri Lanka does away with the parade as it hurt the sentiments of the Tamil community. Canada shamelessly played politics with the Sri Lankan issue for domestic political reasons.

The Foreign Ministry lacked political direction, at national level, to counter foreign propaganda operations.

The writer examined the role of the Foreign Ministry in three articles – ‘Sri Lanka at the mercy of a treacherous setup’ (23.01.2019) ‘A still valid tripartite agreement on foreign judges: Foreign Ministry’s role’ (30.01.2019), and ‘A war crimes dossier on ‘arguably the most important ground commander with the strap line Foreign Ministry debacle on Geneva Front (06.02.2019)

The Island examined the Foreign Ministry’s role close on the heels of Marapana’s recent advice to the Sri Lanka Foreign Service (SLFS) to enhance the country’s image overseas through efficient and effective execution of public diplomacy, utilizing its intrinsic brands such as Buddhism, gems, tea, spices, high-end export products and the warmth of traditional Sri Lankan hospitality.

The Feb. 05, 2019 debate on the Sri Lanka Resolutions, in the House of Lords, disclosed the failure, on the part of Sri Lanka Parliament, to take up the most important foreign policy issue at all. Since the Joint Opposition raised Lord Naseby’s disclosure in Parliament, in Nov 2017, those politicians, represented in Parliament, never bothered to discuss the matter. One-time LTTE’s mouthpiece and political arm, the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) hell-bent on hauling Sri Lanka political and military leaderships before the hybrid accountability mechanism, cannot be expected to take up Lord Naseby’s disclosure. The TNA parliamentary group comprises 16, including two National List members.

Silence of the TNA

The TNA never responded to the writer’s queries regarding Lord Naseby’s call to amend the Geneva Resolution 30/1 (This was before key co-sponsor, the US, quit Geneva). The Island submitted the following questions to TNA and the then Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan on Nov. 27, 2017 and repeatedly reminded his Office of the delay on its part to answer questions: Have you (TNA) studied Lord Naseby’s statement made in the House of Lords on Oct. 12, 2017? What is TNA’s position on Naseby’s claims?, Did the TNA leaders discuss Naseby’s claim among themselves? Did the TNA respond to MP Dinesh Gunawardena’s statements in parliament on Naseby’s statement? And did the TNA take up this issue with UK High Commissioner, James Dauris?

Lord Naseby’s appeal to the annual UN Resolutions was unceremoniously dismissed by Lord Ahmad on behalf of the UK Government. Lord Naseby, in spite of knowing that the UK will never, under any circumstances, give up Geneva Resolutions-tools in the hands of Western powers to manipulate Sri Lanka, highlighted why Sri Lanka shouldn’t subject to constant monitoring by them. Lord Naseby again highlighted the relevance of wartime UK military dispatches from Colombo which questioned the authenticity of UN Resolutions based on unsubstantiated allegations.

Lord Naseby directly blamed the UN Resolutions on the Tamils Diaspora particularly those based in the UK, Canada and the USA et al. The Conservative veteran reminded the UK of its failure to take action whatsoever in respect of UK-based Adele Balasingham, the Australian born wife of British citizen Anton Stanislaus Balasingham, wartime ideologue of the LTTE. Balasingham passed away in the UK, in Dec 2006, at the onset of the war. Lord Naseby presented a spate of indisputable facts to underscore the responsibility on the part of the UK to bring closure to UN Resolutions – the first one moved in Oct 2015 primarily on the basis five major allegations – (a) Killing of civilians through widespread shelling (b) Shelling of hospitals and other humanitarian objects (c) Denial of humanitarian assistance (d) Human rights violations suffered by victims and survivors of the conflict) and (e) Human Rights violations outside the conflict zone.

Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion, on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, on the morning of May 19, 2009. The following six primary allegations were directed at the LTTE – (a) Using civilians as a human buffer (b) Killing civilians attempting to escape LTTE control (c) Using military equipment in the close proximity of civilians (d) forced recruitment of children (e) Forced labor and (f) Killing of civilians through suicide attacks.

Having faulted the government/military on five major counts, the UN accused Sri Lanka of massacring at least 40,000 civilians. Let me reproduce the paragraph, bearing no 137, in the UN report released in March 2011, verbatim: “In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and to the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths.”

Lord Naseby also discussed the reappearing of Sri Lankan Tamils overseas, categorized as disappeared or missing during and after the war.

UK mum on issues raised by Naseby

Lord Ahmad, of Wimbledon, refrained from commenting on issues raised by Lord Naseby. Shame on Lord Ahmad who chose not to respond to contentious issues other than the US pull out from the Geneva body. The US quit UNHRC, in June 2018, calling the vital UN body a cesspool of political bias.

Lord Ahmad conveniently refrained from commenting on wartime military dispatches from Colombo. Those vital documents, obtained by Lord Naseby, in 2017, thanks to the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, exposed the blatant British lie. Having tried its best to prevent the disclosure of dispatches from Resident Defence Attache (RDA), UK, in Colombo, the UK reluctantly released some pages. Now, they are in the public domain. For how long can the UK remain silent on its own evidence, furnished by Lt. Colonel Gash, the wartime RDA?

Lord Naseby told the House of Lords, on Feb. 05, 2019: “I have done a great deal of research. Nearly three years ago I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act and secured the publication of Colonel Gash’s dispatches to the United Kingdom. I have 40 pages of them here, some of which have been totally redacted, and I shall quote from one this evening. It is the dispatch of 16 February 2009 and concerns 400 IDPs being transferred from the fighting area to Trincomalee. Colonel Gash writes:

“The operation was efficient and effective, but most importantly was carried out with compassion, respect and concern. I am entirely certain that this was genuine — my presence was not planned and was based on a sudden opportunity”.

There are many more references in the dispatches to the fact that it was never a policy of the Sri Lankan Government to kill civilians.

I have one other reference that I think is useful. It comes from the University Teachers for Human Rights, which is essentially a Tamil organization. It says:

“From what has happened we cannot say that the purpose of bombing or shelling by the government forces was to kill civilians … ground troops took care not to harm civilians”.

There is a host of other references but I shall quote one more:

“Soldiers who entered the No Fire Zone on 19th April 2009 and again on the 9th and 15th May acted with considerable credit when they reached … civilians. They took risks to protect civilians and helped … the elderly who could not walk. Those who escaped have readily acknowledged this”.

Why did the UK refuse to release its RDA’s missives in the first place? Why did some of the pages, released by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to Lord Naseby, were heavily redacted? What did they really contain? And most importantly, why didn’t the UK make them available to the Marzuki Darusman-led UN panel to help the investigation process? Nothing can be further from the truth than the FCO claim that the full disclosure would have undermined relations with Sri Lanka.

Had the UK dispatches contained information which could have helped anti-Sri Lanka project, such missives would have been released years ago. The UK is obviously in a dilemma. They never expected one of their own to seek the intervention of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to secure RDA’s dispatches. Lord Naseby sought ICO’s intervention in the wake of the FCO turning down Lord Naseby’s request, made on Nov 04, 2014.

In fact, the truth is quite opposite. The full disclosure of the UK military dispatches would have exposed the British lie, and thereby undermined the Geneva process meant to hold Sri Lanka accountable for war crimes. The whole despicable project was meant to create an environment necessary to achieve two major objectives (a) Build a political alliance involving the UNP-JVP-SLMC and the TNA, a political arm of the LTTE. No person less than US Secretary of State John Kerry is on record, in 2016, as having discussed their role in funding changes of administrations in Nigeria, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. (b) The second aim was to bring about a new Constitution to appease the TNA and the Diaspora. Sri Lanka never challenged the claim that the proposed new Constitution was required to address the grievances of the Tamil community.

The writer on a number of occasions, raised the UK’s refusal to release Gash dispatches with the UK High Commission in Colombo.

The UK facilitated LTTE operations throughout the war by turning a blind eye to its activities. British citizen Balasingham, of Sri Lankan origin, was allowed to function as the ideologue of the group, even after it was categorized as a prohibited organization in the UK. Balasingham received privilege status even after his organization assassinated Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar in Aug 2005. UK didn’t find fault with Balasingham for being a key member of the LTTE. Instead of taking punitive action against Balasingham, the UK allowed the terrorist access to the top Norwegian diplomatic delegation. Thanks to Wiki Leaks, the world knows the secret LTTE-Norway pow-vow in the UK in the immediate aftermath of the Kadirgamar assassination.

The UK stood solidly behind the Tamil separatist movement for political reasons. All major political parties played ball with the separatist lobby to secure their support at elections. Disclosure of a particular US diplomatic cable from London by Wiki Leaks underscored the relationship between the British political setup and the Tamil Diaspora. Wiki Leaks exposed one-time British Foreign Secretary David Miliband who sought to appease the LTTE and the Tamil Diaspora at Sri Lanka’s expense. A year after the successful conclusion of the war, the House of Commons allowed the Global Tamil Forum (GTF) to hold its inaugural meeting much to the dismay of Sri Lanka.

The relationship between those who are now in power, in Sri Lanka, and the GTF is known. The writer himself keeps in touch with the GTF and readily accepts the group’s right to pursue an agenda of its own. The TNA and the GTF take a common stand on post-war ‘situations’ and essentially insist on full implementation of the Geneva Resolutions. Jaffna District MP, M. A. Sumanthiran and Suren Surendiran, on behalf of the TNA and the GTF, respectively, declared that they agreed for hybrid accountability mechanism, initially having demanded an international war crimes tribunal.

The writer is of the view that the hybrid mechanism, involving foreign judges and other personnel, should be acceptable to all though some are of the view that the current Constitution doesn’t allow such an arrangement. However, MP Sumanthiran is on record as having said that our Constitution is no obstacle to the hybrid mechanism. But the issue at hand is why all available information, including Gash reports, cannot be released to assist the judicial inquiry. Similarly, the US and India can do the same along with the UN which still continues to hold the confidential report on the Vanni war (Aug 2008-May 2009).

The Panel of Experts (PoE), in its report, released in March 2011, referred to this dossier which placed the number of dead at 7,721 till May 13, 2009. The war was brought to an end on May 19, 2009.

With the 40th Geneva session just weeks away, the UNP government is still struggling to secure a simple majority in Parliament. The UNP is preoccupied with its daunting political project to secure the support of a section of the SLFP-led UPFA before the next budget. The group loyal to war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa, too, lacked a proper strategy to counter lies. In spite of grandiose projects, they hadn’t been able to address the accountability issues and efficiently counter Western lies though presented with plenty of extremely useful counter arguments. Our parliament hasn’t been able to achieve what Lord Naseby did on his own. Shame on those lawmakers who neglected their responsibilities. However, the TNA is excluded as its responsibilities since its inception in 2001 were different from those of the other political parties. It was the TNA that declared the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people.

(To be continued on Feb 20)

By Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

Following Speaker Karu Jayasuriya’s endorsement of the Commission of Inquiry Amendment Act on Feb. 01, 2019, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) can now use evidence and the findings of special commissions such as the Presidential Commissions.

A spokesperson for the Speaker’s Office yesterday told The Island that the Commission of Inquiry Amendment Bill had been presented by Minister Gayantha Karunatilleke on Sept 05, 2018, approved by parliament on January 22, 2019 without a vote. The Speaker signed it into law, on Feb 01, 2019.

Although the Bill was debated in parliament on Oct 12, 2018, the House unanimously decided to put off vote on the Bill, prompting President Maithripala Sirisena to accuse the UNP of deliberately delaying CIABOC action against the perpetrators of Central Bank Treasury Bond scams in 2015 and 2016.

The passage of the Commission of Inquiry Amendment would enable the CIABOC to take action in respect of the Treasury bond scams using the evidence and testimonies of the presidential commission, MP Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse said. The former Justice Minister pointed out the new law would also eliminate the need for the CIABOC to conduct its own inquiry into the allegations and scams.

Both Speaker Jayasuriya and Director General of the CIABOC President’s Counsel Sarath Jayamanne confirmed the passage of the Bill.

By P.K. Balachandran  Courtesy eurasiareview.com

Vivek Trivedi | News18.com

Govind, a staunch supporter of PM Modi, had liked one of his tweets which was later also liked by Hansini. Curious, Govind searched about her online and soon they became friends.

Bhopal: There couldn’t have been a better Valentine’s Day week for Hansini Edheerisinghe, a Sri Lankan woman who got married to her soulmate from India on Sunday — and it is none other than Prime Minister Narendra Modi who unknowingly played cupid between the two.

On February 10, Madhya Pradesh witnessed an unusual marriage when Sri Lanka’s Hansini, 25, tied the knot with 26-year-old Govind Prakash from a tiny village Kuchrod in Mandsaur, some 325km from the state capital Bhopal.

In 2017, Hansini visited India and was received by Govind at the New Delhi airport. She met Govind’s family in Kuchrod and they both took an immediate liking to each other. To keep things moving, the love-struck girl had to convince her family to pursue a course in physiotherapy in India while Govind completed his bachelor’s degree in engineering.

Meanwhile, the families of the couple got in touch with each other and fixed the marriage for February 10. The Lankan family, which follows Buddhism, was delighted to find a match for their daughter in a vegetarian family and agreed to the relation gleefully, the family said.

Fifteen family members from the bride’s side attended the wedding while the whole of groom’s family was present for big day. The marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rituals. Hansini’s father is a lawyer and mother is a professor.

By Reuters and Chris Dyer For Mailonline

• Sri Lankan government advertising for hangmen after last executioner quit 
• The stress of seeing the gallows for the first time led last hangman to leave 
• President wants to resume the use of capital punishment for drug traffickers 
• New hardline policy by Maithripala Sirisena to mimic Philippines death squads

• The Sri Lankan government has started advertising for hangmen with ‘moral character’ after the previous executioner quit with stress after seeing the gallows for the first time.

  President Maithripala Sirisena wants to resume the use of capital punishment for drug traffickers in the next two months as part of a new hardline policy.

  The last execution in Sri Lanka was 43 years ago but the government began advertising for hangmen this week in a bid to mimic the Philippines tactic of roaming death squads to combat drug trafficking.

  During a state visit to the Philippines in January, Sirisena had praised President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs, despite international criticism of a campaign that has resulted in thousands of people being killed in encounters with police.

  

  A man reading an advertisement for the vacancy of hangmen in a newspaper in the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo

  

  Visiting Sri Lanka President Maithripala Sirisena (left) and Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte shake hands following the welcoming ceremony last month

  Drug trafficking is a capital offence in Sri Lanka although no one has been executed for any crime in the country since 1976 as all death penalties have been commuted to life in prison since then.

  Sri Lanka’s last hangman quit in 2014 without ever having to execute anyone, citing stress after seeing the gallows for the first time, while another hired last year never turned up for work.

  Anticipating that capital punishment could soon be used again, the prison service is hurrying to recruit two executioners.

  Thushara Upuldeniya, a spokesman for the prison service, said: ‘We never know if the government will resume the death penalty, but we want to hire two hangmen to fill vacancies and be ready if the government wants to execute drug traffickers.’

  An advertisement published in the state-run Daily News u=yesterday put the monthly pay at 36,310 rupees ($203.99), which would be above the average for a government job.

  

  The advert for a hangman wanted candidates to be Sri Lankan, male, aged between 18 and 45, and have both ‘excellent moral character’ and ‘mental strength’

  Candidates should be Sri Lankan, male, aged between 18 and 45, and have both ‘excellent moral character’ and ‘mental strength’, the ad said.

  Upuldeniya said the job interviews will be conducted next month.

  At least 25 people convicted for drugs offences, including two drug dealers, could be executed, Upuldeniya added.

  There were also 436 people including six women on death row for various crimes including murder, he said.

  He told parliament five drug convicts will be executed as soon as Sirisena signs the death warrants and a hangman is appointed.

  Government officials said that Sirisena has sought advice from the Philippines on how to combat drug trafficking, amid mounting concerns that Sri Lanka could become a transit hub for the narcotics trade in Asia.

  

  Bags of heroine seized by the Sri Lanka Narcotics Bureau in Colombo last month with value of more than $7 million

  More than more than 1,500 kg of cocaine was seized in 2017, the Sri Lankan government said.

  Police have arrested more than 50 people since the middle of last year after busting a drug smuggling ring last year.

  Official estimates put the number of dead from the Filipino president’s widely-criticised war on drugs at 5,000, but a senator recently said it had claimed more than 20,000 lives.

  Last month senators in the Philippines launched a fight to stop President Duterte lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to nine.

  In the United Kingdom the age of criminal responsibility is ten, while in Scotland children as young as eight can be prosecuted.

  But in the United States there is no age barrier for prosecutions at state level, while at federal level the minimum age is 11.

KAMALIKA PIERIS

Revised 13.3.19

The LSSP (Lanka Sama Samaja Party) took a firm stand against Sinhala Only the year before the MEP victory of 1956. LSSP officially declared that the LSSP stood for the administration of the country in Sinhala and Tamil. People must be governed in a language they understand.” They made this declaration in 1955, even before the MEP government of 1956 came to power.

The Marxist Parliamentarians, N.M. Perera, Leslie Gunawardene, Colvin R de Silva and Bernard Soysa spoke at great length in Parliament against Sinhala Only. Here is a selection of their comments, taken from their 1955 and 1956 speeches in Parliament.

The Sinhala Only Bill had the danger of dividing the country, said Leslie Gunawardene.  We must remember that Sinhala and Tamil are languages of different and separate parts of our country, so separatist tendencies could arise.    The North and East are inhabited by the Tamils and they could break away, in fact that is already been advocated. Also think of the plantation workers.

If this Bill is adopted what does the government expect the minorities to do, asked Bernard Soysa .They feel that a wrong is done. They must have the right to protest against this bill. If a minority feels deeply that injustice and a great injury has been done it is likely to embark upon forms of resistance and protests and there may be communal riots. You have now created a demand among the Tamil people for recognition as a nation; you have united them together by this bill. And this demand can have the deadliest consequence in the future.

If the minorities are willing to accept Sinhala as the one official language then there is no problem, said NM  Perera. We are however imposing that language against the will of the minority that is morally incorrect. We cannot impose a language of the majority on the minority community,

Colvin R de Silva said that with one language we would end up with two countries, with two language one country. What is cheaper, he asked,    to administer the country in one language in the face of resistance of a group, 23 lakhs strong or rule in two languages? The   Tamil community, one of the two major communities will insist upon its language, the Tamil language, being also a state language like Sinhala.

We are living in period in which a Ceylonese nation is being born, said N.M. Perera. The ‘state language’ question is not simply a language question but a question which involved the building of a Ceylonese nation and specifically the fusion of the Sinhala and Tamil speaking section into the Ceylonese nation that is coming into being.   If we are to build up a united strong and integrated nation, we have to build up unity in diversity . The only way the Sinhalese can go forward is together with the other permanent inhabitants of various races, as Ceylonese.

Sinhala as state language stands, not for a Ceylonese nation but for a Sinhalese nation. The formation of a Sinhala state is a chimera. The very concept today is reactionary, said Leslie Gunawardene. There is an unwillingness to recognize the official status of both languages. They want to have only Sinhalese. They feel that they can ram Sinhala down the throats of   the minorities, said NM.

N.M Perera moved in Parliament that there must be parity of status for Tamil throughout the island. There is no solution to a multilingual country except parity to the major languages. Parity means equal status for both in administration, judicial and legislative purposes. This does not mean the Tamil language will be imposed on the Sinhala and vice versa.  Sinhala areas will work in Sinhala and Tamil areas in Tamil. But a Sinhala in Tamil speaking area and Tamil in Sinhala speaking area will however have his business in his own language.

All must get their government business done in their language. A Tamil should get reply in Tamil and Sinhala in Sinhala. When a Tamil writes a letter in Tamil to a kachcheri or government department. he must get the reply in Tamil. That is a right. What confidence can the people of Jaffna and the Tamil speaking people of the East and elsewhere have in this matter when the Sinhala ministers are not prepared to state that they are in favor of both Sinhala and Tamil as official language, continued N.M.

I do not deny that the use of two languages will create complications. Certain departments even in Sinhala areas will have to employ two clerks who know Tamil to translate. A translator will have to be employed in practically every department. Minutes may be put up in Tamil by Tamil clerks or by a Tamil officer and these will have to be translated for a Sinhala head of department, he said.

If Sinhala and Tamil become official languages, more Tamils will learn Sinhala than Sinhalese learning Tamils.  Sinhala is the language of the majority. They will find it useful for employment.  So the Sinhala language will not disappear, said   Leslie Goonewardene.

Alarmed by the emerging cry of Sinhala Only the Tamil politicians had in 1955, drafted a Bill of Human Rights and presented it to Parliament. This was turned down by the government. There was no reference to Tamil, but citizens of Ceylon were to have the right to use their own language in transacting business, in law courts, in administration, and in any personal sphere such as speaking or writing,. The Bill of Rights also said, ~where there is sufficient number of nationals belonging to a linguistic minority, the state must provide education in their own language. Minorities were to be given state funds for education and religious purposes. (Weerawardana. p 29, 255-256)

The Tamil MPs were  vehemently against the Sinhala Only bill. The Tamil MPs first argued that  the 1944  agreement on  parity of status for Tamil language   was part of the   transfer of  power agreement between Britain and Ceylon,  By abandoning this part of the pre independence political settlement, It was  repudiating the independence  agreement, said G.G.Ponnambalam.

G.G.  Ponnambalam also stated that the Sinhala Only bill would be a denial of fundamental rights, denial of equality of status, denial of the identity, individuality and freedom of language and culture of the Tamil speaking people of Ceylon. It is legislation which will deny the right of the Tamils to achieve by constitutional means its cultural, linguistic economic and political independence. Ponnambalam also admitted that he feared the disappearance of the Tamil segment through assimilation. One decade of Sinhala will convert the Tamils into Sinhalese, he said.

1. Suntheralingam demanded an ‘autonomous Tamil Illankai”, federal or independent, as determined by a plebiscite. He spoke of carving out an area sacrosanct to the Tamils, where there would be no Sinhalese infiltration and where Tamil would be permitted to be the language of administration. He also mooted the idea of a United Front of Tamils. Its objectives were to maintain the identity of Tamils, preserve their culture and ‘keep inviolate their traditional homelands’. Suntheralingam then called for a Tamil Resistance Movement. No Tamil at any time will agree to the Tamil language being slighted, he said, but added, ‘we are not worried about the Tamil language but about jobs for Tamils in this country. We will not have Tamils as slaves of Ceylon.’
2. Nadesan wrote a series of articles to Ceylon Daily News in 1955. He said that Tamil, Muslims and Burghers were national minorities. National minorities needed to be treated in a special way. The usual principle of majority cannot be applied. The majority race should not act oppressively .Ceylon was not inhabited by one people speaking one language.

Nadesan advocated bilingualism, if that failed, then federalism. He also spoke of regional autonomy and constitutional safeguards for minorities. Nadesan described ‘parity status’ as  inter alia, equality of status for the two languages  throughout the island, specifically in administration  and law courts. He advocated a bilingual policy where all transferable public officers should know both languages.

Historian KM de Silva  commented on this ‘parity of status’. He observed, in 1996, that the call for parity of status for Tamil was not to ensure full equality before the law for Tamils, equality of opportunity for Tamils, and equality of status for the two languages throughout the land.   The Tamil politicians saw it only as a means to a federal state like Canada, also Switzerland.  he observed that  Nadesan in arguing for parity had made the link between bilingualism and federal or quasi federal structures. The model was the larger federal states of the world, also Switzerland and Belgium, but mostly Swiss, said de Silva.

The accusation bandied about today, that the Tamil cry of secession rose due to Sinhala Only,   is incorrect. At the  Independence celebrations in 1948, M Thiruchelvam, father of Neelan, was seen cruising in a car carrying the Nandi flag. Chelvanayagam’s political party, Illankai  Thamil Arasu kadchi was started  in the year after Independence, in 1949. The name means ‘Lanka Tamil State Party.’

Sinhala Only greatly helped to further these Tamil  secessionist  plans. V. Kumaraswamy, Minister for Transport and Works said that if Sinhala Only is imposed Tamils will have to secede.  In 1955, Chelvanayagam had declared that his Federal Party (ITAK) stood for an autonomous Tamil state, federated in a federal Ceylon. In August 1956, at its convention in Trincomalee  ITAK set out a list of demand on behalf of the Tamils. The first was autonomy for north and east under federal constitution, the second, parity of  status for Sinhala and Tamil.  If the demands were not met, ITAK threatened that   there would be satyagraha or organized peaceful resistance to the government.

The vigour with which the Tamils fought back on the language issue and the zeal they demonstrated on it are often seen as a rearguard struggle of a privileged minority at bay, said KM de Silva.  ITAK had called on the Tamil public servants not to study or work in Sinhala. When the Official Language Act  came into effect, the Tamil clerical servants, who  constituted a substantial number in  the GCSU,  formed a Tamil trade union Arasang Eluth Vinayar Sangam”. it’s President, S Kodiswaran sued the government saying that his increment her been stopped because he did not appear for the language proficiency test.

In Aug 1958, the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act No 28 of 1958, popularly known as the ‘Reasonable use of Tamil’ Act was passed.  This was drafted by M Tiruchelvam. There were massive demonstrations led by the SLFP and its left wing allies. LSSP and CP against the Bill. The Opposition unleashed a sustained barrage of propaganda against the Bill saying these regulations violated the spirit and principle of the Sinhala Only Act. Parliament approval was secured in the face of much opposition. This Act was debated in Parliament and approved in unusual circumstances, observed K.M. de Silva.  The Federal Party MPs and the leaders of the extremist Sinhala groups were placed under house arrest.

This Act provided for the use of the Tamil language as a medium of instruction, as a medium of examination for admission to the Public Service, for use in state correspondence and for administrative purposes in the Northern and Eastern provinces. Official correspondence with the public such as  Birth and Death Certificates, must be issued in the language of the local people, if they were  Tamil.

The Act included the right of Tamils to use their language in corresponding with government and in local government. To educate children in Tamil,  and sit the competitive exam for entry into the government and local government service in Tamil with the proviso that they must gain competence in Sinhala to continue in service and promotion.

The regulations relating to the Act were ready but were not presented to Parliament due to the assassination of Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike. Sirimavo was not interested and the regulations were eventually introduced and piloted through Parliament by the UNP government in January 1966.

When Sirimavo Bandaranaike became Prime Minister in 1960, she ignored the Tamil Special Provisions Act and insisted on only recognizing the Official Language Act of 1956. Sinhala was made the sole language of administration  throughout the island from 1 January 1961. As a result, there was civil disobedience In the North and East, in March- April 1961 with state of emergency declared.

Neville Jayaweera was   appointed Government Agent Jaffna, during this time. Neville Jayaweera recalled, ‘In 1963 as I traveled to take up the post of GA Jaffna, the lush thick vegetation of the south had given way to low parched and scattered scrub. Rolling sand dunes, sporting spindly topless Palmyra palms. Not a single local official was on land to greet us except the Sinhala AGA, Samarawickreme.  There was an organized boycott. The place reeked of suspicion and mistrust.  No one called on us, though it was the convention at the time for official to call on the GA when he came in.  The wall of hostility was palpable and impregnable. V.P. Vittachi, who had been GA before him had not had this problem. That is because word had got around that Jayaweera had been picked by Prime Minister  and Her Permanent Secretary, NQ Dias to do a hatchet job on the Tamils.  Which was pretty close to the truth. But it was not possible to implement the Sinhala only within the time frame set.”

Jayaweera, who was GA Jaffna from 1963-1966 ‘quietly let the Official language Act lapse throughout the Jaffna district”. Instead he proceeded to implement the reasonable use of Tamil act.  Under Official language Act all government transactions, from 31.10 1963, throughout the country had to be in Sinhala    with certified translations in Tamil. Instead, not  a single birth, death  or marriage certificate, nor an invoice or receipt, nor any letter was issue to anyone in Jaffna district expect in the language of the subject’s choice,”    said Jayaweera. ‘All succeeding GAs did the same.” Jayaweera is definite that  the Official language Act was never enforced in Jaffna. Nor were the proceedings of the higher and lower courts in Jaffna ever conducted in Sinhala. This policy was followed in the whole Northern Province, not just Jaffna district, concluded Jayaweera.

But in the Health service, doctors had to know Sinhala and Tamil. Dr. Philip Veerasingham recalls, in the 1960s the  Sinhala doctors had to face a Tamil exam before  promotion. One doctor who learned his Tamil from the Tamil service of Radio Ceylon, greeted his examiners with ‘Vanakkam aiya, ithu ilankai vannoli varthaka sevai. ‘Greetings, this is the Commercial Service of Radio Ceylon. He passed.

Another  when asked the  Tamil word for anesthesia replied that he did not know  the word even in Sinhala let alone Tamil. However a Tamil facing the Sinhala examiner has been asked the Sinhala for ‘allergic  rash’, he did not know and was failed.  The word was  ‘kaduwegan’.  Sinhala doctors said they also did not know the word, commented Veerasingham.

Sinhala Only continued to reign supreme as the 1970s decade dawned. The 1972 Constitution, which was Sri Lanka’s first home grown Constitution,  upheld the position of Sinhala. The 1972 Constitution said that the official language shall be Sinhala as provided in Official Language Act 33 of 1956 (sec 7). The  use of Tamil shall be as  provided for in  the Tamil Language ( special Provisions) Act no 28 of 1958.  But any regulations   in force before the present Constitution shall not be a part of the Constitution but shall be treated as subordinate legislation. ( sec 8)

All laws shall be enacted or made in Sinhala ( Sec 9a). there shall  be a Tamil translation of all  such laws ( sec 9b) unless  Parliament decides otherwise, the law published in Sinhala will be the law .( sec 10) .The language of the courts and tribunals, and other such  instructions shall be in Sinhala throughout Sri Lanka , and all records shall be in Sinhala.(sec 11 ) in the case of North and East, where the language used would be Tamil, a Sinhala translation shall be made. (sec 11) The litigant has the right to obtain information in Sinhala or Tamil and have translations or records made in Sinhala or Tamil.

APPENDIX,

Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act, No. 28 of 1958

An Act to make provision for the use of the Tamil language and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. (Date of Assent: September 4, 1958)

Whereas the Sinhala language has been declared by the Official Language Act, No 33 of 1956, to be the one official language of Ceylon: And whereas it is expedient to make provision for the use of the Tamil language without conflicting with the provisions of the aforesaid Act: Be it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Representatives of Ceylon in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

This act may be cited as the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act, No. 28 of 1958.

(1) A Tamil pupil in a Government school or an Assisted school shall be entitled to be instructed through the medium of the Tamil language in accordance with such regulations under the Education Ordinance, No. 31 of 1939, relating to the medium of instruction as are in force or may hereafter be brought into force.

(2) When the Sinhala language is made a medium of instruction in the University of Ceylon, the Tamil language shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Ceylon University Ordinance, No. 20 of 1942, and of the Statutes, Acts and Regulations made thereunder, be made a medium of instruction in such University for students who prior to their admission to such University have been educated through the medium of the Tamil Language.

(3) A person educated through the medium of the Tamil Language shall be entitled to be examined through such medium at any examination for the admission of 118 persons to the Public Service, subject to the condition that he shall, according as regulations made under this act on that behalf may require, — (a) have a sufficient knowledge of the official language of Ceylon, or (b) acquire such knowledge within a specified time after admission to the Public Service: Provided that, when the Government is satisfied that there are sufficient facilities for the teaching of the Sinhala language in schools in which the Tamil language is the medium of instruction and that the annulment of clause (b) of the preceding provisions of this section will not cause undue hardship, provision maybe made by regulation, made under this Act that such clause shall cease to be in force. Use of Tamil language for correspondence

(4) Correspondence between persons, other than officials in their official capacity, educated through the medium of the Tamil language and any official in his official capacity or between any local authority in the Northern or Eastern Province and any official in his official capacity may, as prescribed, be in the Tamil language. Use of the Tamil language for prescribed administrative purposes in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.

(5) In the Northern and Eastern Provinces the Tamil language may be used for prescribed administrative purposes, in addition to the purposes for which that language may be used in accordance with other provisions of this Act, without prejudice to the use of the official language of Ceylon in respect of those prescribed administrative purposes.

(6) (1) The Minister may make regulations to give effect to the principles and provisions of this Act. (2) No regulation made under sub-section (1) shall have effect until it is approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives and notification of such approval is published in the Gazette. This Act to be subject to measures adopted or to be adopted under the proviso to section 2 of Act No. 33 of 1956.

(7) This Act shall have effect subject to such measures as may have been or may be adopted under the proviso to section 2 of the Official Language Act, No. 33, of 1956, during the period ending on the thirty-first day of December 1960. (  continued)

අද දින (11) මාධ්‍ය සාකච්ඡාවට සහභාගි වු නියෝජිතයින්

ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ සභාපති මහාචාර්ය ජි. එල්. පීරිස් මහතා

පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී රෝහිත අබේගුණවර්ධන මහතා

පක්ෂයේ පරිපාලන ලේකම් ‌ෙරේනුක් ‌ෙපෙරේරා 

ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ සභාපති මහාචාර්ය ජි. එල්. පීරිස් මහතා

ඉන්දියාවේ බැංගලෝර් නගරයේ වාර්ෂික සමුලුවක විශේෂ ආරාධිත අමුත්තා ලෙස හිටපු ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා සහභාගි වුනා. ඉන්දියාවේ උප ජනාධිපති වෙන්කයියා නයිදෝ ඉන්දීය රජය නියෝජනය කරමින් සහභාගි වුනා. මිට අමතරව ඉන්දියාවේ විද්වතුන් රැසක් මෙයට සහභාගි වුනා. මේ රටේ අනිවාර්යයෙන් ජාතික මැතිවරණයකින් වෙනසක් වෙන බවත් මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතාගේ නායකත්වයෙන් නව රජයක් බිහිවන බවත් ඔවුන් දැඩිව විශ්වාස කරනවා. අපි ඒ අයට කිව්වා අපේ එකම අත්සාහය බලය ලබා ගැනීම නොවන බව. පැවැති රජය පරාජය කර ආන්ඩු බලය ලබා ගැනීම වගේම අපේ ආණ්ඩුවේ ප්‍රතිපත්ති සැලසුම් සහගතව සකස් කිරිමත් අපේ විශේෂ ප්‍රයත්නයක්. බිම් මට්ටමෙන්ම ඉස්මතුවන අදහස් අනුව අපේ ප්‍රතිපත්ති සැකසීමයි අපේ අරමුණ.බැසිල් රාජපක්ෂ මහතාගේ ප්‍රධානත්වයෙන් ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ පළාත් පාලන ආයතන මන්ත්‍රීවරැන් හමුවුනා. මේක මුලු රටම ආවරනය වන විදියේ වැඩපිළීවෙලක්. ඩෙල්ප් දිවයානේ උප සභාපති අපේ පක්ෂ්යේ. යාපනය දිස්ත්‍රික්කයේ මන්ත්‍රීවරු රැසක් ආවා. ගම සමග පිලිසදරක්, ජාතික මහා සම්මේලනය සදහා සූදානම් විම, ගමේ ආර්ථික හා භූගෝලීය පසුබිම, ගමේ යෝජනා පත්‍රය, ගමේ දේශපාලන පසුබිම පිළිබද තොරතුරු මෙන්ම 2019 මැතිවරණයට පියවරෙන් පියවර සූදානම් වීම ආදිය සම්බන්ධයෙන් අපේ පාක්ෂීකයින් සමග සාකච්ඡා කෙරෙනවා. ඒ වගේම පක්ෂයේ ගිනුම් වාර්තාව සියලුම පක්ෂ සාමාජිකයින්ට ලබා දිමක් සිද්ධ වෙනවා. අපේ ගිනුමේ මිලියන 21ක් ඉතිරියක් තියෙනවා. ගිනුම් වාර්තා සිය සාමාජිකයින්ට ලබාදිමක් සිදුවෙන්නේ පළමු වතාවටයි. වෙනත් පක්ෂ ලයිට් බිල පවා ගෙවා ගැනීමට නොහැකිව සිටි අවස්ථා තියෙනා.

මේ රජයේ අයවැය ලේඛණය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කරන්න නියමිතයි. රටට අවශ්‍ය වෙන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මැතිවරණයක්. තව මාස අටකින් මැතිවරණයක් පැවැත්වෙන්න නියමිතයි. ඒ කාලය රජය ජනතාව වෙනුවෙන් යමක් කරයි කියලා හිතන්න බැහැ. මේ රජයට එකතු වුනු එක්සත් ජාතික පෙරමුන හා එක්සත් ජනතා නිදහස් සන්ධානය අතර එකගතාවයක් තිබුනා. දැන් මේ කණ්ඩායම් වෙන් වෙලයි තියෙන්නේ. එක්සත් ජාතික පෙරමුනේ තියෙන්නේ සුලුතර රජයක්. ඒ නිසා මේ අයට දමිල සන්ධානය මත යැපෙන්න සිදු වෙනවා. ජාතික රජයක් සැදීමේ හාස්‍ය ජනක උත්සාහයකත් මොවුන් නිරත වුනා. ජනතාව ඒ අත්සාහය ප්‍රතික්ෂේප  කරන නිසා නෙවෙයි ඒ උත්සාහය අත් හැරියේ. ඒ සදහා අවශ්‍ය ඡන්ද නැති විම නිසයි. පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ තුනෙන් දෙකක යෝජනාවක් සම්මත කරලා මැතිවරණයකට යන්න. අපි සූදානම් එවැනි යෝජනවාකට. එවැනි යෝජනාවක් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමේ නායකත්වය දිමටත් අපි සූදානම්.

ඒ අතරේ අයවැය ලේඛණය ඉදිරිපත් කරන විට ආන්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන වැඩපිළීවෙලට මුදල් වෙන්කරන්න එපා. පසුගිය අයවැයෙන් දසලක්ෂ දහතුන් දහසක් වියදම් කලාට කිසිදු වැඩක් වුනේ නැහැ. පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කරපු වාර්තාවේ වගකිම කිසිවෙක් භාරගන්නෙත් නැහැ. මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ හතාගේ නායකත්වයෙන් පිහිටුවන රජයේ ප්‍රමුඛ අරමුණක් වන්නේ 19 වැනි සංශෝධනය ඉවත් කිරිමයි. මේ සංශෝධනය ඉදිරිපත් කලේ ස්වාධීන කොමිෂන් සභා පිහිටුවීමේ අරමුනින්. නමුත් කතානායකගේ ප්‍රධානත්වයෙන් ක්‍රියාත්මක වන ව්‍යවස්ථා කමිටුව ඒ අරමුණ ඉටු කරන බව පේනනේ නැහැ. අද විනිසුරන් පත්කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් ගැටලුවක් තියෙනවා. කතානායකතුමා ව්‍යවස්ථා කවුන්සිලයේ දී ප්‍රකාශයක් කරමින් සදහන් කලේ මේ රටේ විනිසුරන් පත්කිරීමේදී ජ්‍යේෂ්ඨත්වය පමණක් සලකා බලන්නේ නැහැ කිව්වා. මිනුම් දණ්ඩ ජ්‍යේෂ්ඨත්වය පමණක් නම් ව්‍යවස්ථා කමිටුවක් මොටකද කියලා ඇහුවා. 19 වැනි සංශෝධනයේ පත්කිරීම් කරන රිති පැහැදිලිව සදහන් වෙනවා. කිසිම පත්වීමක් නිර්දේශ කිරීමට පෙර ඒ සදහා භාවිතා කරන රිති ගැසට් නිවේදනයකට ඇතුලත් කරලා පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කළ යුතු වුවත් ඒ සදහා කවුන්සිලයේ සභාපතිවරයා කටයුතු කරලා නැහැ. ජනාධිපතිතුමා ජේෂ්ඨ විනිසුරැවරයෙකුගේ නමක් යවනවා නම් ඔහුට විරුද්ධව චෝදනාවක් එල්ල වෙලා නැතිනම් ජනාධිපති වගකීමෙන් එවන නම ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කරන්න හේතු පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කළ යුතුයි. අධිකරණයේ ස්වාධීනත්වයට එය හානියක්. නිතීඥ සංගමයත් මේ සම්බන්දයෙන් සිය අදහස් දක්වා තිබෙනවා. ජනතාව වගේම පාර්ලිමේන්තුවත් ඊට හේතු දැන ගැනීමේ අවහ්‍යතාවය තියෙනවා. අපේ රජයක් යටතේ 19 වන සංශෝදනයේ අරමුණ නිසි පරිදි ඉටුවන අපේ සංශෝධන කිහිපයක් ඉදීරිපත් කරනවා.

ව්‍යවස්ථා කවුන්සිලයට හිතුවක්කාර ලෙස තිරණ ගැනීමේ හැකියාවක්  නැහැ. පත්කිරීම්වලට අදාල රිති ඇතුලත් ගැසට් නිවේදනයක් නිකුත් කරන තුරු පත්කිරීම් නොකරන තත්ත්වයක් ඇතිකරන්න අපි පියවර ගන්නවා. සභාපති විදියට කතානායකවරයාගේ බලතල වල වෙනසක් අවශ්‍ය බව අපි විශ්වාස කරනවා.  පහුගිය අවුරුදු තුනේ අත්දැකීම් තුල අපි දකිනවා මේ ක්‍රමවේදය සකසනවා. වඩාත් සතුටුදායක විදියට සිවිල් සමාජය නියෝජනය කරන පුද්ගලයින් ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක මණ්ඩලයට ඇතුළත් කිරීමට අපි කටුයුතු කරනවා. 19 සංශෝධනය ගැන පුරසාරම් දෙඩුවා. අද ඒහි ප්‍රතිඵල සතුටුදායක නැති නිසා ඒහි මුලික වෙනසක් විය යුතු බව අපි විශ්වාස කරනවා.

පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී රෝහිත අබේගුණවර්ධන මහතා

මේ ආණ්ඩුව ඉදිරියට යාමට නොහැකිව අනාථ වෙලා ඉන්නේ. අතර මග නැවතිලා. මාර්තු මාසයේ 05 අයවැය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කරන්න නියමිතයි. මේ ආන්ඩුවේ පැවැත්ම තියෙන්නේ ඇමැතිධූර මතයි. ඒ් නිසා ජාතික ආණ්ඩු සංකල්පය කියලා මොකක් හෝ අටවා ගන්න හදනවා. ජාතික ආන්ඩුවක හිටපු නිසා වැජඩ කරන්න බැරි වුන බව පක්ෂයේ මහ ලේකම්වරයාම කිව්වා. දැන් තනියෙන් හදා ගත්ත ඒක තියෙද්දි මොකටද ජාතික ඒකක්. දැන් පක්ෂය ඇතුලේ ඇමැතිධූරවලට ගැටුමක් ඇති වෙලා. අයවැයට සහාය දෙන්න නම් අපිට ඇමැතිකම් අවශ්‍ය බව පක්ෂය ඇතුලේ අය කියනවා.ආන්ඩුවේ ඉන්න ඒක මන්ත්‍රීවරඑයෙක් ඒක්ක ජාතික ආන්ඩු යෝජනාවක් ගේන බව කිව්වා. ලබන සතියේ දාන්න හිටපු යෝජනාවත් අකුලගෙන තියෙන්නේ. දැන් බලන්නේ කොහොම හරි ගැට ගහගන්න. අපේ ආන්ඩුව කියාගෙන සිටීම විතරයි ඔවුන්ගේ ඒකම බලාපොරොත්තුව. අපි ඒ් සදහා ඉඩ තියෙන්නේ නැහැ. මහින්ද රාජපක්ස මහතා ඒක්ක අපි ඒ් සටන ගෙනියනවා. ජනාධිපතිවරණයට පෙර නියත වශයෙන්ම පළාත් සභා ඡන්දයක් ඒනවා. පළාත් පාලන ඡන්දය තියලා වසරක් පිරුණා. සභා පිහිටුවලා දැන් අවුරුද්දක්. ප්‍රදේශීය සභා ඡන්දය මෙහෙම දිනුවා නම් පළාත් සභා ඡන්දය කොහොම දිනයිද කියලා ආන්ඩුව භය වුනා. ඒ් නිසා ඡන්දය තිබ්බේ නැහැ. ඡන්දය නොතියා ඉන්න ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරුමනේ සම්පූර්ණ සහාය හිමිවුනා.

ඒජාප ආන්ඩුවෙන් අපි අහන්නේ පළාත් සභා ඡන්දය පවත්වන්න දැන් තියෙන බාධකය මොකක්ද. ජනාධිපතිතුමා පළාත් සභා ඡන්දයට ලෑස්තියි. පළාත් සභා විෂය තියෙන්නේ ආණ්ඩුව යටතේ. දින දෙකක් මේ යෝජනාව ඉදිරිපත් කරන්නේ නැතිව කල් දැම්මා. අපිට සමුපකාර ඡන්දයක් හරි දෙන්න. අපි ඒ්කටත් ආසයි. ඒ් තරම් තෙරපීමෙන් මිනිස්සු ඉන්නේ.  මේ ආණ්ඩුව ඡන්ද කල් දාන ආන්ඩුවක් විදියට ඉතහාසයට ඒක් වෙනවා.

මේ ආන්ඩුව කපිතාන් කෙනෙක් නැති නැවක් වගේ. කැප්ටන් කෙනෙක් නැති වුනොත් හුලං හමන පැත්තට නැව යනවා. ඒ් වගේ තමයි මේ ආන්ඩුවත්. මේ තුගින් රටේ ආර්ථකය කඩා වැටිලා. දවස ගානේ මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය කිලෝ ගණන් වලින් ඇහෙන්නේ. දැන් කුඩුවලින් රොටි පුච්චනවාද මන්දා. කොකේන් වගේ නොයෙක් නම් වලින් මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය රට පුරා යනවා. නාදුනන තුවක්කුකරැවෙක් කියලා ඇවිත් මහදවාලේ මිනී මරනවා. මේ අවුරුද්ද ලැබුවාට පස්සේ මිනී මැරුම් කීයක්ද කියලා බලන්න. පුද්ගලික ව්‍යාපාරිකයාගෙන් අහන්න. දවසකට කීයත් කර්මාන්ත ශාලා වැහෙනවාද බලන්න. ජිවන වියදම අහස උසට. ඒක දවසකට ජනාධිපති ඝාතන කුමන්ත්‍රණය ඩි. අයි . ජි නාලක අල්ලගත්තා. ඊට පස්සේ අල්ලගත්තා සේන දළඹුවා. සේනා දළඹුවා ඒහෙට මෙහෙට පැන පැන ඉන්න කොට ඔන්න ආවා මාකදුරේ මධූෂ්. දැන් දළඹුවා කොහෙද දන්නේ නැහැ. හෙට අන්ද්දා වෙද්දි තව එකක් ඒයි. ආන්ඩුව තමන්ගේ දෙයක් කරගෙන යනවා. ආන්ඩුවක් කරන්න බැරි වුනාම අගමැතිවරු ඇමැතවරු අස් වෙනවා. මේ අයව ගෙනියන්න වෙන්නේ බල්ලෝ නාවන විදියට.

මධූෂ්ව බෙදා ගන්න බැරිව දගලනවා කට්ටිය. මම ඇල්ලුවේ කියනවා. කිරිඇල්ල අන්නැහේ කියනවා අපි කේ.පි වගේ ගේන්නලු හිටියේ. එතුමාගේ බාප්පගේ පුතා වෙන්න ඇති. හරියට චූටි බබෙක් ගේන්න හිටියා වගේ. අද හිටපු පොලිස් ඇමැති කියනවා මෙය අපේ ආන්ඩුවේ සැලසුමක් අනුව ක්‍රියාත්මක වුනු ඒකක්ලු. කුඩු ටික නම් ඒ් ආන්ඩුවෙන් ආවා. මධූෂ් පැන්නා කිව්වා නම් මේ කටවල් ටික ඔක්කොම වැහෙනවා. අපි නෙවෙයි ඇල්ලුවේ කියයි. මේ ආන්ඩුවට ඉදිරියට යාමේ හැකියාවක් නැහැ. ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුනේ ලාල් කාන්ත කියනවා 20 ගේන්න බැරිනම් අපේ ජනාධිපති අපේක්සකයෙනක් ඉදිරිපත් කරනවාලු. හොද යෝජනාවක්. රටට හොදම දේ කරපු අය නම් ඉදිරිපත් කරන්න අපේක්ෂකයෙක්. ඒ්කෙන් බලාගන්න පුලුවන් තමන් එක්ක ඉන්න ජනතාව කොයි තරම්ද කියලා. ලාල් කාන්ත කිව්වාට අනිත් අයනම් මේක කියන්නේ නැහැ. රට ඉල්ලන්නේ කොන්ද කෙලින් තියාගෙන නීතියට රට හදන්න පුලුවන් නායකයෙක්. අපි ඒ්කට ලැහැස්තියි.

ප්‍රශ්න – මදූෂ්ට ඒ් රටේදි දඩුවම් දීලා අපේ රටට ගෙනත් නැවත දඩුවම්කරන්න ඔබලා සූදානම්ද

රෝහිත අබේගුණවර්ධන – මේ රටවල් දෙකක්. රටවල් අතර ගිවිසුම් අත්සන් කරලා තියෙනවා. අපි තවම ඒ් සම්බන්ධයෙන් නිතිමය තත්ත්වය දන්නේ නැහැ. ඒ් රටේ සිදුවෙන දේ මාධ්‍යටවත්  සියයට සියයක් වාර්තා වෙන්නේ නැහැ. යම් විදියකින් ඒ් රටේත් මේ රටේත් වැරදි කලා තිබෙනවා නම් ඒ් වැරදිවලට දඩුවම් ලැබිය යුතුයි. මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය අපේ රටට විනාශයක්.

ප්‍රශ්න – ඒ් රටේ නීතියට අනුව ලිහිල් දඩුවමක් ලැබිලා  නැවතත් රටට ගෙන්වා ගත්තොත් මේ වෙද්දි ඔහුට නිසි දඩුවම්ලැබෙයිද

රෝහිත අබේගුණවර්ධන – මේ ආන්ඩුව කෙරෙහි සත පහක විශ්වාසයක් නැහැ. මේ ආන්ඩුව පුලුවන්කමක් ඇත්නම් ආන්ඩුව රැක ගන්න මදූස්ගේ කරේ වුනත් ඒල්ලෙයි.

ජී. එල්. පිරිස් මහතා – නිතියේ මූලධර්මයක් තියෙනවා ඒකම වරදට දෙවතාවක් දඩුවම් කරන්න බැහැ කියලා. මධූෂ්ට විරුද්ධව ඩුබායි රටේ චෝදනාවක් නගලා දඩුවමක් දුන්නොත් අයෙත් මේ රටේදී ඒ් වරදට දඩුවම්කරන්න බැහැ. ඩුබායි රටතුල වුනු වරදකටයි අත් අඩංගුවට ගෙන තියෙන්නේ. ඒ් පිලිබද පුර්ණ බලතල ඒරට අධිකරණයට තියෙනවා. මෙහෙට ඒවනවාද ඒහෙ උසාවි හරහා නඩුව අහනවාද කියන දේ ඒ් රටයි තීරණය කරන්න අවශ්‍යයි.

ප්‍රශ්න – ඔබලාගේ රජයක් බිහිවෙලා තියෙන කාලයක් උදා වුනොත් මදූෂ්ට දඩුවම් දෙනවාද

රෝහිත අබේගුණවර්ධන- ඔවු 2020 කියන්නේ නව ආන්ඩුවක්. නව ජනාධිපතිවරයෙක්. රටේ මිනිස්සු සැමට ඒක‌ සේ නිතියට සලකන නායකයෙක් මතුවෙන තුරැ බලන් ඉන්නවා. ඒවැනි කෙනෙක් 2020 බිහි වෙනවා.

ප්‍රශ්න – ශ්‍රීලනිපයේ දුමින්ද දිසානායක කියනවා ඒ් අය වත්මන් ජනාධිපතිවරයාවම ඉදිරිපත් කරන බවයි.

රෝහිත අබේගුණවර්ධන – දුමින්ද දිසානයකට ඒතුමාගේ පක්ෂය ගැන කියන්න අයිතිය තියෙනවා. අපිට අපේ පක්ෂය ගැන කියන්න අයිතිය තියෙනවා. නමුත් පොදු ඒකගතාවයක් මත එඔය කියන දෙයක් වෙලා නැහැ. ලංකාවේ වැඩිම ජනතාවක් කැමැත්ත පළකරපු එකම පක්ෂය ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුණ නිසා පොහොට්ටුව ඒක්ක සංන්ධාන ගත වෙන්න වෙනවා.

ජී. එල් පිරිස් – අපේ පක්ෂය වෙනුවෙන් තිරණ ගැනීමේ බලය කිසිවෙක්ට පවරා දී නැහැ. ඒ්ක අපේ පක්ෂයේ අයිතියක්. මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතාගේ නායකත්වයෙන් අපි තීරන ගන්නවා.

ප්‍රශ්න – මේ දවස්වල සන්ධාන ගතවිම්ක ගැන සාකච්ඡා වෙනවා. වත්මන් ජනාධීපතිවරයා රටට දැනෙන දෙයක් කරන බව දැන් කියැවෙනවා. වැරදිලාවත් ඒතුමා ආවොත් ඒතුමාට සහාය දෙන්නේ නැතිද

රෝහිත අබේගුණවර්ධන – ඒතුමාගේ අතින් වෙන හොද වැඩ හොදයි කියනවා  වගේම වැරදි වැඩ වැරදියි කියනවා. කා ඒක්ක සන්ධානගත වුනත් ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ අනන්‍යතාවයට හානියක් වෙන්න අපි ඉඩ තියන්නේ නැහැ. ‍

ජි. ඒල්. පිරිස්  – පක්ෂයට ඡන්දය දුන් ජනතාවගේ අනන්‍යතාවය රැක ගෙනයි අපි තිරණ ගන්නේ.

ප්‍රශ්න – බුද්ධික ප.තිරණ කියනවා ආනයනික කිරිවල උ!රු තෙල් තියෙන බව කිව්වාම කතානායකවරයා කියනවා මන්ත්‍රිවරුන්ට දෙන්නේ පිරිසිදු ඒළකිරි කිව්වා

රේණුක පෙරේරා – ඔබ ඔය ප්‍රශිනේ අහන්නේ නාටකයේ මැදින්. තිරපිටපත මුල තියෙන්නේ කිරිපිටි සමාගම් මිල 170කින් වැඩි කරන්න ඉල්ලීමක් කිරිම. රජය මුනිවත රකින අතරේ රජයේම ඇමැතිවරයෙක් කියනවා කිරිවල උ්‍රරු තෙල් තියෙනවා කියලා. මුස්ලිම් ජනතාව කිරි භාවිතය සම්පූර්ණයෙන් අත් හරිනවා. දරැවන්ට ගැඹිනි මව්වරැන්ට හොද නැහැ කියන මතය ඒළියට ඒනවා. කතානායකවරයා කියනවා මන්ත්‍රීවරැන්ට නම් ප්‍රශ්නයක් නැහැ. දෙන්නේ කල්කිරි කියලා. අපිට තියෙන ප්‍රශෟනය නම් මිල මිට පෙර සිනි මිල වැඩි කිරීමේදීත්, පැනි බිම මිල වැඩි කිරීමේදීත් ඇමැතිවරයා කිව්වේ දියවැඩියා රෝගය වැලැක්වීමේ පියවරක් කියලයි. අරක්කු මිල වැඩි කලෙත් ඒ් විදියටයි. කිරි මිල වැඩි කරන්න කරන දෙයක් වෙන්නත් පුලුවන්. කතානායකවරයා කල යුත්‍රවන්නේ මේ කිරිපිටි පරික්ෂා කරන්න කියලා උපදෙස් දෙන්නයි. මේ වෙද්දි කිසිම පරික්ෂණයක් කරලා නැහැ. අපිට හිතෙනවා මිල වැඩි කරන්න කරන නාට්‍යයේ රගපෑමක්ද කියලත්.

ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ නිර්මාතෘ බැසිල් රාජපක්ෂ

ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ සාමාජිකයෙක් නොවන පුද්ගලයෙක් ජනාධිපතිධුරයට පත්කිරීම සදහා ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ සාමාජිකයින් කිසිසේත් සූදානම් නැති බවත් ඒ සදහා බලපෑම් කිරීමට කිසිවෙකුට අයිතියක් නැතිබවත් ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ නිර්මාතෘ බැසිල් රාජපක්ෂ මහතා පැවසීය.

ඒ මහතා මෙසේ පැවසුවේ අද (11) පක්ෂ කාර්යාලයේ පළාත් පාලන ආයතන නියොජිතයින්ගේ හමුවේදී අදහස්ද ක්වමිනි. පසුගිය 05 වැනිදා සිට ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ පළාත් පාලන ආයතන මන්ත්‍රීවරු සහ බැසිල් රාජපක්ෂ මහතා අතර දිස්ත්‍රික්ක මට්ටමින් සාකච්ඡා පැවැත්වෙන අතර අද දිනයේ ගම්පහ දිස්ත්‍රික්කයේ පලාත් පාලන ආයතන මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්ගේ හමුව පැවැත්විනි.

එහිදී අදහස් දැක්වූ පළාත්පාලන ආයතන මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් සදහන් කලේ එලැඹෙන ජනාධිපතිවරණය සම්බන්ධයෙන් විවිධ අදහස් ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමට දේශපාලකයින් පෙළඹී ඇති බවයි. ඉදිරියේදි සන්ධානගතවන බව සදහන් කරන සමහර පක්ෂවල නායකයින්පවා කිසිදු වගවිභාගයකින්,පක්ෂ නායකයින්ගෙන් නොවිමසා සිය ජනාධිපතිවරණ අපේක්ෂකයා සම්බන්ධයෙන් අදහස් දැක්වීම අරඹා ඇතැයිද පළාත් පාලන ආයතන මන්ත්‍රීවරු පෙන්වා දුන්හ. ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ නොවන ජනාධිපතිවරණ අපේක්ෂකයෙක් දිනවීම සදහා ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ ශාඛා සමිති කිසිසේත් සූදානම් නැතැයි ද එම මන්ත්‍රිවරු අදහස් දක්වමින් පැවසිය.

මෙහිදි අදහස් දැක්වූ බැසිල් රාජපක්ෂ මහතා මෙසේ පැවසීය.

ශ්‍රි ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුන ගොඩනැගුනේ ගමෙන්. පක්ෂයේ නායකත්වය හදන්න කළින් සාමාජිකයා හැදුනු පක්ෂයක්. ඒ විදියටම පක්ෂයේ ඉදිරි වැඩ පිළීවෙල සැකසීමේ කටයුත්ත සිද්ධ වෙන්නෙත් ගමෙන්. ගමේ පාක්ෂිකයාට පළමු තැන දෙන දේශපාලන පක්ෂයක් විදියට ශ්‍රී ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුණ ගමේ මිනිසා අකමැති පුද්ගලයෙක් වෙනුවෙන් ඡන්දයක් මෙහෙයවන්න කිසිදු සූදානමක් නැහැ.

ඒ නිසා ගමේ පාක්ෂිකයා අකමැති ජනාධිපති අපේක්ෂකයෙක් වෙනුවෙන් ඡන්දයක් මෙහෙයවන්න සාමාජිකයින්ට පක්ෂයේ නායකත්වය කිසිදා බලපෑම් කරන්නේ නැහැ. ස්ථිර වශයෙන්ම ඊළග ජනාධිපතිවරයා බිහිවන්නේ ශ්‍රි ලංකා පොදජන පෙරමුනෙන්. ඒ අපේක්සකයා ශ්‍රි ලංකා පොදුජන පෙරමුනේ සාමාජිකයෙක්. ඒ වගේම මැතිවරණ සලකුණ පොහොට්ටුව.

මෙම අවස්ථාවට ගම්පහ දිස්ත්‍රික් නායක ප්‍රසන්න රණතුංග මහතා, සහ දිස්තිුක්කය නියෝජනය කරන පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරු, පළාත් සභා මන්ත්‍රීවරුද එක්වූහ.

මාධ්‍ය නිවේදනයයි.

ගරු අමාත්‍යතුමා,
කෘෂිකර්ම ග‍්‍රාමිය ආර්ථික කටයුතු, පශු සම්පත් සංවර්ධන, වාරිමාර්ග සහ
ධීවර හා ජලජ සම්පත් සංවර්ධන අමාත්‍යාංශය,
නව මහලේකම් කාර්යාලය,
මාලිගාවත්ත,

ලංකා ධීවර සංස්ථා ප‍්‍රාදේශිය විධායකයන්හි නොගෙවු හිඟ වැටුප්, අතිකාල, කොමිස් මුදල් සහ තේ වියදම් හා වෛද්‍ය දීමනා සම්බන්ධවයි

උක්ත කරුණ සම්බන්ධව කලින් කලට පැවති පාලනාධීකාරීන් වෙත යොමු කල ලිපිවලට වැඩිමනත්වය, ලංකා ධීවර සංස්ථා සේවක වැටුප්, අතිකාල, කොමිස් මුදල්, සහ තේ වියදම් හා වෛද්‍ය නිවාඩු දිමනා ගෙවිමේදී ප‍්‍රධාන කාර්යාලය හැර අනෙකුත් සියලූම විධායකයන්හි ඉහත ගෙවිම එකී විධායකයන් මගින් සිදු කිරීම දැනට ක‍්‍රියාත්මක ක‍්‍රමවේදය වේ. ඒ අනුව සංස්ථා සේවකයින්ගේ එම ගෙවිම් නියමිත දිනට ගෙවිමේ වගකීම ප‍්‍රධාන කාර්යාලය මගින් විධායකයන්ටත් එහි කළමණාකරුවන්ටත් පවරා ඇත. එහෙත් ඇතැම් විධායකයන් මගින් සේවකයින්ගේ ඉහත ගෙවිම පැහැර හැරීමෙන් සේවකයන් ජීවත්විම පිළිබඳ ගැටලූවකට මුහුණ දී ඇත.
 
පැහැර හැර ඇති ඉහත ගෙවිම් සම්බන්ධයෙන් ධීවර සංස්ථාව ලෙස ඇති වගකීමෙන් බැහැර විමට හැකියාවක් සංස්ථාවට නොමැති බැවින් විධායකය මගින් සංස්ථා සේවකයන්ට හිමි ඉහත ගෙවිම් නොගෙවන්නේනම් ඒ සම්බන්ධ වගකීම ප‍්‍රධාන කාර්යාලයේ මැදිහත් විමෙන් සිදුකරන ලෙස අප ඉල්ලා සිටිමු.

මේ වනවිට ගාල්ල, අම්බලන්ගොඩ, පුරාණවැල්ල, කුඩාවැල්ල හා තංගල්ල විධායකයන්හි 2015 වර්ෂයේ සිට නොගෙවු හිග වැටුප්,  අතිකාල, මාසික මත්ස්‍ය අලෙවිය මත ගෙවනු ලබන කොමිස් මුදල් සහ තේ වියදම්  හා වෛද්‍ය නිවාඩු දිමනාව ඇතුලූ කිසිදු දිමනාවක් ගෙවිම් කර නැත. මේ හේතුව මත සේවකයින් පත්වි ඇති අසීරුතාවයන් සැලකිල්ලට ගෙන කඩිනමින් මෙම ගෙවිම් සිදුකරන ලෙස අප අවස්ථා ගණනාවකදි ධීවර සංස්ථා බලධාරීන්ගෙන් ඉල්ලිම් කලද ප‍්‍රශ්නය තවදුරටත් විසඳුමකින් තොරව පවතී.

ඉහත කරුණු පිළිබදව ඔබගේ අවධානය යොමු කොට ඉතා කඩිනමින් පැහැර හැර ඇති ඉහත ගෙවිම් සිදුකරන ලෙස අප ඉල්ලා සරිටිිමු.

ස්තූතියි.

මෙයට,

විශ්වාසී,

ජේ.එච්. නිශාන්ත
ප‍්‍රධාන ලේකම්,
(විධායක සභාවේ අනුමැතිය පරිදි)

පිටපත්:- ගරු රාජ්‍ය අමාත්‍යතුමා :- ධීවර හා ජලජ සම්පත් සංවර්ධන අමාත්‍යාංශය
ගරු ලේකම්තුමා:- ධීවර හා ජලජ සම්පත් සංවර්ධන අමාත්‍යාංශය
ගරු සහකාර කොමසාරිස්තුමා (උතුරු කොළඹ) :- කම්කරු මහ ලේකම් කාර්යාලය
ගරු සභාපතිතුමා:- කෝප් කමිටුව
ගරු සභාපතිතුමා:- ජාතික වෘත්තීය සමිති මධ්‍යස්ථානය
ගරු සාමාන්‍යාධිකාරීතුමා:- ලංකා ධීවර සංස්ථාව
සියලූම මුද්‍රිත හා විද්‍යුත් මාධ්‍ය

සම්බන්ධීකරණය – 077 9639821
Coordinating – +9477 9639821

ආචාර්ය නාලක ගොඩහේවා උපුටාගැණීම  මව්බිම

මේඝනාද උපුටාගැණීම  මව්බිම

By Kelum Bandara Courtesy The Daily Mirror

• I did not bring about the concept of white van abductions
• Lasantha, Keith, Prageeth were done by two individuals for purely personal reasons
• I have not done anything against the minorities
• I have had discussions with various sections of the Muslim community
• Lasantha and wife were once attacked much before we came to power

Since the defeat of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa four years ago, there has been speculation in the political circles that his brother and Former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, known as an efficient administrator, would come forward as the next Presidential candidate. 

His Viyathmaga movement was seen as a launching pad in this direction. Recently speaking at one of its meetings he publicly stated  that if the people were ready for a Presidential election he was ready too.
The following are excerpts of an interview done with him.    

QYou said that if the people were ready you were ready for the presidential elections. Is it an indication that you will contest the Presidential election at the end of this year?

The most important person to decide on it is Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa. However, many requests have been made from me and that is why I said so.

QMany people are talking about your US citizenship which is a barrier to contesting the Presidential Elections. Have you renounced it?

That is finalised. No worry about it.

QIn case, you become the candidate, what are your plans for the country?

Today, it is very clear that  the whole country is disgruntled with this Government. The Government has failed to produce results, be it in security, development, economy or even reconciliation among the communities.  What people want is a person who can really work. A stable country is of paramount importance. It is fundamental to everything.  Stability is very important. We have to ensure that there is a disciplined, stable and secure initial base for development.  No investor, be it local or foreign, will invest if there is no stability. Stability in a society is very important.  A lot of people talk about the rise of underworld criminal activities in the country today. It is happening in a big way all over the country.

The freedom to live is the most important thing. Northern people did not have the opportunity to live like people in other areas because of the 30-year war. After ending the war, our Government initiated infrastructure development, roads, irrigation etc

I read in newspapers about the extremist groups organising themselves in the northern and eastern areas. I do not know whether it is the LTTE or any other group.  It is not a suitable environment for development. We need a secure, stable country. That is one of my priorities.

The Government has failed in bringing about economic development. The next priority should be that.  As for reconciliation, what people really need is an environment to live happily.  A lot of people talk about freedom. The freedom to live is the most important thing. Northern people did not have the opportunity to live like people in other areas because of the 30-year war. After ending the war, our Government initiated infrastructure development, roads, irrigation etc. The next step is to give that opportunity to people who live there.

Pix By Nisal Baduge

QIf you want to win at a Presidential Election, some people say that you have to get sufficient minority votes. Would you be able to?

We need to win over the minorities-Tamils and Muslims.  But if somebody says we lost in 2015 because we did not get the minority votes, I do not agree with it.
Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa lost only by 400,000 votes.  If we had got 250,000 votes more, he could have won. Look at the number of votes we lost in Colombo and Gampaha districts alone!  If we had got these votes, we could have come through easily.  It is true that we lost our traditional vote base within the Muslim community although we did not usually get a majority of votes from the Tamil and Muslim communities right throughout.  However I think we have recovered our traditional vote base within these communities.  Either I or any other candidate from the opposition will get that amount anyway.

No investor, be it local or foreign, will invest if there is no stability. Stability in a society is very important.  A lot of people talk about the rise of underworld criminal activities in the country today. It is happening in a big way all over the country

What is more important is to get the floating votes.  These voters comprise professionals, youth and academics. We lost a fair amount of these votes last time. That is why we lost. We have to get it back.  Last time, President Maithripala Sirisena, as the UNP-backed candidate, created a different picture.  There was much propaganda regarding corruption and nepotism. They campaigned heavily on the promise to bring good governance. The middle-class, professionals and youth got carried away by it. We lost a fair amount of votes as a result. There were electorates in the Colombo District, which we used to win by a huge margin. Last time, we won only by a narrow margin.  Homagama, Maharagama, Kaduwela and Kesbewa are these electorates.  We used to win Gampaha by a majority of 200,000 votes. Yet, we lost the district last time.

QDoes it mean that the minority votes are not a factor as long as you win these electorates in Colombo and Gampaha by huge margins?

Of course, we have to win over minority votes. That is important. I think the Muslim community too has realized certain things by now.

QIf I say there is a fear psychosis among the minorities regarding you, is it correct? 

This is only propaganda. I have not done anything wrong to the minorities. So, there is no need to  fear me. I was Defence Secretary at a time when everybody wanted to end terrorism. I acted on it.  I did not have anything against the Tamil community. Unfortunately, 99 percent of the LTTE happened to be Tamils.  There were certain things we had to do to counter terrorism. We did not create the war.  When Mahinda Rajapaksa became the President in 2005, there was terrorism in the country. The majority of the people expected him to end the war. For two and half decades, this war was going on. Terrorism started in the late 1970s.  The military operations against terrorism took place under all previous Governments.  What I did was execute it in a correct manner, so I was able to finish the war.    When there is a war situation, there are certain things you must do. When the war ends, you do not repeat the same. You cannot judge a person by what he did during a war situation. I was assigned with certain responsibilities by the Government. I acted accordingly. When that situation was over, I was assigned urban development. I was concentrating on it at that time. I gave the system a new vision. I did that in a proper manner. I even developed the Jaffna Town. I have not done anything against the minorities. They have nothing to worry about.

If you look at the history we can ask who created the infamous ethnic riots in 1983? It happened under the UNP Government.  It was under the UNP Government that the Jaffna library was burned down. The rigging of the District Development Council Elections also took place under the UNP.

QThere is a serious allegation against you regarding white van abductions?

I did not bring about the concept of white van abductions. Now see after the 9/11 incident, the United States tracked terrorists all over the world.  They caught them and brought them to Guantanamo Bay base.  There was one Malaysian citizen who was living in Sri Lanka. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) traced this man. They did a lot of things to take this man. They gave him a passport and got him admitted to a private hospital here.  They took him out of Sri Lanka afterwards. They did not adopt the normal procedure in doing so. This was done before we took over the administration.

We need to win over the minorities-Tamils and Muslims.  But if somebody says we lost in 2015 because we did not get the minority votes, I do not agree with it. Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa lost only by 400,000 votes.  If we had got 250,000 votes more, he could have won

The intelligence agencies, be it in Sri Lanka or anywhere else, adopt certain methods as counter terrorism measures. In Sri Lanka too, they have used some of these measures for a very long time during the war as well as when there were the JVP insurrections.  When there was a suspect, he was taken in for questioning through such means. It was not something introduced by me. These methods have been adopted all over the world.  May be our intelligence agencies used Hi Ace vans which are white. I did not introduce it. It happened under all the previous Governments. If you take the violence during the JVP era, everybody, barring the very young people, knows how youth were whisked away by unknown people all over the country. We all know stories about Gonibillas at that time. I do not know why I am being pinpointed today.  During our time this had never been done to abduct any political opponent, which was not the case in the 88/89 period. Most people above 30 years of age remember what happened during that time.  What happened during our time was only to counter the activities of deadly terrorists.  By 2005, there was a huge network of the LTTE in the south.  They had infiltrated the south in a big way. They were able to kill so many people like politicians and military personnel as a result. They were fighting all over the country.  They had an intelligence network and armed caches in most places in Colombo and the suburbs.  We had to trace them including suicide cadres, spies etc.  When you fight terrorism, you cannot stick to the normal procedure. They were fighting in a different way using clandestine guerrilla methods. We had to counter that in a similar manner. That is the way that the intelligence agencies work.  However the UNP -led propaganda has put everything on me.

 I did not have anything against the Tamil community. Unfortunately, 99 percent of the LTTE happened to be Tamils.  There were certain things we had to do to counter terrorism. We did not create the war.  When Mahinda Rajapaksa became the President in 2005, there was terrorism in the country

QAlthough you say it was only terrorists that were targeted, there are allegations levelled against you for the assassination of media personnel such as Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge and the assault on journalist Keith Noyahr as well. Your comments?

This is another thing.  We were not involved in any of these things including the disappearance of that person Prageeth Ekneligoda. We did not want to do such things. These were done purely for personal reasons by two individuals. I do not want to name them. Immediately after Lasantha’s killing, the then Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and former MP Joseph Michael Perera categorically said in Parliament that it was the work of the then Army Commander.

After that when the Army Commander joined hands with them and decided to contest elections in 2010, they did not talk about it.  Thereafter, they put the blame on me.

QWhy didn’t you look into these cases as the then Defence Secretary? 

When there was a war going on. We concentrated fully on it. That is true. Under such circumstances, we cannot stop the war to devote ourselves fully on various investigations. The CID and the intelligence authorities had a task assigned to them. With bombs going on around the country and killings by terrorists happening everywhere we had to direct our resources to counter them. That was the reality.

After the then Army Commander sided with the other side later, we never hunted him for personal reasons. We went after him with proper charges only. I asked the CID to do proper investigations regarding these matters. And they carried out such investigations with proper evidence.

If the present Government is genuine, it must target people on legitimate charges. It is unjust and unfair to put the blame on anyone sans a legitimate basis.  True to my heart, I know I was never involved in any of these murders.

QHowever in a recent newspaper article written by Lasantha Wickremetunga’s daughter in connection with his death anniversary, she had drawn a link between the murder and the articles carried in the newspaper regarding the MiG deal in which your name too was implicated. Your comments?

I have to tell you that whatever he (Lasantha) wrote was wrong and I went to court on that.

He also wrote even worse articles criticising the then Army Commander. At that time, if anyone wrote anything against the then Commander, some incident took place. On the other hand what happened during the time of former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga? Lasantha wrote extensively against Chandrika, Mangala and others as well. Why aren’t those things brought out? Why is there reference only to this particular article?

We were not involved in any of these things including the disappearance of that person Prageeth Ekneligoda. We did not want to do such things. These were done purely for personal reasons by two individuals. I do not want to name them

What I did was to take the proper course of action and go to court against that article. I did the proper thing. In the history of the war, the MiG deal was the most transparent transaction.   We have proven it. In short, the Air Force asked for MiG attack aircraft.  That request had been made since the time of Chandrika’s Presidency.  It was a genuine requirement.  The selection was done by them.  During purchasing, the Air Force was involved. It is not that I got involved. It is the whole process. It was one of the earliest purchases we made.  I followed the exact procedure, examining financial evaluation and appointing tender boards and negotiation committees.   It is not a one man operation. There were a whole lot of officials involved. The negotiation committee chairman became the Auditor General later on.
The Ukraine Government submitted proposals. A team from the Air Force visited Ukraine. They had discussions in Ukraine. Two Air Force commanders were involved.

If somebody says that Lasantha was targeted because of this article, then, what about other articles written by him against other people?  On one previous occasion, much before we came to power, Lasantha and his wife were attacked. Once, Mangala Samaraweera called Lasantha an unpatriotic person as well.

During purchasing, the Air Force was involved. It is not that I got involved. It is the whole process. It was one of the earliest purchases we made.  I followed the exact procedure, examining financial evaluation and appointing tender boards and negotiation committees.   It is not a one man operation

QAnother contentious issue is the strained relationship between you and the Muslim community. How is it now?

I have had discussions with various sections of the Muslim community- youth, professionals, business leaders etc.    There is a perception that the Bodu Bala Sena is a phenomenon created by me. This is the issue. I told them that it was not so.  I had done many things at that time to prevent these incidents from happening.  As for Aluthgama incident, I immediately instructed the Senior DIG to reach the location after I got wind of the events unfolding. I asked the IGP to go there. I took immediate steps to deploy the Special Task Force (STF). At that time, it was actually a Minister in our Government, who was writing books on Muslim expansionism, and had conducted seminars.  They were the people behind all these incidents. He is in this Government now.

When communal riots break out, it is very sensitive. It is not easy to control.  People get emotional and react.  It cannot be compared to a normal war where armed forces fight against terrorists. Here, emotionally charged ordinary people fight with each other.  You have to handle it very carefully. However, we did our utmost to contain the situation and it did not spread beyond that area like what happened when the Digana incident took place under this Government. When the Digana incident happened normalcy could not be restored for a number of days. In Aluthgama the military rebuilt the damaged houses. We did all that immediately.
On the other hand, when I was in charge of the Urban Development Authority (UDA), President Rajapaksa instructed me to build houses for low income families as a move to eradicate shanties. It was my effort. I floated debentures. I found money. I started building high rise housing buildings.

If you look at the houses I built, a lot of them have been distributed among the minority communities. Yet, the then opposition accused me of trying to settle Sinhala people brought from elsewhere to alter the demographic pattern of the city. Instead, I addressed the housing needs of shanty dwellers. Most of the beneficiaries are Muslims and Tamils.

A lot of Muslim Ministers in our Government did not take action to counter such malicious propaganda against us. That is unfortunate. Finally, 95 percent of Muslims voted against Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa.

If somebody says that Lasantha was targeted because of this article, then, what about other articles written by him against other people?  On one previous occasion, much before we came to power, Lasantha and his wife were attacked. Once, Mangala Samaraweera called Lasantha an unpatriotic person as well

QYou stressed the need to attract middle class voters and professionals. They are concerned   about concepts such as good governance and democracy. There is fear that you would become more and more authoritarian?

That is a misconception. I will tell you why some people are spreading this misconception. As I said, even the middle-class and professionals have realised that discipline in society is an important aspect along with stability for the social well-being and development. They have realised it. Without discipline in a country, how can there be freedom?  In a democracy, what is considered most important for people is freedom.  If there is no discipline in a country with underworld crimes increasing by the day, how can people have freedom? How can people have freedom if they cannot walk on the roads properly?

There are killings taking place today in the country in broad daylight.   Freedom of an individual cannot be guaranteed when the situation is such.   If you cannot drive safely on roads and run businesses without giving extortion money to gangs, how can you have freedom?

The next step is economic development. If you cannot earn for your daily upkeep maintaining some standard, how can you expect freedom?

There are a large percentage of people in the country living under the poverty line. I want to be very clear that in our Sri Lankan society the values, the idea of family, village and the nation are very important. That has been our culture for thousands and thousands of years.  We are not living as individuals. We live as families.  We live with our neighbours. We work with each other. We look after each other. That is the Asian culture. Unfortunately, certain people are trying to undermine these family values. That is wrong.  They try to do so by promoting neoliberal ideas.

QIt means you are opposed to neoliberalism?

Even the United States has realised it.  Nationalism is gaining ground there. US President Donald Trump is talking about making America great again. It is nothing, but American nationalism.  Some people are trying to devalue our cultural system. For a society, culture is important.  Religion, be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity or Islam, is important. Our national values are paramount.  Nationalism is very important.  Individual freedom has been misconstrued today.

QWhat is the economic model you are proposing for the country?

Now, we cannot isolate ourselves from the world.  We have to be conscious of our local business, industries and entrepreneurs at the same time.  The open market economic system is everywhere today.  While doing all these things, we must have a system in place to protect the poor. We have to empower these people.  It is only by empowering them that we can alleviate poverty. There should be a social safety net. We cannot do it by giving free handouts only.  They are poor because they are not educated enough or may be without a proper educational background. We have to develop skills in them. We must have a system to educate the children of those poor families. Then, the second and third generations of those families can rise.

The private sector plays a very important role. We can encourage the private sector and public –private partnerships.  The Government can create an environment for the private sector to grow. Today, there is too much interference by the Government.  Today, business people fear politicians. They are so much dependent on the Government. They even fear to speak to an opposition politician. That is not the way it should be.

There should not be so many rules and regulations and bureaucratic red tape to control businessmen and entrepreneurs. When there are such rules and regulations, it leads to corruption. When we managed things we were able to act quickly and effectively. That is how we were able to attract many new investments. Sadly after this Government came to power things have stalled.

 අරවින්ද අතුකෝරල lanka C news

පිවිතුරු හෙල උරුමයේ නායක පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත‍්‍රී උදය ගම්මන්පිල මහතා එම පක්‍ෂ මූලස්ථානයේදී පැවති මාධ්‍ය හමුවක් අමතමින් මෙම අදහස් පල කලේය.

මගේ ප්‍රශ්නයකට පිලිතුරු දෙමින් රාජ්‍ය පරිපාලන රාජ්‍ය ඇමතිතුමා විසින් පාරලිමේන්තුව නොමග යවන ප්‍රකාශයක් කළා.  ඩුබායි වල දී අත්අඩංගුවට පත් වුණු රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රික ගමන් බලපත්‍ර හිමියෙකු සිටිත් දැයි තමන් ආගමන විගමන පාලකගෙන් විමසා සිටි බවත් එවැන්නෙකු පිළිබඳ තොරතුරු තමන්ට ලැබී නැතැයි පාලක පැවසූ බවත් ඇමතිතුමා කිව්වා.  ඩුබායිවල රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රික ගමන් බලපත්‍ර හිමියෙකු අත්අඩංගුවට පත් වුණාම ආගමන විගමන පාලකට දැනුම් දීමේ ක්‍රමවේදයක් නෑ.  ඒ නිසා මාකඳුරේ මධූෂ් සමග අත්අඩංගුවට පත් වී සිටින අයගේ නම් සහ ඒ අතර රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රික ගමන් බලපත්‍ර හිමියෙකු සිටී ද කියලා අපේ තානාපති කාරයාලය ලිඛිතව ඒ රටේ ආණ්ඩුවෙන් විමසලා ලැබෙන පිලිතුර ප්‍රසිද්ධ කිරීමෙන් පමණයි මේ ප්‍රශ්නය විසඳන්න පුළුවන්.

අපරාධකරුවෙකුට රටින් පැන ගැනීමට පහසු වීම සඳහා රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රික බලපත්‍රයක් නිකුත් කළ බවටයි ආරංචි පැතිරෙන්නේ.  ඒ ප්‍රාදේශීය සභා මන්ත්‍රිවරයෙක් හෝ පළාත් සභා මන්ත්‍රිවරයෙකු බවට පැතිරෙන කතා බොරු.  ඒ අයට රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රික ගමන් බලපත්‍රයක් හිමි නෑ.  අවම වශයෙන් පළාත් ඇමතිවරයෙකු හෝ මහ නගර සභාවක නගරාධිපතිවරයෙකු වෙන්න ඕනෑ රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රික ගමන් බලපත්‍රයක් ලබා ගන්න.  ඒ වගේම මේක ආණ්ඩුවට මඩ ගහන්න විපක්ෂය හදපු කතාවක් බවට රාජ්‍ය පරිපාලන රාජ්‍ය ඇමතිතුමා කියන්නේ බොරු.  මේ කතාව අපි ගෙතුවේ නෑ.  ඒක ර්වතා කලේ 2019 පෙබරවාරි 6 දින කලීජ් ටයිම්ස් කියන ඩුබායි වල වැඩියෙන්ම විකිණෙන පුවත්පත.

BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

Media freedom considers as a significant attribute in a democratic society which respects the human rights including the right to express independent views on various matters and protecting people who expresses independent perspectives, from litigating and punishing at the court.  Before political independence, although there were news papers in Sri Lanka, no real freedom was enjoyed by people as the colonial rule did not recognise the freedom of expression. News media was in the country at that time, but they behaved like tamed wild animals and it also appeared that owners of the media were acting like agents of the colonial government.

After the independence, the ownership of media was with rich people, who attempted to protect own political philosophy and practice.  Late in 1960s, media ownership attempted to control the freedom of expression and indirectly influence the elections and change the governments in the name of media freedom and some governments attempted to control media using various strategies.  The concept of media freedom has been a dominating issue in the country. Democratic activists or NGO agents while demanding the freedom of express directed journalists to go out of the limit with a view to succussing a hidden agenda.  One example I can point out is in 1990s, many newspapers commenced publishing business supplements with a view to attracting the business community and certain journalists attempted to irresponsibly criticise the economy and the stock market, which were openly growing in the market economic system. Free journalists did not understand that they harmed to the country and the purpose of them was to write something to make money.

Under the media freedom in Western countries, journalists would not irresponsibly criticise or make negative comments on the stock market or the economy as they consider that the economy and the stock market is the heart of the countries. This responsibility hasn’t reflected with journalists in Sri Lanka, who used media freedom in Sri Lankan term a freedom of wild ass.  The most significant issue of the wild ass behaviour of journalists was that they attempted to mislead people publishing bogus information in media.  People of Sri Lanka is highly sensitive to published information in media as such published information quickly convert to gossips among ordinary people and many foreign agencies working in Sri Lanka clearly know about this situation and use this background to spread views of them with a view to misleading people.  Therefore, during the elections in 2015, the use of media freedom accelerated to make fabrications against the Rajapaksa regime and many people determined to vote against the Rajapaksa regime believing that what were published in media was truth and what were manipulated gossips in the society were truth.  However, during the past four years, accusers against the Rajapaksa regime have failed to prove their cases and gossips at the court of law and people have now feeling that media freedom in the country is a gimmick or opening the way media people to insult other or to fabricate lie.

What is the meaning of media freedom? Is fabricating bogus information to make money misleading people a media freedom?  Sri Lanka needs to allow for media freedom, but it is not for fabricating news for public with an intention to make money disregarding the rights of others.  Many journalists in Sri Lanka talk about investigative journalism and they are happy introduce themselves as investigative journalists.  The practical experience is they don’t investigate whether the information they publish is true or fabricated. The best recent example is that many information published about the arrest of Makadure Madush were not true and most of they were mere fabrications.  I found that not a single journalist read the news report of Khalij Times and published bogus information.

Many NGO people talk about right to access information from the government.  As the government is represented by people, it has right to secretly keep various type of information for the interest of people.  Many journalists wrongfully consider that they can access to any information disregarding the government right to protect such information.  Academics of Sri Lanka have an idea that the country needs re-educate media people and develop right policies to protect the democratic rights of people considering the accountability of media people. Many civil society activists don’t openly talk about the accountability part of media.

There is an intense competition between media organizations especially the competition among TV channels, which need to attract more viewers to obtain advertisements. The commercial purposes of media organization would not warrant to publish fabricated lies to the community and make profit out of such lies misleading people.  In this environment Sri Lanka needs reconsidering media freedom and develop policies that will support to litigate media firms.

The use of social media in Sri Lanka has become a serious sickness to insult others and there is no responsibility of users. Many use Sinhala language for posting ideas and views and the language used by many are wild language that should not be used in public. As a result of irresponsible behaviour of the users of social media, which has become a highly untrusted media.  It is really going against the expectation of inventors of social media.

How can change this situation?

Kanthar Balanathan DipEE(UK), GradCert-Rel Eng(Monash), DipBus&Adm-Finance(Massey), CEng. MIEE

This paper is written specifically for the Tamils all over the world to read and understand where they came from and why they left their motherland, and the conspiracy they are subjected to and the Root Cause for the conspiracy.

India is a Tamils country and they spoke Brahmi. Development befalls in all the sphere; economy, technology, language, science etc. If we study the scripts of Brahmi, it took shapes at a different time. If Brahmi was the alphabet of the Tamils, which is more similar to Latin/Greek, then how was the race who used this language called. Were they called Brahmis” or Tamils”? Definitely not Tamil, as there is no literature to address us as Tamils. In the Current era, youngsters are being commanded by political crosiers to follow their version of the story. Aryans who raided India wanted the whole of India under their rule. The Mughals (Turks) who came afterward wanted India under their rule, and so on

First, the Brahmins played their game by splitting the Tamils. The Brahmins formulated the caste system and kept them on the top of the list. Ref: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Brahman-caste. Brahmins nominated Kshatriya as second in the hierarchy. Ref; https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kshatriya.  All others were named as Shudras.

What do the Brahmins do? In the ancient era, Brahmins misled the people that they are the only kind who speak to God. Although Sanskrit is the oldest language (older than Brahmi / Tamil), they created hundreds of gods because of the number of races among the Aryans. Ref; (i) http://www.gloriousindia.com/history/time_line.html. (ii) http://www.gloriousindia.com/history/index.php

Politics of Reign

Divide and rule is the policy since mankind was created in this world. Everywhere this concept rules. Workplace, Societies, Clubs, Social groups. Mankind’s vehemence and the group’s intelligence & power makes them form a method to divide the others so that they can be on top. E.g. appointing directors, managers. There is a club from which the decision makers draw people and appoint. Even in politics, to appoint a minister, secretary, a club exists from where the power makers draw people. To be in the club your ability should embrace mendacious, double-dealing rigid decision making, no tolerance etc.

A typical example is the appointment of the Leader of Opposition of Sambanthar who had only 16 MPs in parliament from his political party. This is to fool the Tamils as well as the Sri Lankans, and maybe the UN. The political party UNP somehow planned and made TNA a party that developed the balance of power and made Tamils be the superstars of SL. E.g. election 2015. What UNP did was put the Sri Lankans from the frying pan to the fire

Tamils of Indian Origin

The above Tamils are clever than the Jaffna man. A number of estate Tamils held and are holding portfolios irrespective of which party comes to power in SL. Particularly Mano Ganesan and Thondaman. These are people who are capable of somersaulting when needed regardless of human principles. In years to come maybe on a 30-year horizon the entire upcountry Tamils will call themselves SriLankan. Current atmosphere every estate Tamil talks Sinhalese understands English and Tamil and lives happily with zilch racism in their mind. The Jaffna man oppressed and discriminated the upcountry Tamils and years to come the Jaffna man may serve under the upcountry Tamils. This is nature. Nothing can prevent this.

World Tamils

Mauritiu

114500 in Mauritius. Ref; http://www.mauritiustimes.com/mt/sarita-boodhoo-67/.

All Tamils speak French and some can speak Tamil. All were taken from India.

Reunion Island

889,918 of the total Reunion Island population, a third of are Tamils numbering 250,000, who were brought as indentured labor. However today they are the happiest people in the world. Ref; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IdJhwFoOb0

Approximately 1,800,000 Tamils live in Malaysia.

Approximately 188,591 Tamils live in Singapore.

Briefly please refer the link below to study the Tamil population around the world. The total Tamil in the world is 75,863,177. More than 75 million Tamils definitely need a separate country of their own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_population_by_nation.

With 1.8 million Tamils in Malaysia can Tamils fight for a separate country in Malaysia or the USA or Singapore.  

 RILANKA CAN NEVER BE A TAMIL COUNTRY AND CAN NEVER BE DIVIDED.

What is the reason?

Tamils origin is India, Tamil Nadu. India is the Uterus / Womb of Tamil humans. These 6,836,296 Tamils left their motherland or womb in search of greener pasture, like flying termites / Hunkers, which include SriLanka. Most were taken as indentured labor by the British, French, Dutch, North Indians etc. Even those who came to SL came as forced labor by Magha. Today Tamils are everywhere holding TIGER flag and protesting. For What? Tamil Diaspora in the UK was holding black flags and Tiger flags in the streets of London on the 2019 Independence Day celebrations. Can the world conclude that these Tamils are suffering from mental disorder and cognitive failure? It is a disgrace to the 75.863 million Tamils around the world to watch such act by some barbarians.

SRILANKA BELONGS TO THE SINHALESE AND SRILANKA IS A SINHALA BUDDHIST COUNTRY WITH APPROXIMATELY 20,991,264 CITIZENS.

Tamils should comprehend why they left their own country which is India (Tamil Nadu). If Tamils want to regain back their own country then they should fight for their own land, Tamil Nadu and either acquire more power like Kashmir or seek a division from India. Tamil Nadu can accommodate more than 75 million Tamils.

Tamil Nadu is infected with all garbage language like Telugu, Hindi, Malayalam, Karnataka etc. Every Tamil movie has sentences of Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam. TV announcers cannot even pronounce Tamil properly. It is a damn ignominy for the government of Tamil Nadu. Well, Tamil Nadu Chief Ministers have always been non-Tamils anyway. Why not the Tamils on the streets on London holding tiger and black flags take up this shortfall with the Indian authorities unless they are short of perception and intelligence. In a few years, Tamils in Tamil Nadu will be dissociated with their culture, language, and heritage. The divide and rule Indians were practiced by the Aryan invaders in India and even now it is continued by some group to eliminate Tamils from the world/India. There is no future for the Tamils to talk about rights when they have lost all the rights in Tamil Nadu.

Today we can see that SriLankan Tamil kids are getting married to kids from the various ethnic group. Their children are to be known as HALF CASTE” children. Are these children interested in the history of Tamils or Tamils culture? They are interested in IPADS, Sports etc. True fully, a question to all Tamil Diaspora: Do you think your children will practice Tamil culture and eat Tamil food? Do you think that they will marry kids from SriLanka or will like to settle in SriLanka? Only liking you all have is to go for a holiday and some want to maintain a house to spend their holiday in SL. Another advantage is that their kid’s intelligence will be higher than that of SriLankan children. Quote; https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/is-intelligence-inherited.php

It is an appeal, please read an article in http://nrnmind.blogspot.com/2019/01/governance-and-psychology-8-democratic.html, use your genetically transmitted brain intelligence, if any, to understand and take necessary action about Tamils. Please do not be on the road and behave like rowdies. You all went abroad to lead a good life and not to govern that country.

People like Rudrakumaran, Father Emanuel and the British and Canadian Tamil Forum enjoy the power and cheap popularity. They may not be interested in the sufferings of the common man in SL, but get popularity and accrue more wealth. No point in boasting from the streets of London and Swiss.

Tamils: Please think as to how much funds are wasted through corrupt practice and such false propaganda

In today’s world, an ethnic group’s future vision is impacted by a multitude of factors; leadership, risk, technology, disruption, and in-house knowledge. Think of the future vision for the Tamils. Ref; http://future-vision.com.au/.

Your research & analysis should lead to making a decision to regain your country in India, which is Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu does not belong to the Hindustanis, or the Nayaks, or the people from Gujarat. They are Nomads who invaded the Indian continent, more than 2000 years ago. I am not telling this, but history proves it. Ref; http://www.gloriousindia.com/history/index.php

Root Cause; There was absolutely no unity among Tamils, as their neurophysiological function does not allow for unity. Introduction of the caste system assisted this cause.

The conspiracy was by the Aryan Hindis, European & British to rule India. Originally by the Aryans to displace Tamils and take over India which they accomplished. This led Tamils to leave India to liberate themselves from sufferings, oppression, and discrimination.

End Result; Tamils have lost their country which is Tamil Nadu. Today Tamils are on the streets of London and most are on dole (beggars’ salary)

Appeal to the West & UN: It is Tamil Nadu (India) that you all must plan to liberate and divide as Tamil Nadu republic and settle all Tamils in that country. NOT SRILANKA. India can be broken into more than 20 republics and handed back to the original inhabitants.

Concluded in this chapter -12

KAMALIKA PIERIS

Revised 12.3.19

The 1950s saw the rise of   a strong, vocal Sinhala lobby which was against the 1944   decision of the   State Council,   to make Sinhala and Tamil the official languages of Ceylon, giving Tamil equal status to Sinhala. They wanted the 1944 decision revoked. They wanted Sinhala Only.  This lobby wished to repudiate the language settlement reached in 1943-44 and to call for the replacement of English by Sinhala alone.

In 1952, this lobby started to get restless. Around 1953 there was mounting agitation for Sinhala by the Buddhist Theosophical Society (BTS) and the YMBA.  In 1954 Prime Minister Kotelawela went to Jaffna and said he was for parity of status between Sinhala and Tamil. Meetings were immediately held in ‘Sinhala areas’ to protest this statement.

In January 1955 an important official statement on language policy was issued by the UNP government, reiterating the government policy of ten years ago. By this time there was strong opposition to the recognition of Tamil as an official language and there was a strong, aggressive demand for Sinhala Only.  In 1955, LSSP and CP said they were for parity, too. A  Communist Party meeting supporting parity was broken up by Sinhala Only supporters.

There was support from the elite too. Sir Arthur Wijewardene, one time Chief Justice, said in 1953 as Chairman, Official Language Commission, that the replacement of English by Swabhasa would have been much easier if instead of two language one alone had been accepted in terms of the motions introduced by JR in state council in June 1943. (SP XXII of 1953 p 26). Arthur Wijewardene repeated this in his rider to the 1954 Report of the Commission on the National languages in Higher Education.  (SPXXI of 1954 p 6).

The first two general elections of independent Ceylon, held in  1947 and 1952,  were won by the UNP. in 1947 the  UNP  formed  its government in coalition   with the All Ceylon Tamil Congress. The UNP was an elitist party dominated by the English speaking, western- oriented propertied class. Since the English speaking group were primarily Christians and the Christians were largely Tamil, it began to be considered a pro-Christian, pro-Tamil party as well. The UNP did not bother much about Sinhala. There was therefore a slackening of momentum as regards Swabhasa,

In 1951, the Sinhala Only lobby at last managed to get a political party of its own, the SLFP. The fledgling SLFP contested its first General Election in 1952. There would have been rumblings of Sinhala Only at this election. However, SLFP   formally adopted the notion of ‘Sinhala Only’ in 1955.  Change of policy was announced at the SLFP annual conference held on December 1955 at Nittambuwa. The SLFP cry was not only ‘Sinhala Only’ but ‘Sinhala Only in 24 hours.” This was an effective and pithy propaganda slogan, said K.M. de Silva.  It was only rhetoric, but some took him literally.

The extent of the popular support for ‘Sinhala Only’ in the country overall could be gauged by the fact that before the next general election of 1956, the  major political  parties, including UNP had all announced support for Sinhala Only . UNP changed its position at its annual conference in Feb 1956.

The General election of 1956 was a watershed in the modern history of Sri Lanka. The ruling UNP lost to the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) in a resounding defeat. The MEP got 51 of the 95 seats with however only 40% of the votes. The victorious MEP consisted of the SLFP as it major component, with the original MEP, Bhasha Peramuna, VLSSP led by Philip Gunawardene.  I.D.S.Weerawardene, political scientist, remarked that the electorate displayed a surprising maturity. The voter turnout was 69%, considered good for that time and the electorate voted for the party and not for individuals.

The Sinhala only campaign brought together a formidable array of forces, Sinhala school teachers, ayurvedic physicians, Sinhalese writers and the sangha. There was the Bhasha Peramuna and Eksath Bhikku Peramuna. Eksath Bhikku Peramuna was led by the dynamic Buddhist monks, Ven. Yakkaduwe Pragnarama, Ven. Walpole Rahula, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa, Ven. Henpitigedera Gnanasiha of Ratnapura and Buddharakkitha of Kelaniya They presented an action programme to Bandaranaike, shortly before the election.

When the MEP won the election in 1956, SWRD Bandaranaike had to take note of the wishes of the Sinhala Only group since they had helped him win. The ‘language zealots’ helped SWRD greatly in his elections campaigns, said K.M. de Silva.  Their aggressive regional support base as well as committed supporters whose contributions to his victory was perhaps greater than that made by this party’s local units,. So they expected the change to be made as speedily as possible.

Bandaranaike had promised a new language policy and he had to do it swiftly when he came to power in 1956. A draft bill was ready before the end of April 1956. This bill gave a place to both Sinhala and Tamil. It was a ‘balancing act combing a strong commitment to Sinhala as sole national language with protection for the national language of the minorities, said K.M. de Silva. This met with strong opposition from- the Sinhala only group. The purists wanted no concessions to Tamil. This draft Bill was never published. It was abruptly withdrawn from Parliament.

A sub-committee, known as the ‘Sinhala Only committee’, was appointed to draft new legislation. The committee included SWRD, Philip Gunawardene, W. Dahanayake, I.M.R.A. Iriyagolle and K.M.P. Rajaratne.  The committee included one Burgher, R.S.V Poulier.   Muslims and Tamils were pointedly left out. SWRD said they were left out as they were against the Sinhala Only policy.

While this committee was drafting the second bill, L.H. Mettananda was busy drafting a bill of his own. It now appears that Mettananda, better known for his role in supporting Buddhism, was also the leading figure in the Sinhala Only movement. Mettananda had helped to form the Eksath Bhikku Peramuna   and was the General Secretary of Lanka Jatika Bala Mandalaya. He was quite ready to do the draft by himself.

Mettananda complete his draft and presented it to the Sinhala Only Committee. He also released it to the press and gave a press interview. The draft was published in Daily News of 16.May 1956 and received considerable publicity. Mettananda’s draft bill, said, in its preamble that since British occupation administration has been in English which barely 5% understand.  This has resulted in much injustice. Ceylon is now a free democracy and Sinhalese is the language of the majority.

Mettananda’s text was brief. It said that   the official language shall be Sinhala as from the date of the passing of the Act. In all legislative enactments now in force the word Sinhalese shall replace the word English. In the administration of the island, English can continue to be used for three years, where necessary, but this must cease at the end of the three years.

Mettananda also gave a statement to the Daily News .He told Daily News that conferring a legal right to Tamil speaking minority to communicate with the government in Tamil violates the pledge given by Prime Minister to Eksath Bhikkhu Peramuna to immediately pass a law making Sinhala the official language of Ceylon.  There was an agreement between Bandaranaike and the  Eksath Bhikku Peramuna. which was an ‘unambiguous commitment to Sinhala Only with no reference to concession to minorities. If Tamils are given the legal right to communicate with the government in Tamil language, this will lead to Sinhala-Tamil parity.

The Tamil minority cannot claim as a fundamental right the right to communicate with the government   in their own language, continued Mettananda.   This has no place in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN. There is absolutely no instance in the world, of a language majority ever according official status in the business of government to a minority language. Where more than one language has been accorded official status as in Switzerland and Canada that was due to the coming together of independent units. It has never been done as a prelude to the encouragement of separation by the establishment of different states out of what had hitherto been a united whole,   said Mettananda.

One may however concede that in a Tamil speaking district a Ceylon Tamil may write to a local body in Tamil and receive a reply in Tamils but if the correspondence by   Ceylon Tamils with the government throughout the country turned out to be in Tamil that will certain pave the way to parity between minority and majority language. Parity simply means that 68 lakhs of Sinhalese must learn the language of six lakhs   of Ceylon Tamils if the Sinhala are to get jobs in Ceylon.  Parity means the rule of the majority by the minority for the greater glory of the minority, concluded Mettananda.

K.M. de Silva said that Mettananda’s draft had great influence on the legislation that eventually emerged. The final bill was a triumph for Mettananda, de Silva said, because the MEP Bill followed Mettananda’s draft in style, spirit and content.

Mettananda would have been in his late fifties at the time, said an analyst. He would therefore have been well aware of the attitude taken by Tamil politicians from the 1930s.  Their utterances in State Council and their clear intention of containing the Sinhala majority in as many ways as possible. Not only he, but virtually everybody interested in this issue in the 1950s were aware of this. The general view among the Sinhalese at the time was ‘The Tamils want Trincomalee, the language issue is just an excuse’ the analyst concluded.

This Sinhala Only Committee proceeded with its work expeditiously.  It needed to guarantee the position of Sinhala and yet protect the interests of the minorities regarding language. There was a meeting of the Opposition and Prime Minister on the matter. The Federal Party and Tamil Congress did not go. FP refused to join and the TC member was not in town. They found SWRD, flanked by Mettananda, Buddharakkita and Baddegama Wimalawanse, a prominent member of SLFP and ‘one of the hardest of the hard liners on Sinhala Only’. The interview was a fiasco,   said K.M. de Silva.

This second draft of the MEP government was published in Ceylon Daily News of 17.5.1956.  It said that Sinhala would be the ‘one official language’. However,   English and Tamil could be used where necessary until Jan 1 1960.  Further, Public officers who had studied in Tamil or English would only need minimal proficiency in Sinhala, since they had not studied in Sinhala.  They could sit any exam in their own medium of study. This concession should last only till July 1 1967.

There were several controversial clauses. These clauses said that persons could communicate with public officials in Tamil and English, that local government could use Tamil and English in transaction of their business if two thirds of the body agreed to this and that Tamil and English could be used in general administration of the country till 1 January 1960.

The Sinhala Only lobby vehemently objected to these clauses. They saw it as a dilution of the Sinhala Only progamme. They viewed it as a great betrayal and ‘reacted with    a    deep hostility that frightened the government’. Pressure was applied through a formidable combination of sangha activists and Sinhala Only ideologues, acting in unison, said de Silva.  Due to the heavy opposition, these clauses were eventually withdrawn.

Before that, F.R. Jayasuriya, a lecturer in Economics in the University of Ceylon, went on a death fast in Parliament against the bill. K.M.P. Rajaratne and L.H. Mettananda supported him. Their objection was to the clause which said that local government could use Tamil if two thirds of the body    supported such a request.

I was a school girl at the time, and remember this incident well.  F.R. Jayasuriya’s action received much publicity. It was treated as unnecessary theatricals and laughed at by the Anti-Sinhala Only lobby. Analyzed today, FR’s action shows that there has been a grave doubt as to whether Sinhala Only would go through or not.  There has been a strong Anti-Sinhala Only” lobby operating at the time, making theatricals necessary.

FR Jayasuriya was persuaded to call off the fast, if they let him address the government parliamentary party.  This was the first and to date the last time, that a private citizen had addressed this group, observed K.M. de Silva in 1993.  There was considerable opposition to this, so FR addressed only the parliamentarians of the MEP. The text of his speech was published in newspapers. Whether it was due to him or not, the relevant clauses were withdrawn, said de Silva.

The government then presented its third and final effort. This third draft bill received considerable publicity. Arguments went to and fro with the Sinhala hardliners on one side refusing to give any place at all to Tamil, and a more conciliatory group on the other side who tried to point out that some recognition of Tamil was advisable as it was not inconsistent with the MEP programme, said K.M. de Silva. Except for two speeches, the rest were in Sinhala. Daily News commented on the high quality of the speeches, saying ‘the lucid and chaste dignity of the speeches’ showed that Sinhala was an adequate and graceful means of debate.

The Parliamentary debate commenced against a background of protests by Tamil groups led by the Federal Party (FP) and the Tamil Congress (TC).  Just after the FP had outlined its protest progamme in the press  Mettananda announced a counter protest. the Tamil parliamentarian began a fast on Galle Face Green, as part of a Satyagraha campaign. Tamil politicians engaging in a peaceful protest in Galle Face green, in Colombo were assaulted.    The government did little or nothing to protect them from mobs. It is said that Prime Minister had ordered police not to intervene. No one was killed, recorded K.M. de Silva.

FP had also organized a hartal in many parts of the North and East.   The riots that erupted on that occasion spread to many parts of the country. K.M. de Silva said ‘this brought to an end a decade of peaceful communal relations after independence and forty years of communal peace after 1915.”

After a marathon debate and heated discussion,  the ‘Sinhala Only’ Bill was passed by 66 votes to 29, with the UNP voting for it.  At the debate SWRD was on the defensive, said K.M. de Silva.   The Official Language Act No 33 of 1956 consisted of just one sentence.  It said ‘the Sinhala language shall be the one official language of Ceylon’. The text avoided any mention of Tamil. Instead it said that all official use of   ‘languages hitherto used’, must end on 31.December 1960.

The main purpose of the Act was to establish the principle of one national language not two, observed K.M. de Silva. This done, the implementation could be on a step by step basis. Its implementation was to be stretched out over five years till December 1960.  de Silva also commented on the ‘stark brevity’ of the Sinhala Only Act.  He said this showed a failure to    come to grips with the complex issues involved in introducing this change.

Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike did not convert the Act to a constitutional amendment. Unlike other legal enactments which have subsidiary legislation in the form of regulations, no regulations were framed to give effect to the provisions of the Act, said Olcott Gunasekera, a CCS officer who served as head of the apex body in charge of implementing the Act . ‘Implementation was based on policy statements and cabinet directions. This enabled greater maneuverability and flexibility in the implementation of the language policy,

‘There was nothing in the law except that Sinhala was declared the official language, said S.G Samarasinghe, another CCS officer who also had headed the project . ‘Implementation of the language policy was made solely on administrative orders emanating from Cabinet decisions.     So in terms of policy there was a great deal of ambiguity and flexibility’ . K.M. de Silva observed that Cabinet decisions and Treasury circulars had been used to implement Sinhala Only in the public life.  These modifications survived through the 1960s.

Once ‘Sinhala Only’ was achieved through the Official Language Act in 1956, the Sinhala lobby was satisfied. They lost interest thereafter. Sinhala was now well and truly entrenched in the political and cultural life of the country. There was no insistence that all citizens must know Sinhala. Tamil and English were not suppressed but were allowed to run parallel with Sinhala in most matter such as commerce, administration and education. (continued)