Mahinda Rajapaksa  The leader of the Opposition

71 years ago, a group of remarkable men decided that enough was enough. Sri Lanka had all the strengths it needed to gain autonomy, govern its own jurisdiction and rule under its own mandate. We, a nation that has always had to juggle its diversity and often been at the negative end of that battle produced these men who made up a literal interpretation of our glorious flag and displayed it through their own diversity. They volleyed, they fought and above all stood together to gain independence and prevailed.

Having been a young boy when it happened and growing up watching our country’s growth, I can’t help but reflect on our journey as a people. I feel overjoyed and yet, sympathetic as I have seen our nation rally together in the darkest times and at the same time, tear itself up from within.

Independence Day is by definition, the day we achieved our independence from the British, but by spirit, it serves as a reminder that we are first and foremost, one. One nation, under one flag and we are free to allow our diversity to be the uniting factor of our people.

Today, I would like to take this opportunity to remind us all of this truth, let us unite to create a truly non dependent Sri Lanka, a country that is self sufficient and bold enough to not let external forces try to divide itself based on their vested interests, because after all Sri Lanka is a great island nation with pride, a relentless spirit and a virtuous soul.

I wish all my fellow countrymen a happy Independence Day.

Mahinda Rajapaksa                                                              

Leader of the Opposition

මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂ  විපක්‍ෂ නායක

හැත්තෑ එක් වසරකට පෙර අධිරාජ්‍යවාධීන්ට එරෙහිව නැගීසිටීමට ඇති අවශ්‍යතාව වටහා ගත් මාතෘභූමිය වෙනුවෙන් සටන් කළ අභීත ජනතාවකට ශ්‍රී ලංකා මාතාව උරුමකම් කීය. ඔවුහූ තමන්⁣ගේ වරම තුළින් බිහිවන පාලන තන්ත්‍රයක් මගින් පාලනය වන ස්වාධීන ස්වෛරී රාජ්‍යයක් වෙනුවෙන් සටන් කළහ.

අපගේ තේජාන්විත සිංහ ධජය තුළින් මනාව පිළිබිඹු වන්නේ ඔවුන්ගේ වූ විවිධත්වයයි. ඔවුහූ එකාවන්ව ජාතියේ ඒකීයත්වයත් නිදහසත් වෙනුවෙන් සටන්වැද ජය ලැබූහ.

කුඩා දරුවකු ලෙස ශ්‍රී ලංකා මාතාවගේ නිදහස දැක පියවරෙන් පියවර එදා මෙදාතුර පැමිණි ගමනෙහි පසුවූ අඳුරු යුගයන් හිදී ජාතියක් සේ එකාවන්ව එකමුතුව අප නැගීසිටි අයුරු දුටු අපහට  ඇතිවන්නේ ඉමහත් ආඩම්බරයකි.

බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය අධිරාජ්‍යයෙන් නිදහස ලැබීම නිදහස් දිනයෙන් කියාපෑවත් සැබවින්ම ඉන් පිළිබිඹු වන්නේ අප එක් ධජයක් ⁣යට, එක් ජාතියක් ලෙස, විවිධත්වය සවියක් කරගෙන නිදහස ලත් අභීත මිනිස්සුන් බවයි.

තවද අප එකාවන්ව එකමුතුව ලක් දෙරණ සත්‍යවශයෙන්ම ස්වෛරීයව ස්වයං පෝෂිතව බාහිර අතපෙවීම් වලට අභීතව මුහුණ දිය හැකි රාජ්‍යයක්  බවට පරිවර්තනය කරගත යුතු බවට වූ පණිවිඩය ඔබ සැමට ලබාදීමටත් මෙය අවස්ථාවක් කරගනිමි.

ලක් මවුණි ඔබටත් සියළුම ලක්වාසී ජනතාවටත් අභිමානවත් 71වන නිදහස් දිනයක් වේවා.

මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂ

විපක්‍ෂ නායක

by Senaka Weeraratna (Attorney – at – Law)

Sri Lanka together with several other Asian countries owe much in winning their freedom, to Japan’s entry to the Second World War and the resulting chain of events that sealed the fate of European colonialism in Asia.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister (1947 – 1964) when asked in the 1930s to name a likely date that India would win independence from Britain, replied by saying it would probably be in the late 1970s i.e. long after their time.

According to Major – General Mohan Singh of the Indian National Army (INA) The British had not given even an empty promise to grant us complete freedom after the war” ( The Reader’s  Digest Illustrated History of World War II).

The fact that India gained freedom in 1947 much earlier than the date that Nehru thought was possible, followed by Burma and Ceylon in 1948, was largely due to the interplay of both external and internal factors.

Today, there is a great turn around in Historiography in respect to the role of Japan in the Second World War. Japan no longer has a pariah status or subject to isolation because of its conduct in the war. In fact, except in a couple of Far Eastern nations, Japan is increasingly gaining acceptance and recognition in much of Asia for being the catalyst in igniting the relatively dormant Asian Independence movements.

Nehru himself refused to take part in the San Francisco Peace Treaty Conference held in 1951 on several specified grounds and declared that Japan has done no wrong to India for India to seek an apology and reparations from Japan. India’s sympathies beginning with Subash Chandra Bose and Judge Radhabinod Pal ( the only dissenting Judge in the Tokyo War Crimes Trial) have always been with Japan. J.R. Jayewardene from Ceylon made a resounding plea for Japan citing the Buddha’s insightful words that ‘Hatred does not cease by hatred,but only by love;this is the eternal law.”
Asia’s leaders and Historians now see a direct and incontrovertible connection between the Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour and Western Colonial bases in Asia, and the subsequent success of the independence movements which drew inspiration from Japan’s courage to take on the West and liberate Asian colonies. Japan more than any other Asian country was responsible for sealing the fate of European colonialism in the Orient.

Historiography and the narrative on who won Independence for India in 1947 is also rapidly changing with an increasing number of writers prepared to give credit to Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, Indian National Army and Japan for the eventual liberation of India, while conceding to Mahatma Gandhi and his followers due respect for their noble and sustained efforts in seeking freedom from British colonial rule.

New Book – ‘ Bose: An Indian Samurai’

In a new Book ‘ Bose: An Indian Samurai’ by military historian General GD Bakshi, claims that the former British Prime Minister Clement Atlee had said that the role played by Netaji’s Indian National Army was paramount in India being granted Independence, while the non-violent movement led by Gandhi was dismissed as having had minimal effect.

In the book, Bakshi cites a conversation between the then British PM Attlee and then Governor of West Bengal Justice PB Chakraborty in 1956 when Attlee – the leader of Labour Party and the British premier who had signed the decision to grant Independence to India in 1947 – had come to India and stayed in Kolkata as Chakraborty’s guest.

Chakraborty, who was then the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and was serving as the acting Governor of West Bengal, is quoted as saying : When I was acting governor, Lord Attlee, who had given us Independence by withdrawing British rule from India, spent two days in the governor’s palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India.”

My direct question to Attlee was that since Gandhi’s Quit India Movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they had to leave?”

In his reply Attlee cited several reasons, the main among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British crown among the Indian Army and Navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji,” Chakraborty said.

Toward the end of our discussion I asked Attlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to leave India. Hearing this question, Attlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, ‘m-i-n-i-m-a-l’,” Chakraborty added.

Fear of another Indian Mutiny

Though Japan lost in 1945, the legacy of Subhas Chandra Bose endured to stir the Indian masses and soldiers of the British Indian Army and ratings of the Royal Indian Navy to mutiny following the trial of the INA Officers at the Red Fort. It was the fear of such a Mutiny on a scale bigger than the Indian Mutiny in 1857, that convinced the British that it was time to quit India, and Burma and Ceylon within a few months.

No colonial country withdraws voluntarily from its colonies unless there are insurmountable ‘ push ‘ factors or except under compelling circumstances. The best illustration of this proposition is the shameful return of the Dutch and the French to regain their colonies in Asia after the end of the second world war. Japanese occupation during World War II had ended Dutch rule, and the Japanese encouraged the previously suppressed Indonesian independence movement.

Despite their opposition to the tyranny of Nazi rule of France and Netherlands (1940 -1944), and delight in being liberated by the Allies, these two colonial powers were not prepared to share the freedom they gained in Europe with the subject people in Asia ( and Africa). They were not welcomed when they returned. Indonesians under Sukarno with the help of Japanese volunteers that remained in Indonesia after the defeat of Japan, defeated the Dutch in a series of military battles to finally gain independence in 1949. Likewise the Viet Minh under Ho Chi Minh performed admirably to wrest control from the

French by defeating them at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and finally resulting in their withdrawal from all colonies of French Indo – China under the Geneva Accords of 1954.

External factors
Mainstream writings on the Independence movement in British occupied Ceylon have so far failed to account for the external factors that contributed to advancement of the date of independence.

A study of colonial history of Ceylon shows clearly that local Kings have sought external help to end foreign occupation of parts of Ceylon. Several Kings of Kandy had contacts with the Dutch finally leading to the Treaty of 1638 signed in Kandy where the Dutch undertook to assist the Kandyan Kingdom under King Rajasinghe the Second to expel the Portuguese which was successfully achieved in 1658.

Likewise the Kings of Kandy solicited the assistance of the British Empire towards the end of the 18th century to end Dutch occupation of Ceylon. This was achieved in 1796.

It is necessary to show that external factors again contributed substantially to end British occupation of Ceylon finally leading to independence in 1948.

To remain oblivious to these external factors and extend credit exclusively to the locals on the ground that they were ‘Freedom Fighters’ is an exercise in fantasy. There were no authentic freedom fighters in Ceylon after 1848. The last shot for freedom from colonial rule was fired in Matale in 1848 during the second war of independence (also called the Matale Rebellion).

The succeeding generations yearning for freedom produced marvelous orators, letter writers, pen pushers and even collaborators who preferred British colonial rule to continue rather than handing over the country to the locals. Several were quite happy to accept knighthoods and other perks, and co – exist with the colonial administration. There was no fight in them compared to what we have seen in warriors such as Keppetipola Disawe, Gongalegoda Banda, Puran Appu or even earlier in Kings such as Sitavaka Rajasinghe, Mayadunne, Veediya Bandara ( son in law of Buvanekabahu the 7th), Wimaladharmasuriya I, Senerath and Rajasinghe the Second, among others.

Local leaders pursued ‘ Constitutional Reform’ and not total independence though armed resistance e.g. Indonesia, or even large scale civil disobedience movements e.g. India. They were far removed from the type of fight and determination we have seen in other Asian nationalist leaders who fought against Western domination of Asia such as Hideki Tojo ( Japan), Subhas Chandra Bose (India), Mao Tse Tung (China), Ho Chi Minh ( Vietnam), Sukarno ( Indonesia), and Aung San ( Burma). These Asian freedom fighters and patriots preferred to use the only language that the West really understood and respected i.e. force of arms.

Except for Angarika Dharmapala, the world`s first Global Buddhist missionary, the freedom movement in Ceylon never produced a single leader of repute who enjoyed widespread support and admiration overseas for speaking out and engaging in battle for the liberation of Asia.

Historiography – a neglected field in Sri Lanka

Ceylon was very fortunate in gaining independence in 1948 despite not having fought in the real sense of the word to rid the country of foreign occupation. It is soldiers from other Asian countries e.g. Japan, who primarily made blood sacrifices to fight western domination of Asia during the Second World War. We were beneficiaries of these sacrifices and battles. We have to acknowledge this support from fellow Asians at some point in time.

Historiography in Sri Lanka is lagging behind the rest of the world. It is a relatively neglected field. In respect to the narrative relating to the Second World War, our Historians have been merely echoing western perspectives and self – serving interpretations instead of carving out a separate original and independent path of research and writing.

It is time that we learn to look at historical events not from the angle of the colonizer but from the angle of those who have resisted foreign occupation both within and outside Sri Lanka.

Senaka Weeraratna

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2156443214572998&set=pb.100006220213882.-2207520000.1549002938.&type=3&theater

                     Senaka Weeraratna

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2156443214572998&set=pb.100006220213882.-2207520000.1549002938.&type=3&theater

Mahinda Gunasekera

Former LTTE cadre who has taken the name of Arun Siddharth is being interviewed on conflicting issues affecting reconciliation between the constituent communities in Sri Lanka by a Sinhala individual for publication in the south.  I found the interview to be quite interesting, and also found that Arun Siddarth was very open and direct in pointing out the flaws in the prevailing system which prevented the true stories getting to the public.  There were simple administrative matters that should be introduced to ensure that Tamil speaking citizens are at least provided with an English version of the correspondence, be it a charge sheet or government notification which is still being issued in Sinhala which the majority of the Tamils do not understand.

He also pointed out that the actions of uniformed officers empowered to deal with the public are properly monitored as otherwise the numerous occasions when they abuse the public, the offending officer will get away while the citizen suffers in silence.

He does not have a communal mind set and wishes to work with members of all communities to solve problems faced by the public and seek justice from the state agencies.

The LINK to the interview is given below.  It is 1 hour and 40 minutes long, and is worth watching it even in instalments as time permits.  MG

https://youtu.be/NUPsOM_wS8c

https://youtu.be/NUPsOM_wS8c

Sugath Samarasinghe

According to the main news item of page one of The Island of 29^th Saturday, there appears to have been some dissatisfaction expressed by the Opposition on some of the selections made by the Constitutional Council for high posts. The Speaker and the Prime Minister had defended the CC in Parliament saying that the recommendations made by them were above board.

Now the way to determine the rightness or otherwise of the persons recommended by the Constitutional Council is by looking at the quality of persons recommended by them to adorn these positions. It is no secret that many people in this country have reservations about the people recommended by the CC. One consistent feature noticeable in these recommendations is that most senior persons have not been selected. We could still be satisfied if the persons selected by them ignoring seniority and merit have been better than the seniors who were overlooked.

Let us look at them. The first appointment under the CC was that of the Attorney General. Mr. Gamlath was the most senior Solicitor General. There was no short comings  in him that we knew of. But he was not selected but a junior was. We noticed those that were selected appeared to be scared of the Government. His successor was no better. We saw how timidly he cross examined the Prime Minister at the Bond Commission. Then he is alleged to have given some wrong advice to the Speaker in another instance. Prior to this, we never had any doubts about the integrity and ability of the AG. We do not think the same of the persons selected by the CC.

The next was the appointment of the IGP. The less we talk of him the better! The present incumbent was appointed over the head of Mr. S.M. Wickramsinghe Snr. DIG. There was no shortcomings on his part that we know of. Need I waste words describing the present incumbent since it is common knowledge? It is clear that he is obviously immature to hold that post. He has put that celebrated post to disrepute. When we laugh at the individual concerned, we must laugh at the people who selected him too.

Now it is the selection of the Chief Justice. Why was the most senior Judge not considered? If this was done there would not have been room for the present dissatisfaction. The explanation given is that her name was not submitted by the President.  My question is, why did the CC not ask the President why he did not? In defense of this, the Prime Minster had asked in his usual laconic way, why Justice Mark Fernando was not made the CJ. The answer is, as far as we know, it was alleged that he was a card carrying member of the UNP. I hope my information is incorrect. Of course the person appointed instead was a disaster! In the same connection, I might also ask the PM. why was  Justice Wanasundera who was the most senior  not made CJ by his uncle JRJ? Not only Wanasundera, JRJ removed Justice Noel Tittawella and Justice Wilmot Gunasekera also from the Supreme Court under the 1978 Constitution. Why was that? They were reputed to be very honourable men who could not be manipulated or intimidated.

Seniority and merit was the age old criterion for promotion to all positions in the Public Service, Judiciary and Overseas’ Service. So was it in all other Government Departments like the Survey Department, Irrigation or Prisons etc. It was well known in those organizations who was the next man due to get to the top, so there was no dispute and there was order: In fact that was part of rule of law and good governance though there was no fanfare or pretence.. So there was very little back biting, ‘IG’s stakes’ or need for political patronage. As a result, these heads of Services did not have to cow down to politicians to seek their patronage. They had room to hold the scales evenly. Therefore people had confidence in the Administrative systems.  This simple principle was what held the Public Service together. It was fair by the aspirants to those positions in that it was well known what the criterion was. At the same time, it was not easy to survive and come close to the top unless one was really good, well experienced and tested in crisis situations. It was also fair by them because they came to the top by dint of hard work and experience to qualify to finally climb to the pinnacle of his organization. That was the legitimate culmination of his career. That is why those position holders were held in esteem even after they had left those posts.

How did all these good systems become inoperative? Only with the 1972 constitution to a lesser extent, and to the full extent under the 1978 constitution which turned the whole thing topsy turvey. And we are now paying the price for it.

The 17^th Amendment and the current provisions under the 19^th Amendment have set up the CC as a panacea to all these problems. But who comprises the present CC? Other than the three civil society members who are in a minority, all others are either politicians or nominees of politicians, of whatever shade. We now know that politicians and impartiality are strangers. So we should know that by sowing green gram we cannot reap rice.

So my submission is that we go back to the simple principle of seniority and merit instead of a Constitutional Council for promotion to high posts.

Another suggestion that I would like to make is that, even if it is now not possible to abolish the Constitutional Council, it should be made incumbent on them to inform an officer, when his seniority and merit is ignored, why he was not selected in preference to a junior. After all, the Constitutional Council also must be accountable. That is in fact, transparency.

Whether that decision could be questioned in court is another matter. Also when the aggrieved parson is a Supreme Court judge whom could she appeal to?

That is why I say that simple principle of seniority and merit is best criterion.

When the time honoured principle of seniority and merit is violated by the CC, I am reminded of that famous poem in the Kavyasekeraya:

Maga hondata thibenam

Yanta deasath penenam

Kima bedi wala yanne

Mang mulaa woo kenek se?”

When the path is clearly visible

If one’s eyesight is also ok

Why does one have to walk the thicket

Like a man who has lost his way?”   

Sugath Samarasinghe

ආචාර්ය දසරත් ජයසූරිය සභාපති ‘ස්පර්‘ මාධ්‍යය නිවේදනය – ජනවාරි 2019

ශ්‍රී ලoකා ‘ඔරුමිත්ත නාඩුව’ – යෝජිත ව්‍යවස්ථාව හඳුන්වාදෙන මැඩපැවැත්විය නොහැකි ෆෙඩරල් රාජ්‍යය

ශ්‍රී ලoකාවේ සාමය, ඒකීය භාවය සහ මානව අයිතීන් රැකීම උදෙසා, දැනට අවුරුදු  විස්සකට අධික කාලයක් ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ  සිට කටයුතු කරනු ලබන, දේශහිතෛශී ශ්‍රී ලාoකිකයින්ගෙන් සැදුම්ලත්  ‘ස්පර්’ නමින් හදුන්වන අප සoවිධානය, ශ්‍රී ලoකාව තුල හා ඉන් පිටත සැදුම්ලත් එවන් ජාතික සoවිධාන  සමග එක්ව,  මෑතකදී අගමැති රනිල් වික්‍රමසිoහ මහතා විසින් ව්‍යවස්ථාධායක සභාවට ඉදිරිපත්කරනලද, මුළුමනින්ම රටට අහිතකර, ව්‍යවස්ථා සoශෝධන තරයේ ප්‍රතික්ශේප කරයි.

නව ව්‍යවස්ථා නිර්දේශ මගින්, රාජ්‍ය ව්‍යුහය ‘ඒකීය’ බවට ප්‍රකාශ කරමින් වත්මන් ව්‍යවස්ථා වේ ඉoග්‍රීසි පිටපතේ ඇති, අන්තර්ජාතික ලෙස පිළිගැනෙන සාම්ප්‍රදායික නිශ්චිත අර්ථයක් ඇති ‘යුනිටරි’ සහ දෙමළ පිටපතේ ඇති ‘ඒකීය රාජ්‍යය ‘ පදයට සම අරුත් ඇති ‘ඔට්ට්‍රිඅච්චි’ පදයන් ඉවත්කොට ‘එක්සත් රාජ්‍යය ‘ (ෆෙඩරල්) අරුත දෙන ‘ඔරුමිත්ත නාඩු’ යන පදය, ඉතාමත් කූට අන්දමින්, ඉoග්‍රීසි සහ සිoහල පිටපත්වලට පවා ඇතුළත් කරඇත.

නව ව්‍යවස්ථා නිර්දේශ මගින්, මෙතෙක් පළාත් සභාවලට නොවූ රාජ්‍ය ඉඩම් හා මූල්‍ය කටයුතු ඇතුලත්, විධායක හා නීති සම්පාදක බලතල රාශියක් පැවරේ. වත්මන් සමගාමී ලැයිස්තුව ඉවත්කිරීම හෝ සීමාකිරීම හා සoවෘත ලැයිස්තුවේ විෂයයන් සීමා කෙරේ.

ශ්‍රී ලoකා පොලීසිය, ජාතික සහ පළාත් වශයෙන් බෙදා ඇති අතර එක් එක් පළාතට වෙන්වූ පොලීසි පවත්වා ගෙන යෑමට විධිවිධාන සැලසේ. ඵමගින් ත්‍රස්තවාදී කටයුතු,  මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය ජාවාරම් හා සoවිධානාත්මක මහා පරිමාණයේ  අපරාධ වැනි දෑ පිළිබඳ මෙහෙයුම් කටයුතු අවහිර කෙරේ. තවද, බෙදුම්වාදී නායකයින්ට තම පළාත්බද පොලීසිය දිවයිනේ අනෙකුත් සන්නද්ධ සේවාවන්ට එරෙහිවීම දක්වා, තමන්ගේ අරමුණු වෙනුවෙන් අයතා අන්දමට යොදවා ගැනීමට මගපෑදේ.

ශ්‍රී ලoකාවේ සමස්ත ජනතාවගේ අනුමැතියකින් තොරව, උතුරු හා නැගෙනහිර පළාත්වාසීන්ගේ එකඟතාවය පමණක් ලබාගෙන එම පළාත් ඒකාබද්ධ කොට බෙදුම්වාදීන්ගේ දෙමළ නිජබිම් සoකල්පය නීතිගත කිරීමට ඉඩකඩ සැලසේ.

ප්‍රධාන වශයෙන්  පළාත්බද නියෝජිතයෙන්ගෙන් සමන්විත (80% ට වැඩි), එහෙත් නිශේධ බලය මධ්‍යම ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකයට යෙදවිය හැකි දෙවන මන්ත්‍රණ සභාවක් මගින්  රටේ ඒකීයභාවය තවදුරටත් දියාරු කෙරේ. රටේ ආරකෂාව ඇතුළු පැවැත්මට අදාල අනපනත් සම්මත කරගැනීමේදී පක්ෂග්‍රාහී, විශේෂයෙන්ම වාර්ගික  බෙදුම්වාදී නියෝජනය වැඩිවීම හේතුවෙන් මධ්‍යම ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකයේ ක්‍රියාවලිය අක්‍රිය වීමට උවද ඉඩ තිබේ.

වත්මන් ව්‍යවස්ථාව අනුව, විධායක ජනාධිපති මුළු රටේම ජනතාව විසින් (ජාති, ආගම් හෝ එවන් උවමනාවලින් තොරව) තෝරා පත්කෙරේ. එසේ පත්කෙරෙන ජනාධිපති, දිවයින පුරා ‘ජනතා පරමාධිපත්‍යය’ පවත්වා ගැනීමේදී,  පළාත්සභාවලට ඉහලින්,  පළාත් ආණ්ඩුකාරවරුන් හරහා තම විධායක බලය ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීම තුලින් වත්මන් 13වන               සo ශෝ ධනයේ බෙදුම්වාදී ලක්ෂණ වලකාලීමට හැකිව ඇත. මෑතකදී සිට බලඅරගල උදෙසා පාර්ලිමේන්තුව තුල හා ඉන්පිටත සිදුවෙමින් පවත්නා දෙශපාලන මෙහෙයුම්, මූල්‍ය අක්‍රමිකථා හා විදේශ බලපෑම් හා සැසදීමේදී,   නිර්දේශකර ඇති පරිදි,  නාමික ජනාධිපතිවරයෙකු වුවද, මන්ත්‍රණ සභාවල මන්ත්‍රීන්ගේ ඡන්දයෙන් තෝරා පත්කරගැනම කිසිසේත්ම සිදුනොකල යුතුවේ.

නව ව්‍යවස්ථා නිර්දේශ මගින්, පළාත්සභාවලට ඉහලින් නියෝගදීමේ හැකියාව ඇති විධායක ජනාධිපති දුරය අහෝසිවී පළාත්සභාවල විධායක බලය ප්‍රධාන ඇමතිට සහ ඔහුගේ ඇමති මණ්ඩලයට හිමිවී පළාත් ආණ්ඩුකාරවරයා පළාත් අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයේ උපදෙස් මත ක්‍රියාකරන්නෙක් බවට පත්වේ. සවිමත් මධ්‍යම රජයක් හා විධායක ජනාධිපති පාලන ක්‍රමයක්  ශ්‍රී ලoකාවේ වූ හෙයින්,  තිස්වසරක බෙදුම්වාදී ත්‍රස්තවාදය පරදවා උතුරු-නැගෙනහිර පළාත් ත්‍රස්තවාදීන්ගේ පාලනයෙන් මුදවා ගැනීමටත්, වරක් තාවකාලිකව එක්කර සෑදූ උතුර-නැගෙනහිර පළාත්සභාව,  එම සභාවට තේරීපත්වූ පළමුවෙනි මහඇමති වර්දරාජා පෙරුමාල්,  එම පළාත් නිදහස්  රාජ්‍යයක් බවට  ඒකපාක්ෂික ප්‍රකාශයක් කර වෙන්කර ලීමට ගත් උත්සහය නතර කිරීමටත් හැකිවූ බැව් අප අමතක කලයුතු නොවේ.

මහත් පැටළිලි සහිත යෝජිත මැතිවරණ ක්‍රියාවලිය තුලින් නියම ජනතා නියෝජනයක් සිදුනොවනු පෙනේ. පළාත්බද නියෝජිතයෙන්ගෙන් සමන්විත දෙවන මන්ත්‍රණ සභාවක් පිහිටුවීමෙන් ඉසිලීමට සිදුවන මූල්‍ය බරට අමතරව,  උතුරු පළාතට පමණක් නියමිත ආසන ප්‍රමාණයට වැඩි සoඛ්‍යාවක් ලබාදීම මගින් බෙදුම්වාදීන් පිනවීමට ගන්නා උත්සාහය මැනවින් පෙනීයයි.

බුද්ධාගමට ප්‍රමුඛස්ථානය ලබාදිය යුතු බවට වත්මන් ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ සඳහන් 9වන වගන්තිය, කපටි අන්දමින් වෙනස් කොට, අනෙකුත් ආගම්ද ‘වෙන්කොට සැලකීමෙන් තොරව’ යන වචන යොදා, බුද්ධාගමට ලබාදී ඇති ප්‍රමුඛස්ථානය අහිමි කර ඇත.

මීට අමතරව වත්මන් ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ තිබෙන,  රට දෙකඩ කිරීමට විරුද්ධ, ශ්‍රී ලoකා වේ දේශ සීමව, ජාතික ගීය හා අදාල වගන්ති දුර්වල, අකර්මණ්‍ය හෝ වෙනස් කිරීමට යෝජනාවේ. මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් පිළිබඳ පරිච්ඡේදයටද, අන්‍යාගමිකකරණය, සමලිoගික ක්‍රියා නීතිගත කිරීම හා විදේශිකයිනට පුරවැසිභාවය ලබාදීම ආදී බරපතළ සoශෝධන ගණනාවක් කිරීමට යෝජනා වී තිබේ.

යෝජිත ව්‍යවස්ථා නිර්දේශ වලට එරෙහිව කිසිදු අදහස් දැක්වීමක් හෝ විකල්ප යෝජනාවක් හෝ නොකිරීමෙන් එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය, එම පක්ෂයේ සම්පූර්ණ අනුමැතිය පෙන්වා තිබේ. තවද එම යෝජනාවලට දෙමළ ජාතික සන්ධානය, ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණ, ශ්‍රී ලoකා රාඡ්‍යය දුර්වල කිරීමට බලා සිටින විදේශ බලවේග මත යැපෙන රාඡ්‍ය නොවන ආයතන  ආදීන් තම සහයෝගය පෙන්වා ඇත. වාසනාවකට, මොවුන්ගේ කූට අරමුණු පිළිබඳව දේශහිමාමක ජාතික සoවිධාන, විද්වතුන් සහ මහා සoඝරත්නය වසින් ජනතාව දැනුවත් කරමින් සිටී.

දැනට වර්ෂ තුන හමාරකට පෙර තේරී පත්වූ වත්මන් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ සoයුතිය තවදුරටත් රටේ ජනතා අභිලාෂයන් නිරූපනය නොවන බව ‘ස්පර්’ සoවිධානය තරයේ විස්වාශ කරයි. වත්මන් වික්‍රමසිoහ පාලනය තවදුරටත් රැඳී පවතින්නේ දෙමළ ජාතික සන්ධානය සහ ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණ මත බැව් නොරහසකි. පසුගිය 2018 පෙබරවාරි මස පවත්වන ලද  පළාත්පාලන මැතිවරණ යේ ප්‍රතිථල  එම පාලනය ලබා ඇති ජනප්‍රියතාවයේ පහල මට්ටම  පෙන්වා දෙයි. ශ්‍රී ලoකා ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ යම් වෙනස්කම් අවශ්‍ය වුවද, අවශ්‍ය  වෙනස්කම් ඉදිරි මැතිවරණයකදී ජනතාවට ඉදිරිපත් කොට ලබන ජනතා වරමක් සහිතව තේරී පත්වන රජයකින් කල යුතුවේ.

එබැවින් විධායක ජනාධිපති පාලනක්‍රමය අහෝසි කරන හෝ ඒකීය රාජ්‍ය ව්‍යුහය දියාරු කරන සියලු ප්‍රයත්නයන්ට එරෙහි වන මෙන් ඒකාබද්ධ විපක්ෂය, ශ්‍රී ලoකා නිදහස් පක්ෂය  සහ අනෙකුත් සියලු පක්ෂවල දේශප්‍රේමී නියෝජීතයින් ගෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටිමු. 

ආචාර්ය දසරත් ජයසූරිය

සභාපති

By Charles S.Perera

Change of Regime in 2015 was for Sri Lanka  a march backwards from progress and development in  all aspects of life beginning from the elimination of a terrorism that lasted a thirty years of untold suffering  a nation could have faced.  Above all it was a backward  march from its Sinhala Buddhist historical past, its unique identity.

It was a paradox that the transition began by  a Buddhist monk Venerable Sobhitha thero. But once the change was initiated he did not live long enough to see the negative results coming from that change. The change came with a direct attack to Buddhism and  even today four years after the change, it is Buddhism that is still  being directly attacked.

Apart from the serious economic calamity the country faced with the government itself robbing its own Central Bank, the most negatively affected was its  legal system which has completely lost its Sri Lankan identity. Sri Lankan identity is first and foremost in its Sinhala Buddhist Culture and any direct or indirect attack of it changes the whole of what Sri Lanka is,  and if the people were to subscribe to that change we may as well call Sri Lanka hence forward Orumitta Nadu, and say good bye to the 2600 years of our historic past.

It is time at least now that we realise  the Independence from British colonial rule in  February,1948, was not regaining  our ancient values which were there before the country was colonised by  the Portuguese, then the Dutch  and finally the British. Though SWRD Bandaranaike was able to recover the ancient Sinhala national values, it was partial and Sri Lanka was never what it had been before the advent of the  Colonialists.

Seventy years after the end of colonialism, the administration, and the legal system did not change its colonial character. We have inherited a social class mentally imbibed with the colonial culture, which it values over and  above the  ancient Sinhala Buddhits culture we inherited from our forefathers. We were also impeded by Communal conflicts, from bringing  the country and the people to accept the  ancient Buddhist Cultural values including the Sinhala language we had sacrificed when we were forced  to accept foreign  values that came along with different colonial administrations beginning from 1505.

The result is that we are still slavishly and mentally bound to English colonial values , and that is very much seen in our  legal system where the Judges still wear the English Wig and Cloak and the lawyers the black  tie , coat and the black English Cloak.  For our Universities a convocation ceremony for passing out Graduates is incomplete  without  the black cloak and the mortarboard. With these values that still mark the social status and academic achievements ancient Buddhist values have taken a backseat.

It is in this background that we have to see the change that took place on the 19 January,2015 with Ranil Wickramasinghe swearing in as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. That change pushed backwards the ancient pre-colonial values that SWRD Bandaranayake had tried to bring back, and Mahinda Rajapakse commenced to revitalise after eliminating 30 years of suffering under terrorism.

But with the change of regime in January,2015, the Colonial values have come back, while  ancient Buddhist values have been cast aboard. In 1956 SWRD initiated a change to get back the lost Sinhala Buddhist values, but he was snatched from the nation too early. Mahinda Rajapakse too helped to go a long way forward, but neither had he the time necessary  to bring changes to the Sri Lanka Legal System.

The white wigged black cloaked Speaker of the Parliament and the Judges sitting in  judgment with laws still fit for Colonial times , pay scant respect to ancient Buddhist Values  of Sri Lanka with which it was nurtured  for thousands of years,

The concept of every one is equal  before the law  now included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is followed to the letter by the very British white wigged judges in our  law courts. But in Sri Lanka a country marked by its  Sinhala Buddhist beginning there should have been a change in the rule of law at least with  regard to the offence of contempt of Court.

In the application of the law in Sri Lanka an exception should have been made to the Buddhist Clergy in view of the Constitutional protections  given to  Buddhism  which  is the religion which  was there before the advent of the believers of Hinduism , Christianism and Islamism.

For the Sinhala Buddhist who venerates the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, the Buddhist Monks are the third Jewel  after the Buddha and Dhamma. There is none equal to them. Therefore to hold them as criminals for a contempt of Court is an insult to the Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha the three jewels the Sinhala Buddhist majority hold sacred.

No layman has the right to accuse a Buddhist Monk for a Common Law Crime. If a Monk Commits a murder, he should first be reported to the Maha Sangha and disrobed by them before taken into Custody.   If a monk scolds” or  shouts” at some one in the precincts of a court, he has only spoken harsh words and it cannot be termed a crime and a Buddhist Monk should not be  remanded or imprisoned forcing him to disrobe, on that account as he cannot put in the position of a layman. A Buddhist Monk has all the right speak in defence of his country.

The Law should stand out side and allow the Maha Sangha to deal with an offence committed by a Buddhist monk. A Buddhist Monk in Sri Lanka should never be taken to custody by the police, and any accusation should be made before the representative of the Maha Sangha.

The persons present in a Court got up when the Bailiff called out them to do so historically because the Judge carried the Bible when entering the Court, – and he was the representative of the King or Queen.  It was also to respect the Court house where the judge holds out the law.   In Sri Lanka a Buddhist Monk is above any lay person, and if he does not stand up when a judge walks in  he is not being disrespectful.

Before the change of Regime in January,2015, there was at least one occasion when a Buddhist Monk Present in Court was held for contempt of Court for not having stood up when the Judge came into the Court. These are matters that should have been settled when Sri Lanka became independent and had to organise customs and ceremonies coming down from colonial days  to suit Sri Lanka’s own cultural background.

There is no necessity for a new Constitution to Sri Lanka now. We can continue with the  1978 Constitution,  but an amendment  should be prepare to ascertain the protection for the Buddha Dhamma Sangha to provide them immunity from Law, and making it a Criminal Charge to do any act that would be an insult to Buddha, such as  defacing or damaging Buddha Statues and harm the person of a Buddhist Monk by way of insults or assaults.

In the meantime Venerable Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Maha Thero should be released from imprisonment and  an apology should be tendered   to him on behalf of the Sinhala Buddhists for all the inconveniences caused  to him and for  desecrating the Buddha Dhamma and Sangha  through his imprisonment and forcing him to disrobe during the period of his imprisonment.

R Chandrasoma

In this forlorn country, the need of the hour is the intellectual upliftment not only of elites but ordinary people so as to better shape their lives ‘in an age of great socio-economic challenge. Adult education – the belief that the dynamic shaping of body and mind is a lifelong process – lies at the heart of such ameliorative process. How can adults be educated outside or beyond the walls, boundaries, or precincts of an organized unit such as a school or University? Self-study through the reading of books is, of course, a prime means of advancing intellectually but – at least in this country – serious book reading is in sharp decline. The electronic media has become the prime source not only of entertainment and sensory titillation but also act as ‘information pumps’ that – more often than not – trivially entertain rather than educate. The point to stress is that it could be otherwise – the electronic media could be a powerful means of boosting adult education through exposure to languages and cultures that cut through the insularity and pig-headedness of native ways.

The case of the Western Service of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation is most apposite in this connection. While this organization could have been a prime instrument in bridging two cultures and serving the nation as a  public educator, it has chosen another path – a purveyor of cheap Western (Cow-Boy) music to ageing native juveniles. Its programmes other than music are loyal political and religious apologias delivered in poor English. The Learned and dispassionate argument is a lost art in this country and the supine broadcasts of the SLBC reflect this infirmity.   The clear remedy is to reintroduce the relay of BBC transmissions – especially the transcription service – where scholarly subjects are discussed by experts in illuminating ways that should serve as a model for aspiring locals. As an aside, how is the name of our native land pronounced? Is it ShriLanker or Sri -Lung -Car?

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

 SriLanka History

It is not professed to go through history. Please read all my articles in www.nrnmind.blogspot.com. Whatever, in short, Tamils came 1700 years after the Sinhalese, with Magha who was not a Tamil. Ref;(i) https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vijaya-king-of-Sri-Lanka. (ii) https://www.britannica.com/place/Sri-Lanka/History#ref388477

It is requested that all Tamils read this article and digest to understand what is said here whether Tamils demand is justifiable from the perspective of social & economic justice and NOT get worked up reading the myths and truths of the SriLankan history. Federal System for a small island like SriLanka will drive the ethnic communities to a high risk of social and economic disintegration and generate a rebirth of terrorism on another 30-year horizon. An example is South Sudan and other mushroom banana republics that is driving locals to take boats to European countries.

Jaffna

The Kings of Jaffna were so hot-headed, impulsive in nature that they only believed in Brahminism, Vellalar and caste differentials. Some kings were known as Pandarams, who was not a high caste, but second in the hierarchy with the inborn skill to kill people. Ref; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jaffna_monarchs.

They did not show interest in development, integrated farming. They wanted isolated jobs and live in pockets. Unlike the North, the South was rich and knowledgeable. Agriculture was integrated with the kings showing interest in building tanks, channels etc. The Jaffna kings were fed from South India. Even now Tamils go to Tamil Nadu to get degrees / higher degrees in Tamil, religion etc. This route made the guys lazy and not show any interest in development. Most of the Nallur settlers are not Tamils but Aryans, Parthians etc. To generalize, Tamils were lazy but avidity for power and comfortable living.

Since the North is a composition of missed races from South India, the kings wanted to separate them via a method which gave them the path to form the caste structure. Even today the man with power has the say. The people with power were elevated to the higher caste and others were ordered to do menial work. The different racial status added to this concept. The root cause is the majority of the people in the north were non-Vellalar/ Pandarams. These Vellalar hence were a minority race. 

The British, whatever they do, had a philosophy to engage effective and efficient people to work. To the Tamil elite, caste is more important than their skill. This made the Tamil elites to suck into the British and go for higher education to the UK.

SJVC was a foreigner. Naganathan was born and bred in Tamil Nadu. They rushed into SriLanka to embrace power before the independence. 

North was like a Jungle until the Portuguese arrived in 1905 and the British. After the British arrived the lower caste people received some support for studies, jobs, and respectable living. However, in the bush areas, they were oppressed by the Pandarams. The social condition and the society were not of human, but woeful & pathetic like that of Jungle animals with five senses.

SriLanka government on independence gave all the help for all citizens with no differentiation of race, which gave most Tamils to go for higher studies. Even then getting into good schools by the lower cast youngsters was impossible. 

The elites calculating shrewd strategy was to consolidate all by the conception of Federalism and Tamil Eelam. The poor illiterate Lower caste Tamils were fooled and confused by this outset, and they could not understand the danger and the plot behind this scheme. All the imbecilic fools from day 1 after independence since the day of propagation by SJV Chelvanayagam passionately and vigorously supported this model. People in Jaffna are finding it difficult to relieve themselves from this model of Federalism with lack of understanding behind the plot of caste-oriented discrimination and oppression. Until today the fanatics want to retain the name FEDERAL PARTY”. 

In 2013, CV Wigneswaran, Mavai Senathirajah, and Sambanthar & Co discovered that all the elite’s future will be wrecked and fragmented if they let the non-elites get all the benefits from the SriLankan government. Supporting the Federal Party by all can only be done through intoxication and intimidation, which if they have the Police and Land power.   

From 1948 the FP studied and concluded that unless power is transferred to them, the lower caste Tamils will be elevated and may displace the Tamil elites. It is SriLanka who looked after the lower caste Tamils and today most of them were able to study and get decent jobs, while some concentrated on farming, fishing, and cottage industry. JR Jayawardhane and Rajiv Gandhi failed in 1987 by amendment to Provincials Councils without comprehending the danger they are faced with respect to India and SriLanka. This is like people having a chicken brain. Chicken brain lacks most of the psychological characteristics we recognize in other intelligent animals and considered to possess a low level of intelligence compared with other animals. Where and why they failed is they did not have the vision to foresee the danger they are faced with on a 25-year horizon. 

It is now considered that the LTTE local and oversea teams are a talented set of bunches to have formulated a strategy to propagate their vision through a pertinent mission. Maybe the planning strategy of Anton Balasingham. Tamil Diaspora has understood that it is them who can deliver either Federalism or Tamil Eelam. Tamils are all over the continents of Europe, America, and Russia. Every country they are influencing the local governments to help them by propagating lies of discrimination and oppression. 

What will happen if Police and Land power is transferred to the Provinces?

Tamils; they consider that Vellalar means; landowners, all others and Shudras (workers). This is the reason they want Land power” so that they can manipulate settlements based on caste and continue to hold that profound prestige monarchy concept. This will result in Sinhalese people settlement or buying land in the North.

Police Power; Police means power. Power can make people listen and support the government. Political enemies can be castrated with the help of police by whirling false charges, which is what happens with the GOSL now.

THEREFORE, POLICE AND LAND POWER IS IMPORTANT TO THE TAMIL ELITES TO ACHIEVE TAMIL EELAM TARGET ON A 20 YEAR HORIZON. POLICE PERSONNEL MAY BE USED TO GIVE BIRTH TO ANOTHER TERRORIST FRONT IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS. CASTE SEGREGATION CAN BE ACHIEVED VIA LAND POWER. TAMIL EELAM TARGET IS DEFINITELY ACHIEVABLE WITH POLICE AND LAND POWER WITHIN A SHORT TIME. TAMIL NADU WILL EXTEND THEIR MORAL AND PHYSICAL SUPPORT TO THE BANDITS.

Caste Differential

For example, since the NPC was created and assumed power; Who held the Chief Minister position? Are there any lower caste people in the NPC secretariat as government employees? Other than Sivajilingham, is there any other non-elites in the Council? Do we think that there are no non-elites who are not fit to be in politics? Even the local NGOs; which areas are they concentrating on helping the poor? It is all to do with the elite caste orphans who are handicapped, depressed, displaced. Even the NGOs holding the portfolio with elite caste members want to help their caste orphans. Whatever it is, it is the caste differential that crawls in to show sympathy and affection. An elite caste local NGO will turn a blind eye to the lower caste orphans.

Political parties were based on caste difference.

Terrorist fronts were based on caste front.

In the LTTE structure; Most of the elites were placed to do admin and boss work and the poor lower caste Karawa were placed in the battlefront. Most deaths occurred within the Karawa people. Catholic Karawa boys and girls were sent to the war front and made suicide squadrons.

TNA constitutes of mostly from elite caste.

 Please visit the following web and study the number of terrorist fronts based on caste.

https://sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/05-05_LTTE_30th.php?uid=1720

To be concluded in 11.2

චාර්ල්ස් එස් පෙරේරා විසින්

නීතිඥයෝ කියාගන්න සල්ලිවලට රට විකුනන්න තරම් ලැජ්ජාවක් නැති  ඇන් ජී ඕ  නඩයක් ජනාධිපතිතුමාට ගලගොඩ අත්තේ  ඥානසාර තෙරුන්වහන්සේට ජනාධිපති සමාව දිය නොයුතුයි කරුණු ඉදිරිපත් කරන්න බලාපොරෝත්තු වෙනවා.  උන් අතර ලංකාවට ඔරුමිත්ත නාඩු යි නම් කරන්න යෝජනාකරන ලාල් විජේනායකත් ඉන්නවා.

මෙන්න මේ  සිංහල ජාතියේ  හතුරෝ. ලාල් විජේනායක, කේ එස් රත්නවේල්, ජේ සී වැලි අමුණ,සුදර්ශන ගුනවර්ධන , සුදත් නෙත්තසින්හ,ප්‍රභෝධා රත්නායක, හරිස්කේ සමරනයක මුන් ප්‍රජාචන්ද්‍රවාදය සඳහා පෙනීසිටින නීතිනඥයෝ කියාගන්න සල්ලිවලට රට විකුනන්න ඇන් ජී ඕ  නඩයක්. මුන්වගේම ජනතාවට මේ විනාශකාරී රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ ගේ ආණ්ඩුව එළවදමන්ට ලැබුණු ප්‍රජාචන්ද්‍ර අයිතිය උදුරාගත් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයෙ නඩුකාර හත් කට්ටලයත් ජාතියේ හතුරන් මෙන් උන්ගේ නම් ගල්වල කොටන්න ඕනේ අනාගත පරම්පරාවට දැනගන්න.

මේ නීතීඥයෝ කියාගන්න ඇන් ජී ඕ  නඩය කියනවා  ගලගොඩ අත්තේ ඥානසාර හිමියන්ට ජනාධිපති සමාව ලැබීමේ අවස්තාවක් තියෙනවා  කියන ආරංචිය  පිළිබඳව කලබල යට පත්ව මේ හාමුදුරුවන්ගේ  කලබල කාරී කලහකාරී  හැසිරීම පිළිබඳව හා ජාතිවාදී බද්ද වයිරය පිළිබඳව ත් ජාතිවාදය  හා ආගම්වාදය අවුස්සන  දීර්ග ඉතිහාසයක් තියෙන නිසා  මේ හාමුදුරුවන් එක්නැලිගොඩ  නොනාමහත්මියට උසාවියේදී කල තර්ජන පිළිබඳව උසාවියට අගවුරවකිරිම සඳහා පමණක් දඬුවමක් දීම හැරුනුකොට වෙන බලවත් නීතිමය දඬුවමක් නොදීම පිළිබඳව කණගාටුවන අතර ඔහුට සමාව දීමට විරුද්ධව ජනාධිපති තුමාට කරුණු ඉදිරිපත් කරන්නට යයි.  

මේ ජාතියේ හතුරෝ කියනවා ඥාණසාර හාමුදුරුවන්ට සමාව දීමෙන්  නීතිමය හා ව්‍යවස්තාමය ගැටළු ඇතිවෙනවාය කියා.  ඊට පස්සේ  උන්වහන්සේ ට විරුද්ධව ගෙන ඇති චෝදනා ගණනාවක් හා උන්වහන්සේගේ අපරාධකාරී ජාතිවාදී හැසිරීම හා අලුත්ගම කැරලි කෝලාහලවලට  තුබූ සම්භන්දය  සඳහන් කරනවා.   ඊළඟට කියනවා ජනාධිපති සමාවක් දීමේදී  මේ චෝදනා පරීක්ෂාකර නීතිපතිවරයාගෙන් හා නීතිය පිලිබඳ ඇමතිතුමියගෙන් රපොර්තුවක් ලබාගතයුතුබව, එසේ නැතුව මේ චුදිතයාට සමාව දීමෙන් එය ජනතාව උසාවිය කෙරෙහි ඇති  ගෞරවය නැතිවීමට හෙතුවියහැකි නරක ආදර්ශයක් වියහැකියයි සඳහන්කරනවා. එසේ සමාවක් දීම දඬුවමක් නොලැබීමේ  සංස්කෘතියක් බවට පත්වීමට හෙතු විය හැකියයි  පවසනවා.

මුන්  කියනවා බුද්ධසාසන අමාත්‍යවරයා නොයෙකුත් ප්‍රභූවරුන්ගේ ලියකියවිලි  සමග ඥාණසාර හිමියන්ට සමාව දෙනමෙන් ඉල්ලා ඇති ජනාධිපති තුමාට යැවු ලිපිය දැක පුදුමයට පත් උනබව . ඔවුන් කියනවා බුද්ධසාසන අමාත්‍යවරයාට එහෙම ලිපියක් යැවීමට කිසිම නීතිමය අයිතියක් නැතිලු.  උන් කියනවා මේක  තමන්ගේම  තර්ජනාත්මක හැසිරීම නිසා  දඬුවම් ලැබූ  සිරකරුවෙකු මුදාහැරීමට කරන ප්‍රයත්නයක් නිසා නීතිපති වරයාගේ දෙපාරත මෙන්තුවටත් අධිකරණයටත් බලවත් හානියක් නින්දාවක් වියහැකිලු.

මේ නිසා උන් ජනාධිපතිවරයාට කියාසිටිනවා මේ සිරකාරයා නිදහස්කිරීමෙන් එක්නැලිගොඩ ගේ අතුරුදහන් වීමේ නඩුවට හා වෙනත්  දේශපාලන නඩුවලට විශේෂයෙන්ම යුද හමූදාව සම්බන්ධ නඩුවලට  බලපාන බැවින් හා මෙවැනි සිරකරුවෙකුට නිදහස දීමෙන්  එය විත්ති කරුවන්ටත් දඬුවම් වලට වැරදිකරුවන්වී සිටින වුන්ටත් නීතිය පිළිබඳව කලකිරීමක් ඇතිවීමට හෙතිවිය හැකි නිසා   ඥාණසාර නමැති සිරකරුවාට විශේෂත්වයක් දක්වා ජනාධිපති සමාව දිය නොයුතුයි දන්වනවා.

ඥාණසාර  හිමියන්ට එහෙම  සමාවක් දුන්නොත් ඊට විරුද්ධව ජනාධිපති තුමාගේ බලය අනිසිලෙස යෙදවීමට විරුද්ධව හැම විධියෙන්ම කටයුතු කරන්න පෙලගැහෙනවායයි මේ නීතිනඥයෝ කියාගන්න සල්ලිවලට රට විකුනන්න තරම් ලැජ්ජාවක් නැති  ඇන් ජී ඕ  නඩය සඳහන් කරනවා.

මෙන්න අද රටේ නීතිය පවතින හැටි. ජාතියක් ආගමක් නැති සල්ලිවලට ඕනෑ විලි ලජ්ජා  දෙයක් කරන්න සුදානම් එක එකාට කත් අදින බොරුවට ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍ර වාදයගැන කතා කරන මෙවුන් තමා  අද ලංකාවේ නීතිය සදාචාරය සාමය ආරක්ශා කරනවා කියන බොරුවෙන් ජීවත්වෙන සිංහලයෝ, සුමන්දිරම්  සම්බන්ධන්, විග්නේස්වරන් මනෝ ගනේසන්  වැනි ද්‍රවිඩ හැත්ත උන්ගේ ද්‍රවිඩ ජාතිය ආරක්ෂාකරගෙන  රටත් දෙකඩකරන්න සුදානම් වෙනකොට මේ සිංහල කියාගන්න මෝඩ හැත්ත  ජාතිය ආගම  කිසිම චකිතයක් නැතිව දෙමළුන්ට පාවාදෙන්න සුදානම්.   මෙවුන්ටද රටට ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් හදන වගකීම බාරදීලා තියෙන්නේ ?

රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහගේ විනාශාකාරි  ආණ්ඩුව හා ආණ්ඩුවේ ගැත්තන් එළවා දමන්න සිංහල බෞද්ධ යෝ   දැන් දැන්ම පෙළගැසී සිටිය යුතුය.  මුන්ගේ දෙඩවිලිවලට කන්නොදී  ජනාධිපති තුමා ගලගොඩ අත්තේ  ඥානසාර තෙරුන්වහන්සේට ජනාධිපති සමාව දිය යුතුය. එය අපේ ආගම ජාතියට කරන යුතුකමක්.

JANAKI CHANDRARATNA

Constitutionality of the Constitutional Assembly is a topic much debated in recent times. It is an understatement to say that Sri Lankans are in a state of exhaustion with interpretations of the current constitution, since the dissolution of Parliament on 9 November 2018. An introduction of a new constitution without identifying the discrepancies of the existing one would no doubt be a disaster at this stage.

The ill-timed tabling of the proposed constitutional changes, which political analysts claim to have the potential to dismember the sovereign state of Sri Lanka, to nine independent states has not done the govt. any favors in recent times. People are concerned about the purpose of the Constitutional Assembly, when the Parliament could have appointed a Committee of recognized experts to draft the constitution. The Terms of Reference of the Constitutional Assembly or its powers are not discussed or informed to the electorate in any forum. There is a suspicion that a 2/3 majority in the Constitutional Assembly could bypass the referendum process required for a new constitution. The PM however is keen to go through to a vote in parliament on the controversial proposed changes despite the disapproval of some of its own party members. This can be due to his confidence to win over the dissenting MPS for monetary considerations, which was said to have taken place for the proof of majority in parliament in the aftermath of the dissolution. Needless to say that no democracy can be saved, if MPS can shift their election party policies for considerations other than those approved by the people.

The latest strategy of the Govt. is to form another ‘National Govt.’ to attract MPS for increased ministerial positions, purportedly to get a 2/3 vote for the draft constitution changes. The Leader of the House has extended an invitation to all parties to join the national govt. if they are keen to protect democracy while providing relief to people and paying off the loans obtained by Mahinda Rajapaksa government”, (Island Newspaper, 1 Feb. 2019).

It is clear that the govt. has not learnt from the last 3-year yahapalana experience or from the humiliating defeat at the last local govt. elections. Instead of changing course of direction they continue to treat the masses as asses. Sri Lankans with an exposure to 60 years of independence are aware of the fact that there cannot be any democracy when their right to elections is denied over a prolonged period of time. The talk of bringing relief to the people in the final year and a half of governance with the current govt.’s failed economic strategies is nothing but a pie in the sky. The average citizen is also aware that increased loan payments are because of excessive govt. borrowings in the last 3 years and not solely due to Rajapaksa loans.

If the Govt. is keen to bring in a new constitution to protect democracy and its people, it needs to explain to the constituents the Constitutional Assembly processes that would be adopted after the parliamentary debate. This is important to alleviate the fears of bypassing the referendum requirements in case of a 2/3 vote.  After all the 19^th amendment, which curtailed significant presidential powers was passed without a referendum!

It appears the new constitution is to appease the minorities for their support at the next election. The majority however, awaits in earnest for an explanation as to why sections 2 and 9 that deal with the unitary status of the state and the place given to Buddhism respectively were amended, if there is no intention to change the current status. Further, if the tabled document is not a draft constitution, why was a 2017 report of the steering committee of the Constitutional Assembly, which has had comments from all participating political parties, presented as a new expert panel report in 2019?

මාධ්‍ය නිවේදනය  මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂ විපක්‍ෂ නායක

 වර්තමාන රජයේ අත්තනෝමතික සහ අදූරදර්ශී ක්‍රියා මාර්ග නිසා ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ආර්ථිකයට විශාල ආදායමක් උපයා දෙන රේගු දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේ කටයුතු මේ මොහොතේ අඩපණ වී ඇත. ජනාධිපති වරයාගේ අදහස්වලටද ඇහුම්කන් නොදී මේ ආකාරයට හිතුවක්කාරී ලෙස රජය කටයුතු කිරීම පිළිබඳව අපට පැති කිහිපයකින් සැක පහල වේ. පසුගිය වසර දෙක, තුන තුළ රේගු දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේද ඇතැම් වංචා හා දූෂණ සිදුවී ඇති බව වාර්ථා වී ඇත. එම දූෂණ සහ අක්‍රමිකතා පසුපසින් ඇතැම් බලගතු දේශපාලඥයින්ද සිටින බව ඇතැම් රේගු නිලධාරින්ම ප්‍රකාශ කර ඇත. මෙම අකටයුතුකම් සහ දූෂණවලට විරුද්ධව වන රේගු දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේ ඉහල නිලධාරීන්ට විවිධ දේශපාලන බලපෑම් එල්ලවන බවද වාර්තා වේ. විශේෂයෙන් පසුගිය වසර හතර තුළ රේගු අධ්‍යක්‍ෂ ජෙනරාල් ධූරයට නිලධාරීන් 4 දෙනෙකු පත් කිරීමෙන්ම මෙම අර්බුධකාරී තත්වය කෙතරම් බරපතල දැයි අණාවරණය වේ. අවස්ථා කීපයකදීම නිති විරෝධී මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය විශාල තොග වශයෙන් මෙරටට ගෙනෙන ප්‍රධානම මාර්ග රේගු නිලධාරීන් විසින් අහුරන ලදී. තම රාජකාරී කටයුතු අකුරටම ඉටුකල රේගු දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේ අධ්‍යක්‍ෂ ‍ජෙනරාල්වරිය රාජ්‍ය පරිපාලන සංචිතයට මාරුකර යැවීම මෙම රේගු වෘත්තිය සමිති ක්‍රියාමාර්ග ගැනීමට ප්‍රධානතම හේතුව වී ඇත. 

 රේගු වෘත්තිය සමිති ආරම්භ කොට ඇති අකුරට වැඩ කිරීම නිසා මෙරටට ආනයනය කරනු ලබන භාණ්ඩ නිදහස් කර ගැනීම ප්‍රමාද වී ඇත. මේ හේතුවෙන් රට තුළ අතවශ්‍ය භාණ්ඩවල මිල පවා ඉහල යාමට ඉඩ ඇත.  එවැනි තත්වයක් උදා වුවහොත් ඒ පිළිබද වගකීම සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම රජය භාරගත යුතුය. මෙම රජය පත්වූ අවස්ථාවේ සිටම රටට සහ ජනතාවට අහිතකර තීන්දු තීරණ ගැනීම පුරුද්දක් ලෙස කරගෙන යමින් සිටින බව රහසක් නොවේ.

 ජන ජීවිතයට බලපාන මෙවැනි සංවේදී ආයතන කාර්යක්ෂමව පරිපාලනය කළ යුතු බව රජයට අවධාරණය කරන අතර අදාළ වෘත්තිය සමිති සමඟ සාකච්ඡා කොට රේගු දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේ ගැටළුව වහාම විසදීමට අදාළ බලධාරීන් ක්‍රියා කරනු ඇතැයි අපේක්ෂා කරන්නෙමු. 

 මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂ

විපක්‍ෂ නායක

lanka C news

වසර හයක බරපතල වැඩ ඇතිව සිර දඬුවම් විදිමින් සිටින බොදු බල සේනා සංවිධානයේ මහ ලේකම් පූජ්‍ය ගලගොඩඅත්තේ ඥාණසාර හිමියන්ට ජනාධිපති සමාව නොදෙන ලෙස ජනාධිපතිවරයාගෙන් ඉල්ලීම් කරමින් යොමු කර ඇති ලිපියකට අගමැති බිරිද මෛත‍්‍රී වික‍්‍රමසිංහ මහත්මියද අත්සන් තබා තිබේ.

එම ලිපිය යොමු කර ඇත්තේ ‘ජනාධිපති සමාව අනිසි ලෙස ප්‍රධානය කරනු එපා’ යන ලිපි හිසිනි.

මෙම ලිපිය රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධාන කිහිපයක් විසින් අත්සන් කර ජනාධිපතිවරයා වෙත යොමු කර ඇති අතර ඊට අගමැති බිරිදද අත්සන් තබා තිබේ.

Gamini Parakrama Dissanayake On behalf of Sri Lankans in Tokyo

Mr. Mahinda Deshapriya
Chairman
ELECTION COMMISSION
Elections Secretariat, P.O. Box 02, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya, 10107, Sri Lanka

We Sri Lankans in Tokyo, Japan are kindly requesting you to hold provincial elections without any further delay. You have the sole authority to hold such elections and if you have any obstructions, you should go to courts without making statements like “I will resign if elections are not held”. If the member Rathnajeevan Hoole could go to courts seeking preventing of general elections, we don’t understand why you cannot go to courts to secure the democratic rights of Sri Lankans.

We are aware that  there are foreign elements and NGO’s behind Rathnajeevan Hoole to act as a puppet but we don’t expect you too to be a puppet of the prime minister Ranil Wickramasinghe or any other elements.

We expect you to do the right thing without any further delay.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Gamini Parakrama Dissanayake

On behalf of Sri Lankans in Tokyo

Dr. Sudath Gunasekara

31.1. 2019.

Did this country get any Independence in 1948?   Are we an Independent country at all, at least after 70 years of so-called Independence?

Independence in respect of any given country means the power for self-governing without control or authority of another country or an outside party.

We are supposed to have got independence from British rule in 1948. Now that the much hyped Independence Day celebrations (Jatika Day as the present Government calls it) is again around the corner for the 71st time, I posit this question very seriously to the whole nation. Has this country got any Independence in 1948 in the above self-governing context, that is worthy of  such fanfare and wastage of public funds?  Are we independent at all, at least now, after 70 years of so-called independence? The BOLD BIG answer, in my opinion, is NOT AT All.

” Actual independence for the dominion of Ceylon came on February 4, 1948, when the constitution of 1947 went into effect. The constitution provided for a bicameral legislature with a popularly elected House of Representatives and a Senate that was partly nominated and partly elected indirectly by members of the House of Representatives. A Prime Minister and his cabinet, chosen from the largest political group in the legislature, held collective responsibility, for executive functions. The Governor-General, as head of state, represented the British monarch. In matters that the constitution failed to address, the conventions of the United Kingdom were observed.”  Copied from Wikipedia”

Soulbury Constitutio:  Britain makes a Constitution for free Lanka

The Constitution referred to here is the Soulbury Constitution that was made in England by Ivor Jennings, for the Dominion of Ceylon as it was called then. A Dominion is described as a self-governing territory within the British Commonwealth of Nations. This clearly implies that this country continued to be a part of the group of countries defined as the British Commonwealth of Nations that included Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (one white family), India, Sri Lanka and few more countries that were under the British as their colonies. It also implies that governance of these member countries is subjected to the conditions operative within that family of the Common Wealth of Nations headed by Britain, the chief player. Obviously it then imposes restrictions on the member states. Britain former boss continued to play the  commanding roll. t Obviously there ends self-governing of all ex-colonies for all intent and purposes. Such is the true nature of Independence of all there countries.

Secondly, as stated above the Government of the so-called Independent Lanka as it was called then, was fashioned under the Westminster model. The Soulbury Constitution provided the structural mechanism of Government and Governance that embodied all the checks and balances Britain needed to perpetually control governance of this Island. They retained the power to appoint the Governor General, as the representative of the King of England, thereby retaining executive power in their hands. Though the Prime Minster was appointed by the Governor, legislation was made in the name of the King of England. After 1953 it was done in the name of the Queen of England.  The appellate power of the Judiciary also was kept with the Privy Council. This made the authority of  Britain complete in all three feilds of Governance, that is Legislative, Executive and Judicial complete. Katunayaka and Trincommallee air bases were retained under them. The defense and external affairs were kept with the King in terms of section 45 of the Constitution, which says ‘The Executive powers of the Island shall continue vested in His Majesty and may be exercised (note the emphasis), on behalf of His Majesty, by the Governor General in accordance with the provisions of the Order and of any other law for the time being in force’. The prerogative powers of declaring war, making peace, sending Ambassadors or entering in to treaties were also kept with the King of England.

A misleading, deceptive and fraudulent Constitution

Nearly 600,000 acres of tea and rubber owned by Sterling estates were kept in the hands of white masters even after they left our shores. Official language of the country continued to be English. English continued to be the medium of instruction above grade six in all schools.  Proceedings in courts also remained to be English where justice was dispensed to the natives in English and proceedings in Parliament where legislation for a newly independent country was also conducted in English.  Nearly 1.2 Million Indian indentured labourers brought by the British to work on British owned plantations were left behind without being either repatriated to India, as they were brought from there, or taking them back to UK as they were British citizens at that time , leaving behind a sad and dangerous legacy of enormous  demographic, political, economic, social and cultural  consequences and an eternal cantankerous bone of contention  between Sri Lanka and India, thereby creating a serious headache for both countries that has led to political tension and uneasiness between the two neighboring countries forever and particularly for this country in areas like preserving’s its vital watersheds rights at the center of the country at the highest elevation and creating enormous demographic, political, economic. social and environmental problems for ever.

Moving on to the question of Independence, in reality, what Britain should have done was to completely hand over the entire country what they deceitfully annexed on 2nd March 1815 under the Kandyan Convention, without reserving any conditions that limit the independence of the Island nation, in order to make Sri Lanka fully independent and allow the people of this country to decide as to how it should be run thereafter. The way how it was deceptively done as stated above clearly shows that it never happened. The constraints and limitations imposed were more than the concessions given. As I see it, it is a big political fraud committed by Britain keeping all the, vital reins of governance in its own hands, to manipulate the destinies of this Island nation even after calling an independent nation, the way they wanted.

Basic conditions of independence and freedom were never fulfilled

In becoming independent from foreign rule the first and foremost condition is getting back the territory the conqueror took over at the time of conquest, in our case whole territory they took over in 1815 including the Maldives Islands. They returned only the main Island. Maldives Islands (90,000 sq. km) that were a longtime a protectorate of this country was not returned to us. The Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council 1946 Part 1 (2) stated ‘Nothing in this Order shall extend to the Maldives Islands. The British kept it as one of their protectorates until they granted Independence to it as a separate Independent State on July 26th 1965. This is fraudulent and illegal in terms of all accepted international covenants.

Again they never returned the 600,000 acres of land covered by British owned sterling plantaion estates sprawling over the central hill country that was formally covered with premival forests. This was the geographical Heartland of the Lankan nation that  provided the source for all its rivers in the Island that decided the entire life system and the civilization of this Island nation throughout history. Instead they left behind a sad legacy of vast stretches of physically degraded unproductive tea lands with a turbulent foreign labour force of over 1.2 million South Indian workers (traditionally the sworn enemies of Lanka) who were not citizens of this country at the time of British leaving the country. None of this 1.2 was there in 1815. All of them were brought here by the British after 1840, partly as mercenaries to fight against the native Sinhalese in the 1848 Matale uprising, but mainly to work in their coffee and later in tea plantations.

The blind blunders of the native leaders

When British left in 1948 our leaders should have assked them to hand over the land without their labour force to make Independence complete and meanigful. It is just like a tenant on rent taking his servants when he leaves the rented out house.  Instead the British left behind this sad legacy of 1.2 million exploited and poverty stricken  South Indian labourers who belonged to an entirely a different culture, speaking a different language and professing a different religion and culture completely different from that of the native Sinhalese. This stateless millions were left behind high and dry, right at the Heartland of the Island Nation deliberately, thereby creating a cantankerous demographic, political, social and economic problem for this country for which the British alone are responsible. Led and manipulated by treacherous and extremist ethnic Tamil politicians, these Indians have become one of the biggest headaches this country faces today with wider ramifications including tense Indo- Sri Lankan relations caused by Indian intervention in all their affairs as if the central hill country of Sri Lanka is already a part of India, with the threat of creating a Malayanadu right at the center of the country.

Furthermore we the native Sinhalese never got our rights what we lost in 1815 to date. The Soulbury Constitution imposed all possible restrictions to stop this rectification process. What is more tragic is none of the governments from 1948 to date have restored out birth rihgts on our language, religion, political institution, social system or our heritag to date, except the partly restored language and religious srights in 1956 and 1972 by the SLFP governments. Sinhala was the official language of the country and Buddhism was the State religion before 1815. Sinhala was official language from 543 BC and Buddhism State Language from 307 BC. But they were never fully restored. Do we have at least a homemade Constitution after 70 years of ‘Independence’? . True there were two Constitutions enacted. One in 1972 and another in 1987. The country was made a Republic in 1972 with Buddhism being given the foremost place, though it did not make it the State religion. But even the 1972 Constitution failed replace the 1948 constitution comp;etely with a Homemade one. 1987 Constituion more or less reversed and dialuted the previous one. With its subsequent 19 odd amendments to day it has almost ceased to be a peoples Constitution. Instead it has completely taken the form of a Constituion  primarily aimed at protecting the  rights and previleges of politicians and minorities to harness their votes. The13th Amendment imposed on the people of this country by India has completely killed the 1987 Constitution. It now looks as if the  Government of JR had handed over the function of constitution making for this country to India in place of UK as they did it  in 1948. The present Government on the other hand has handed it over to the so-callled  International community led by UK and USA  and the proxies of the LTTE comparicing Tamil Diaspora and TNA at home led by Sumanthiran and supported by treacherous self appointed so-called legal experts like Jayampathi Wickramaratna and Lal wijenayaka.

India did it within 3 years of Independence

India did it within 3 years of Independence by declaring it as a sovereign Democratic Republic. Even as a Dominion India was completely free to shape its own policy, both domestic and foreign, unlike Sri Lanka.   They even declared India An Independent Republic. In fact their Constitution making started even long before 1947. Sri Lanka had to wait till 1972 for Sirimavo to do it.  Even after making it a Republic, Britain continued their usual dirty game of interfering in our internal matters. Isn’t this country is being run by the so-called international Community of the West and India to suit their agendas. Today we at times need to get the consent of India to permit even a foreign ship to enter our harbour as it had been demonstrated recently.  Interference by the Western block is more serious now than ever before 1948 as we are tormented by almost all Western nations, whether they are in the West or East or North or South, where as we were governed only by the British at that time.  What is worse is all these countries also support the Tamils spread all over the world, whom they call Tamil Diaspora who had staged a brutal and savages 30 year war against this country to convert this country in to a Tamil Homeland called EELAM as they cannot have it in India, with a long term dream of destroying the Sinhala nation and Buddhism and their civilization in this country.

 Not a single Sinhala Leader to stand up against these injustices.

Did we have single Sinhala political leader in the post 1948 period that could stand up against these external harassment and assert as a national leader who could lift up this country as a fully Independent, free, prosperous, self- sustained and vibrant nation.  (except Banda  in taking over Katunayaka and Trincommallee in 1957, later Mrs Badaranayaka nationalizing sterling tea companies and Mobile and CALTEX Oil Companies and MR refusing to stop the war against the LTTE.

Look at India, Singapore, Japan, Korea and even Bangladesh where they stand today, though they were far behind us in 1948.

While Ambedkar makes the Indian Constitution Ivor Jennings an obedient servant of the British Empire makes it for this country

Ambedkar, down to earth Indian intellectual, was the architect of the Indian Constitution where as in Sri Lanka it was Ivor Jennigs and down to earth Englishman. That is the difference between India and Sri Lanka.

So in this backdrop repeatedly I ask as to how one can say we are an independent nation. Apart from being an independent nation, have we at least restored the age old name of this country, Sinhale, in 1948 or even after 70 years up to date, as it was mentioned in the Kandyan Convention. Have our politicians been able to tell the world at least what our nation is. ‘The Sinhala Buddhist nation’ they ceded to British in 1815 and able to restore the Sinhala Language as the State language. Instead the British handed over a Ceylon in 1948 as a multi-ethnic, multi -national and multi-religious society, things never heard in this country’s history. They also introduced the concept of minority to Sri Lankan politics for the first time in the history of this country by introducing it under section 29 to the Constitution. These are all well -calculated and well -designed conspiracies to divide the Lankan nation on various grounds and destroy it.First it divided the Sinhala people as Kandyans and Low Country and thereafter it  splitted the nation like an scrambled egg, that can never be unscrabmble thereafter.

In short it was a constitution made by a British lawyer Jennings to suit their perpetual interests imposed on our people without getting their consent either. It was never a constitution people in this country wanted or they accepted. People were told that they got full independence  from British rule by their leaders. That is all what they wanted. Nor did the people see the Constiution. As a people who were governed only by customs and traditions for milennia they never bothered about a constitution. They must have thought they are getting the pre 1815 status. So they were happy with that.The leaders on the other hand blindly accepted it as divine right coming from above for them to rule over the down trodden. This is exactly how the UNP Colombians led by RW think even today. They dont understand the fact that this country is one village or at least a conglomeration of a number of villages and Colombo is not Sri Lanka. Like any other metropolis, as A.G.Frank  said Colombo is only the hub that exploited the region by draining resources and surplus capital from the periphery and moving it towards the word core centers.On the other hand it also provides the gateway through its harbour and airports the door way that brings in all evils and things harmful to our economy, culture and environment.

I challenge anyone to prove we have got Independence in 1948

Isn’t it more than clear, from the above account that we have not got any independence in 1948. I challenge all those constitutional experts who say we have got any independence in 1948. It is true that it has gone on record that on 4th Feb 1948 Britain gave independence to this country. It is also true that they gave a Parliament headed by a local Prime Minister (one of their own making) to make legislation. But a closer analysis of the Soulbury Constitution clearly shows that it was only a fake Independence or a big fraud. True they gave a Parliament to make legislation by locally elected legislators. But all legislations made in that Parliament were made in the name of the King and Queen of within the constitutional parameters set by the Soulbury Constitution up to 1972, until Sirimavo Bandarnayaka declared it an Independent Republic, after 24 years since 1948.

In my opinion this country was given independence by the British Colonial Government only to make legislation and govern the way they wanted to perpetuate their colonial hegemony. In conclusion I say this in short is exactly what British wanted to do under the Soulbury Constitution. By retaining the Dominion status they further retained power to control the ex- colony as long as they wanted and the way they wished, as the super power over whose Empire the the sun will never set.  Probably they must have thought Sri Lanka is far more important from a strategic point of view in future global politics than even India in view of its strategic location in the middle of the Indian Ocean forming a pivotal position between the East and the West open to the vast expanses of the Indian Ocean extending up to the South Pole in the South and Australia and Africa in the East and the West.

Soulbury Constituion the Pandora’s Box of Sri Lankan politics in post 1948 Sri Lanka.

Looking at the plethora of unmanageable problems and curses like political instability, social confusion, ethnic tensions, the rise of the tyranny of minority politics,  serious and frustrating erosion of Sinhala Buddhist birth rights of the natives and the disintegrating tendencies of the Sri Lankan political map, spliting on minority issues brought about by the Soulbury Constitution,  I am compelled to conclude that the  Soulbury Constitution has become a veritable Pandora’s Box in post independent politics in Sri Lanka. Sec 29 (2) of the Constitution killed the millennia old privileges of the Sinhala Buddhist majority in this country by conferring undue and disproportional privileges on minority ethnic and religious groups, who were only intruders from time to time in history. This section that introduced a minority concept for the first time in the  history of this country’s politics had completely ruined peaceful coexistence between Sinhala Buddhists majority and other ethnic groups. As such giving legal recognition to separate minority groups opened the flood gates for ethnic and religious tensions never existed before in this country.

I pity the rootless, brainless and visionless native leaders who embraced this so-called Independence package with open arms in 1948 (which I call “a veritable political Pandora’s Box” rather than a Constitution made in good faith and good intention for a country meant and designed for nation building) with pomp and glamour without realizing the inconsistencies’ and dangers hidden beneath this English trap. As I see it, the group of leaders who recieved this 1948 ‘Pandora’s Box’ with open arms as victory for the nation were far behind those Kandyan chieftains  who are supposed to have betrayed the Sinhale by aceeding to the Kandyan Convention, because they at least could preserve the supreme status of the Buddha Sasana by including the Sec 5 to the Convention  even at gun point and also  got the name of the country included as Sinhale throughout the Document. I have no doubt when one day these turbulences and foolishness and betrayals of our politicians hopefully comes to an end, political historians of this country will call the 1948 Independence episode as one of the biggest political betrayals committed by contemporary rootless, treacherous and selfish politicians, in annals of entire history of this Island nation.

If this country and its people have not got any independence in 1948 (in spite of some people including the fathers, sons and the nephews of the UNP denying it), then who has really got it. Obviously the happy recipients of ‘this birth day gift of somebody’ are the lucky pack of unscrupulous rogue politicians created by the Soulbury Constitution and party politics introduced by it who have destroyed this ‘Wonder in Asia’ to a level almost beyond recognition. Just like a gang of hungry jackals from the jungle that have invaded a paultry pen, they have destroyed this country with impunity, while the true owners of this country are in deep slumber, engrossed in Midsummer night dreams of freedom, prosperity and the joy of independence awarded by the Soulbury Constitution and embraced by the blind leaders of a nation in 1948.

In this backdrop what is there to celebtrate annually in such high  pomp and glamour at such enormous cost to the nation’s coffers. Is it not only a part and parcel of the mega fraud and deception  by the  rogue politicians annually staged to exibit their  naked vanity and continue to decieve the masses.

Why commemorate an independence we never recieved and something non-existent. 

My final question is why try to commemorate a non-existing independence at such cost, causing enormous inconvenience and brainwashing  to  the people. This is nothing but shear madness on the part of politicians to exhibit their vanity and emptiness just to decieve the voters as they have been successfuly doing ever since 1948. Isnt it better that we  as a nation either commemorate May 22 the Janraja Day or the 29th of May 2009 on whhich the Rapaksa Government liberated the motherland from the LTTE terroists so that we can inject some inspiration to the masses to wake them up for nation bulding.

 No National Flags are raised until we get full independence

As for me I shall not raise a flag at my house to mark this fradulent political freedom, deceptively imoposed on us by the accredited black-white agents in 1948. I will raise it only on the day this country gain full independence as the Sinhala Buddhist nation, that was there on my motherland for 2358 years before 1815.

By Noor Nizam. Peace and Political Activist, Political Communication Researcher, SLFP Stalwart and Convener – “The Muslim Voice”, Feb.1^st., 2019.

It is only through political unity that we can regain our dignity and rights, Insha Allah.

How many times have complaints been made about the vulnerability and the POLITICAL NEGLECT” of the Muslims to the Government authorities, police, political VVIP’s, spoken in cabinet meetings and denounced in the media (print) by peace loving Muslims and non-Muslims. NOTHING has happened. The question is WHY? The Sri Lanka Muslim Community and its POLITICIANS should stand before a MIRROR” and ask the question WHY? Let us face REALITY and the TRUTH (YATHAARTHAM).

The Yahapalana Government” has no consideration to the Muslim Community issues or the MUSLIM FACTOR” at all. The Yahapalana Government” is NOT going to listen to the Muslim Civil Society Leaders, Community Leaders and Ulema Sabai Leaders, though they have been making BIG NOISES” about the MUSLIM FACTOR” over the last 4 years, since bringing President Maithripala Sirisena and the Yahapalana government to power with our tipping the balance” – nearly 800,000 votes plus the Tamil votes. Now President Maithripala Sirisena has fallen out with PM Ranil Wickremesinghe and has reached out to Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. President Mahinda Rajapaksa is now the Leader of the Opposition which should have been the office just after the swearing of the 2015 government.

The majority President Maithripala Sirisena got was 649,072 votes. Since our vote-bank had been traded by our politicians, the SLMC is dead. The ACMC is busy making money and covering the corruption charges made against them and the Muslim politicians stooging the UNP are ONLY interested in their personal benefits. The ungrateful Muslim politicians and the ACJU who benefited the most from Mahinda Rajapaksa, Basil Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa are now stooging the Yahapalana government.

As a result of all these deceptions, Muslims in Sri Lanka do NOT have a voice – a POLITICAL VOICE for that purpose. The Yahapalana government (President Maithripala Sirisena and PM Ranil Wickremaratne) have forgotten that it was the minority Muslim votes and the Tamil votes and a very small fraction of the Sinhala votes the tipped the balance for the Hansaya” to win the Presidential Elections in 2015. The en-block Muslim votes and Tamil votes to the Muslim candidates and the Tamil candidates made the Yahapalana government to get their majority in parliament in the 2015 general elections. But in the face of the country, we Muslims have failed as a follows:

1. We Muslims are known for NOT leading the Muslim (Islamic Way of Life) bestowed by our belief and FAITH.
2. We are (especially) the POLITICIANS) are NOT UNITED.
3. We (especially the POLITICIANS) are DISHONEST, DECEPTIVE, SELFISH and CROOKED.
4. Our dealings are NOT CLEAN with other Communities.
5. We have BETRAYED the political leaders of the country who are so much loved by the MAJORITY SINHALA PEOPLE.
6. We are ARROGANT and EXTRAVAGANT in our day to day life.
7. We are SELF CENTERED and NOT COMMUNITY MIMDED.
8. WE are OPPRTUNISTIC, especially in POLITICS. Our Muslim Politicians have back-stabbed the most loved Sinhala leaders like the former President after STOOGING to him and his siblings and politically destroyed them which the Buddhist, especially the Monks despite.
9. We will buy” anyone by our ill earned money power to get our things done, even against our community and its members.
10. We practice the CULTURE of SMUGGLING and dealing in DRUGS as normal business though it is banned in ISLAM, and we think going to Mecca (making UMMRAH) purifies us from those SINS.

The Bodu Bala Sena and the Anti-Muslim, Anti-Islam Buddhist Monk was made use by our Muslim unscrupulous POLITICIANS and Muslim businessmen to defraud the Haj Quota allocations many months ago. One of the Muslims is the brother of the LOUD MOUTHED UNETHICAL POLITICIAN” who conspired with other groups to bring about a change” to the Mahinda government and is now suspected of holding a high post in the Sri Lanka Cement Corporation (SLCC) which is under the Ministry of Industries and Commerce. There were alleged rumours that officials of the Sri Lanka Cement Corporation are been suspected of being involved in trying to release hundreds of acres of lands belonging to the corporation to the private sector under nefarious activities. So, GALAGODA ATHTHE GNANASARA THERA KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE BAD THINGS ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY THAN OUR OWN COMMUNITY BECAUSE ALL FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS INFORMATION OF OUR MUSLIM BRETHEREN ENGAGED IN BUSINESS HAS BEEN REVEALED TO HIM AND THE BBS BY MUSLIMS OF THE ABOVE CALIBRE. When they discuss about the Muslims, our KISSAA” is already revealed to all of our enemies working against us.

WHY HAS NOT THIS unscrupulous UNDEMOCRATICALLY SELF ACCLAIMED LEADERS AND SO-CALLED MUSLIM CIVIL SOCIETY, ULEMA (ACJU,MCSL, SHOORA COUNCIL, MUSLIM MEDIA ASSOCIATION) NOT CALLED FOR A PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION OR A HIGH LEVEL INQUIRY BY THE YAHAPALAN GOVERNMENT ON THE ALUTHGAMA and BERUWELA VIOLENCES/INCIDENCES UP TO NOW?

THIS IS WHY “THE MUSLIM VOICE” IS PRAYING IT IS TIME UP THAT A NEW DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL FORCE THAT WILL BE HONEST AND SINCERE THAT WILL PRODUCE CLEAN’ AND DILIGENT MUSLIM POLITICIANS” (become real) TO STAND UP AND DEMOCRACTICALLY DEFEND THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY POLITICALLY AND OTHERWISE, ESPECIALLY FROM AMONG THE YOUTH/YOUNGER GENERATION.  THIS HAS TO EMERGE FROM WITHIN THE SRI LANKA MUSLIM COMMUNITY TO FACE ANY NEW ELECTIONS IN THE COMING FUTURE. It is by only expressing and showing our political strength unitedly that we can gain our position as equals in the country. We can support any political party or ideology, but emerging as a NEW DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL FORCE”, we will stand to gain what we are losing, INSHA ALLAH. The Muslims have already decided not to be mislead by the deceptive and hoodwinking Muslim politicians, political parties and the so-called Muslim Civil Society/Ulema. They have begun to act on their own now. Supporting Mahinda Rajapaksa’s political camp will be the best for the Muslims in the future, Insha Allah.

(Note: These comments are NOT made as MALICE against any politician or political party or Muslim Civil Society (without prejudice). It is written to kindle the aspirations and inspiration of the Muslims of Sri Lanka, Insha Allah).

Lahiru Pothmulla Courtesy The Daily Mirror

The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) said today there was an attempt to bypass the Customs Department when handling foreign firearms brought down to the country and this was why Customs Director General P.S.M. Charles had been removed.

MP Kanaka Herath told a news conference the government was attempting to appoint someone outside the Customs Department who will not hesitate to bypass the Customs Ordinance.

There are reports of an MoU with the US. There is the expectation of bypassing the Customs when transporting foreign firearms brought down to the country. Recently, an aircraft carrying firearms arrived at the airport. Their hope is to transport all these firearms to a ship harboured in the middle of the ocean by small aircraft instead of going through Customs. A mechanism is in action to bypass Customs,” he said.

He said the Customs DG had been removed because Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera had failed to get her to fulfil his demands and in order to get ‘secret’ international MoUs implemented.

This is not something limited only to the Customs. Earlier, the Inland Revenue Department Director General was also removed because he didn’t follow the Minister’s orders,” he said.

අරුණ බෝගහවත්ත උපුටා ගැන්ම දිවයින

 තීරු බදු නැතිව ගෙන්වූ පොල් තෙල් මෙ. ටො. 469යෙන් මිලියන 81ක් රටට අහිමි වුණා
 ප‍්‍රීමා පිටි ගෙන්වීමේදී රේගුවට අය විය යුතු මිලියන 475 ගන්න ගියාම අගමැති කාර්යාලය බලපෑම් කළා

රේගු අධ්‍යක්‍ෂ ජනරාල්වරිය ඉවත් කර විශ‍්‍රාමික නාවික නිලධාරියකු ඒ සඳහා පත්කිරීමට ආණ්ඩුව තීරණය කර ඇත්තේ සිය හිතවතුන්ට සහ හිතවත් සමාගම්වලට රේගු බදු සහන ලබා ගැනීමට නොහැකි වීම නිසා යැයි ශ‍්‍රී ලංකා නිදහස් පක්‍ෂයේ මහ ලේකම් පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත‍්‍රී දයාසිරි ජයසේකර මහතා පැවසීය.
 
 රේගු බදු ආදායම අඩුවීම වැළැක්වීමත් මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය රටට පැමිණීම වැළැක්වීමත් සඳහා මෙම පියවර ගත් බවට ආණ්ඩුව සඳහන් කළත් එය සම්පූර්ණ අසත්‍යයක් බව මහලේකම්වරයා ඊයේ (31 දා* ශ‍්‍රී ලංකා නිදහස් පක්‍ෂ මූලස්ථානයේ පැවැති මාධ්‍ය හමුවකට සහභාගි වෙමින් පැවසීය.
 
 මේ වන විටත් මුදල් ඇමැතිවරයාගේ ලේකම්වරුන් ආණ්ඩුවේ ඇමැතිවරුන් සහ ඉහළ නිලධාරීන් රේගු අධ්‍යක්‍ෂ ජනරාල්වරියට සහ අධ්‍යක්‍ෂ මණ්ඩලයට විවිධ බලපෑම් කර බදු සහන ලබා ගැනීමට කටයුතු කර ඇතැයි කී මහ ලේකම්වරයා ඒවාට අවනත නොවීම නිසා රේගු අධ්‍යක්‍ෂ ජනරාල්වරිය ඉවත් කිරීමට පියවර ගෙන ඇතැයි ද කීවේය.
 
 එහිදී වැඩිදුරටත් අදහස් දැක්වූ මහලේකම්වරයා මෙසේද කීය.
 
 රේගු අධ්‍යක්‍ෂ ජනරාල්වරිය ඉවත් කරන්න හදනවා. ඇමැතිවරුන්ගේ හිතවත් සමාගම්වලට, ලේකම්වරුන්ට, ඥාතීන්ට ඕනෑ විදිහට රේගු සහන ලබා දෙන්න. එම නිසා මේ තත්ත්වය වහා නැති කළ යුතුයි. මේ නිසා රජයට අහිමිවන රේගු ආදායම විශාලයි. ආණ්ඩුවේ මෙම තීන්දු තීරණ වෙනස් කිරීම සඳහා ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ මැදිහත්වීම වහාම අවශ්‍යයි.
 
 වසරකට රජයේ ආදායමට රේගුවෙන් සියයට 35% ක ආදායමක් ලබා දෙනවා. 2019 ජනවාරි අට වනවිට බිලියන 17.58, 2018 බිලියන 920.9 ද, 2017 බිලියන 918.6 ද රේගු ආදායම ලබා දී තිබෙනවා. එහෙත් පසුගිය කාල වකවානුව තුළ රජයට අහිමි වූ රේගු බදු ආදායම රු. බිලියන 131 ද, පෙට‍්‍රල් ඞීසල් අඩු කිරීම තුළ බිලියන 30 කද, රථ වාහනවල එන්ජින් ධාරිතාව මත බදු අඩුකිරීමෙන් රු. බිලියන 4 ද රටට අහිමි වී තිබෙනවා. ඒ වගේම ආණ්ඩුවේ ඉහළ ඇමැතිවරයකුගේ රැුකවරණය මත වියට්නාමයෙන් බාල ගම්මිරිස් ටොන් 2800 ක් කන්ටේනර් 134 ක් බදු නොගෙවා මෙරටට ගෙන්වා මෙරට ගම්මිරිස්වලට කලවම් කර ප‍්‍රතිඅපනයනය කිරීම තුළින් රටට අහිමි වුණ ආදායම ඩොලර් මිලියන 9 ක්. තීරු බදු නොගෙවා ගෙන්වූ පොල්තෙල් මෙ. ටොන් 469 ගෙන්වීම තුළ රු. මිලියන 81.3 අහිමි වුණා. ඒ වගේම ප‍්‍රීමා පිටි ගෙන්වීම තුළ රේගුවට අයවිය යුතු රු. මිලියන 475 රේගුව අය කර ගන්න ගිය විට අගමැති කාර්යාලය බලපෑම මත එය වැළකී ගියා. මේ අන්දමට විවිධ බලපෑම් සහ ඇමැතිවරුන්ගේ සහෝදරයන්ගේ සහ හිතවතුන්ගේ බලපෑම් මත මේවට ඉඩ දෙන ලෙස බලපෑම් කළා. එවැනි තත්ත්වයක් මත රේගු නිලධාරීන් අයින් වීමේ තත්ත්වයක් ඇති වුණා. එම නිසා මොවුන් විශ‍්‍රාමික නාවික හමුදා නිලධාරියකු හරහා මේ ටික කරගන්න හදනවා.

අද (01) දින ඒකාබද්ධ විපක්ෂය  මාධ්‍ය සාකච්ඡුාවට සහභාගි වූ නියෝජිතයින්

පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්තී‍්‍ර කනක හේරත් මහතා
පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්තී‍්‍ර ඞී. වී. චානක මහතා
හිටපු පළාත්සභා මන්තී‍්‍ර ප‍්‍රමිත බණ්ඩාර තෙන්නකෝන්

පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්තී‍්‍ර කනක හේරත් මහතා

රේගු අධ්‍යක්ෂ ජෙනරාල් චාල්ස් මහත්මිය ඉවත් කර ඒ වෙනුවට තමන්ගේ අවශ්‍යතාවන් ඉටුකරන විශ‍්‍රාම ගිය හමුදා නිලධාරියෙක් පත්කර තිබෙනවා. මේ තනතුරට සුදුසුකම් ඇති අය නැතිව හෝ තමන්ට හිතවත් රාජ්‍ය නිළධාරීන් නැතිව නෙවෙයි මෙවැනි පත්කිරීමක් කර තිබෙන්නේ. රේගු ආඥාපනත පිටින් කටයුතු කරන්න සහයෝගය දෙන පුද්ගලයෙක් පත්කර ගැනීමයි කරලා තියෙන්නේ. ඇමරිකානු අවබෝධතා ගිවිසුමක් සම්බන්ධයෙන් මේ දිනවල මාධ්‍ය ඔස්සේ කතා කරනවා. රට ඇතුළට ගෙන එන අවි ආයුධ ගබඩා කිරීමට ගෙන යන ගමනේදී රේගුවේ පරීක්ෂාවෙන් මිදීමේ බලාපොරොත්තුවක් තියෙනවා. පහුගිය දිනවල ගුවන් තොටුපළට අවි ආයුධ ගුවන් යානාවක් ආවා. ඒවා රේගුව හරහා යනවා වෙනුවට වෙනත් කුඩා ගුවන් යානා ම`ගින් අපේ සාගරයේ තියෙන නෞකාවකට ගෙනයාමටයි මේ අය බලාපොරොත්තුවෙන් ඉන්නේ. මෙහිදී රේගුවට හොරෙන් කිසියම් වැඩපිළිවෙලක් කි‍්‍රයාත්මකයි. ඒ වගේම හමුදාවට එරෙහිව ගැතිකම් කරමින් හමුදාව පාවාදුන් කෙනෙක්වයි මංගල සමරවිර ඇමැතිවරයා පත්කර තිබෙන්නේ. තමන්ගේ අවශ්‍යතාවය ඉෂ්ඨ කර ගැනීමට බැරි වූ තැන හිටපු රේගු අධ්‍යක්ෂ ජෙනරාල්වරයා ඉවත් කිරීම වගේම ජාත්‍යන්තරයේ තියෙන හොර ගිවිසුමේ අවශ්‍යතාවයන් ඉෂ්ඨ කර ගැනීමත් මේ මගින් සිදුවෙනවා. මේ සිද්ධිය රේගුවට පමණක් බලපාන කාරණයක් නෙවෙයි.

පසුගිය කාලයේ ආදායම් බදු දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේ අධ්‍යක්ෂ ජෙනරාල්වරයාවත් ඉවත් කලේ ඇමැතිවරයාට අවනත නොවීම නිසයි. අද වන විට රටේ මැතිවරණ නැහැ. අද ජනාධිපතිවරයා පසවනවා පරිපාලන සේවය අකර්මන්‍ය කිරීමේ වැඩ පිලිවෙලක් දියත් වෙන බව. අපි මේ බව හෙළිකලේ මිට වසර දෙකකට පමණ පෙර සිටයි. වෘත්තීයවේදින් හා රාජ්‍ය සේවකයින්ට අපි කියන්නේ යකාගේ තරම යකා ළ`ගට එනතෙක් බලාසිටින්නේ නැතිව හ`දුනා ගෙන සිටින යකාව දමනය කරන්න එක්වෙන්න කියලයි. රජය ගෙනයන මේ වැඩපිළිවෙල නිසා ළ`ගදීම රාජ්‍ය නිලධාරීන් පාරට බහුන බවත් විශ්වාසයි.
පළාත්සභා මැතිවරණයත් දිනෙන් දින කල්යමින් තිබෙනවා. පක්ෂ නායක රැුස්වීමක් තියලා එජාපයට සම්බන්ධ පක්ෂ නියෝජිතයින් එක්ක තීරණය කරනවා සියලූම පළාත් සභා මැතිවරණ එකම දිනයකදී පැවැත්විය යුතුයි කියලා. මොකක්ද මේ එකම දිනය කියන්නේ. ඌව පළාත් සභාව විසිරවෙන්න තියෙන්නේ ඔක්තෝම්බර් මාසයේ. ඒ වෙද්දි අනෙක් පළාත් සභා සියල්ල විසිරිලයි තියෙන්නේ. ඔක්තෝම්බර් 12 වෙද්දි ජනාධිපතිවරණය සම්බන්ධයෙන් දින තීරණය කෙරෙනවා. මෙයින් බලාපොරොත්තු වෙන්නේ පළාත්සභා මැතිවරණය ජනාධිපතිවරණය දක්වා කල්දමාගෙන ලබන වසර දක්වාම මැතිවරණය නොපවත්වා සිටීමයි. එජාපය මැතිවරණය තියන්න කැමැති නැහැ. රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ මහත්තයාව මැතිවරණයකට ගෙන යන එක හරියට බැදලා ඉන්න පිස්සු බල්ලෙක් නාවන්න ගෙනියනවා වගේ අමාරු කාර්යයක්. රටේ ජනාධිපතිවරයා මැයිවෙද්දි පළාත් සභා මැතිවරණය පවත්වන්න ඕනේ කියනවා. අපේ දින 52 ආණ්ඩුව තියෙන කාලයේත් මැතිවරණය පවත්වන්න අවශ්‍ය බව කියමින් කැබිනට් එකට යෝජනාවක් ඉදිරිපත් කළා. දැන් ඒ යෝජනාවම දෙවැනිවරට ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසිනුත් කැබිනට් එකට ඉදිරිපත් කරලා තිබෙනවා.

ඒ වගේම අධිකරණය පළාත් සභා මැතිවරණය කල්දාන්න බැහැකියලා තීරණයක් දීලයි තියෙන්නේ. මැතිවරණ කොමිෂමේ සභාපතිවරයාත් ඔක්තෝම්බර් වෙද්දි පළාත් සභා මැතිවරණය තිබ්බේ නැත්නම් ඉල්ලා අස්වෙන බව සදහන් කරනවා. අපි කියන්නේ මැතිවරණ කොමිෂමේ සභාපතිවරයා ඉල්ලා අස්වෙනවා වෙනුවට ජනාධිපතිවරයා මාර්ගයෙන් මේ සම්බන්ධයෙන් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයෙක් තීන්දුවක් ගන්නයි ඉල්ලා සිටිනවා.

මේ මැතිවරණය කල් දාන්න පාර්ලිමේන්තුව රාත‍්‍රී අටවෙනකල් පැවැත්වුවා. අවසානයේ ඡුන්ද 06ක් අඩු වුනාම ඒ ස`දහා අවශ්‍ය සහාය දුන්නේ ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණයි. ඒ ඡුන්ද හය නිසයි පලාත්සභා මැතිවරණය එදා කල්දාගන්න ලැබුනේ. ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුනේ අය අද මොකද කියන්නේ? ඒ වගේම විග්නේස්වරම් මහත්තයා දෙමළ සන්ධානය එක්ක ඉන්න බැහැ කියලා දෙමළ සන්ධානයෙන් ඉවත් වෙලා වෙනත් දේශපාලන පක්ෂයක් පිහිටුවනවා. නමුත් මැතිවරණය සම්බන්ධයෙන් කිසිවක් ප‍්‍රකාශ කරන්නේ නැහැ. ඒකීය කියන එකටත් ඔරුමිත්තනාඩු කියන එකටත් එතුමා එක`ග නැති බව පැවැසුවා. ඒකෙන් උතුරු දකුණු ජනතාවට බොරු කරලා තිබෙන බවත් එතුමා ප‍්‍රකාශ කරලා තියෙනවා. එතුමාට මේ අවස්ථාවේදී මැතිවරණය වෙනුවෙන් ඉදිරිපත් වෙන්න බැරි ඇයි? රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහගේ අගමැතිකම නැති වුනු අවස්ථාවේ ප‍්‍රජාතන්ත‍්‍රවාදය වෙනුවෙන් හඩා වැළපුනු සිවිල් සංවිධානවලින් අපි අහනවා මේ සම්බන්ධයෙන් මොකද කියන්නේ කියලා. රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ කියන්නේ මැතිවරණවලට බය කෙනෙක්. මැතිවරණය තිබ්බොත් එක පළාත් සභාවක්වත් එජාපයට දිනාගන්න බැරි නිසා ඒ අය මැතිවරණවලට බයයි. ඉතිහාසයේ මැතිවරණ හකුලා ගත් සෑම අවස්ථාවකම පැවැති රජයන් පරාජයට පත්වුනා. මේ අවස්ථාවේ මැතිවරණය නොපැවැත්වූවොත් සිද්ධ වෙන්නේ රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ ඇතුලූ එජාපය අන්ත පරාජයකට පත්වීමයි.

එජාප විරෝධී පුලූල් බලවේගයක් ගොඩනගමින් තිබෙන මේ අවස්ථාවේ එය කඩාකප්පල් කරන්න නිල්, කොල, රතු පිරිස් ජනාධිපති අපේක්සකයා ගැන විවිධ අදහස් දක්වනවා. එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයට සහයෝගය ලබා දෙන පිරිස් තමයි ඔය ඉදිරිපත් කිරීම් කරන්නේ. පුලූල් සංධානයක් තුළින් එජාප විරෝධී බලවේගයක් විදියට කටයුතු කරන විට අපිටත් ගැටලූ තියෙනවා. නමුත් ඒ සියල්ල යටපත් කරගෙන මේ ආණ්ඩුව ගෙදර යැවීමේ වැඩපිීලවෙලට අපි එකාවන්ව කටයුතු කරනවා. ඒ කටයුත්ත කඩාකප්පල් කරන්න පියවර ගන්න අය ගැන තේරුම් ගන්න කියලා අපි ජනාධිපතිවරයාගෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටිනවා.
මේ රටේ සම්පත් විදේශීකරණය කිරීමේදී අපේ විරෝධතා හමුවේ හම්බන්තොට වරාය අපිට අහිමි වෙලා තියෙනවා. මත්තල ගුවන්තොටුපල විකිනීමේ වැඩපිළීවෙල කඩාකප්පල් කරන්න අපි පියවර ගත්තත් අද වනවිට නැවතත් මත්තල විකිණීම කරළියට ඇවිත් තියෙන්නේ. මේ ආණ්ඩුව ඉන්දියාවේ සිවිල් ගුවන් සේවා අධීකාරියට මත්තල ගුවන් තොටුපල විකුණාදමන්නයි උත්සාහ කරමින් සිටින්නේ. ඉන්දියාවේ සිවිල් ගුවන් සේවා අධිකාරිය ඉන්දියාවේ තියෙන තමන්ගේ ගුවන්තොටුපළ පාලනය කිරීමත් පෞද්ගලික සමාගම්වලට භාරදීලයි තියෙන්නේ. 2010 අංක 14 දරන සිවිල් ගුවන් සේවා පනතට අනුව අපේ රටේ ගුවන්තොටුපලක් වෙනත් රටකට විකුණන්න බැහැ. ඒ පනත වෙනස් කරලාද දන්නෙත් නැහැ. සිංගප්පූරු ගිවිසුම අත්සන් කරලා ඉවර වෙලයි නිතිපතිවරයාගෙන් උපදෙස් ගත්තේ සහ එය කැබිනට් එකට ඉදිරිපත් කලේ. සිංගප්පූරු ගිවිසුම අද අපිට අවලංගු කරන්න බැරි තත්ත්වයකට පත්වෙලාතියෙනවා. ඒ හා සමානව මත්තල ගුවන් තොටුපල විකිණීමේ ගිවිසුම අත්සන් කළාට පස්සේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට හා කැබිනට්ටුවට ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමේ අවධානමක් තියෙනවා. ඒ නිසා මේ සම්බන්ධයෙන් රට දැනුවව් කර අපේ ඉදිරි අනාගතය සදහා පවතින සම්පත් ආරක්ෂා කළ යුතුයි.
වතු කම්නරුවන්ගේ රුපියල් 1000 ඉල්ලීම වෙනුවට රුපියල් 700ක්ලබා දෙන්න පියවර ගත්ත බව ආන්ඩුවෙන් ප‍්‍රකාශ කළා. ඇත්තටම වැඩිකරලා තියෙන්නේ රුපියල් 20යි. සුරේෂ් වඩිවේල් ඇමැතිවරයා වසර දෙකතුනකට කළින් පළවෙනියටම පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ආවේ භූමිතෙල් ඔලූවේ ඉදලා වක්කරගෙන. ඊට පස්සේ දින 52 ආණ්ඩුවේ අපිත් එක්ක හිටියා රුපියල් 1000ක් කර ගන්න ඕනේ කියලා. ඊට පස්සේ ෂතියක් ඇතුළත අනෙක් පැත්තට ගිහින් රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ එක්ක සම්බන්ධ වුනා රුපියල් 1000 මේ පැත්තේ ආණ්ඩුව හදපුවාම ගන්නවා කිව්වා. දැන් සුරේෂ් වඩිවේල්ට භූමිතෙල් ටිතවත් රුපියල් 20ට ගන්න බැහැ. අපි අභියෝග කරනවා රුපියල් 20ට වඩා වැඩිවෙලා නැත්නම් ලබන සතියේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු එද්දිත් භූමිතෙල් ඔලූවේ තවරා ගෙන එන්න කියලා.

පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්තී‍්‍ර ඞී. වී. චානක මහතා

අද රට තුළ ආර්ථික, සමාජයීය, දේශපාලන වශයෙන් විශාල අර්බුද. හෙට වෙද්දි අපි ඉන්නේ කොතැනද කියලා විශ්වාසයක් නැති තැනකට ආණ්ඩුව රට ගෙනත් අවසන්. රටතුළ මොන අර්බුදය තිබුණත් ඒවාට විසදුම් හොයනවා වෙනුවට මේ කණ්ඩායම කරන්නේතමන්ගේ සාක්කු පුරවා ගැනීම ගැන විතරයි. රටේ බහුතර ජනතාවක් ඉන්නේ එදා වේල් තුන කන්නේ කොහොමද කියලා හිතා ගන්න බැරි තත්ත්වයකයි. ඒ ප‍්‍රශ්නවලට විසදුම් හොයනවා වෙනුවට එජාපයට තියෙන්නේ ඇමැතිකම් වැඩිකර ගැනීම සදහා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් නිර්මාණය කිරීමේ ප‍්‍රශ්නය විතරයි.එජාපය ඇතුලේ ප‍්‍රධාන අර්බුද දෙකක් තියෙනවා. හෙට අනිද්දා ගෙන ඒමට නියමිත අයවැය සම්මත කර ගන්නේ කොහාමද කියන කාරණය සහ රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ අගමැතිවරයාගේ අගමැතිකම තව දුරටත් තියාගන්නේ කොහොමද කියන කාරණය පක්ෂය ඇතුලේ තියෙනවා. එජාපයේ මන්තී‍්‍රවරු අට දෙනෙක් කියනවා කැබිනට් ඇමැතිධූර අටක් මාස දෙකක් ඇතුළත දුන්නේ නැත්නම් එතුමන්ලා අයවැයට විරුද්ධව ඡුන්දය දෙනවාලූ. තව මන්තී‍්‍රවරු පහළොවක් නියෝජ්‍ය හෝ රාජ්‍ය ඇමැතිධූර දෙන්නේ නැත්නම් අයවැයට ඡුන්දේ දෙන්නේ නැහැලූ. දැන් අර්බුදය ගොඩනැගිලා ඉවරයි. අමාත්‍යංශ නොලැබුනොත් අයවැයට පක්ෂව ඡුන්ද ලැබෙන්නේ නැහැ. ඒ නිසා එජාපය උත්සාහ කරන්නේ ව්‍යවස්ථාවෙන් පිටට ගිහින් හරි ජාතික ආණ්ඩුව හදන්නයි. සරත් ෆොන්සේකා කියනවා මුස්ලිම් කොංග‍්‍රසයෙන් ඉන්න එකම මන්තී‍්‍රවරයා එක්ක ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් හදනවාලූ. දේශපාලන තක්කඩිකම් කරන්න එපා කියලා අපි ආණ්ඩුවට කියනවා. ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 46 වගන්තියේ පැහැදිලිව තියනවා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් කියන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ වැඩිම මන්තී‍්‍රධූර සංඛ්‍යාවක් සිටින පක්ෂය හා අනෙකුත් පක්ෂ හෝ ස්වාධින කණ්ඩායම්වලින් හැදුනු එකක් කියලා. මෙතුමන්ලාට තියෙන්නේ පක්ෂ දෙකයි. ඒ කියන්නේ කිසිසේත් ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් හැදෙන්නේ නැහැ. එහෙම තියෙද්දිත් ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් හදන්න පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට යෝජනාවක් ගෙනත්. මේ ජාතික ආණ්ඩුව හදන්න අපි විපක්ෂයේ ඉන්නකල් කිසිසේත් අපි ඉඩ දෙන්නේ නැහැ. බදු අඩු කරන්න යෝජනාවක් ගේන්න. අපි සහාය දෙන්නම්. රැුකියා විරහිත උපාධීධාරින් රැුකියා දෙන්න යෝජනාවක් ගෙනාවොත් අපි සහයෝගය දෙන්නම්. තෙල් මිල අඩු කරන්න යෝජනාවක් ගෙනාවොත් අපි සහාය දෙන්නම්. ඇමැතිකම් වැඩි කරගන්න ගේන යෝජනාවලට අපෙන් කිසිම සහායක් නැහැ. පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ඉන්න ලාබාලම මන්තී‍්‍රවරයා විදියට මම ජනාධිපතිවරයාගෙන් ඉල්ලීමක් කරනවා. ව්‍යවස්ථාවෙන් පිට ගිහින් ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් හැදුවොත් කිසිසේත් ඇමැතිකම් දෙන්න එපා. ඔබතුමන් අතෙයි ඇමැතිකම් තියෙන්නේ. ඒ වගේම ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් හදන්නේ නැත්නම් මේ ආණ්ඩුවට ඉදිරියට යන්න බැහැ. අයවැය පරද්දන්න අපි සූදානම්. එහෙම වුනොත් මේ අයට අනිවරායයෙන් මැතිවරණයකට යන්න සිද්ධ වෙනවා. නැත්නම් අගමැතිවරයාට ගෙදර යන්න වෙනවා.

අපිට තවත් ගැටලවක් තියෙනවා. දෙමළ සන්ධනායට අවශ්‍ය වෙලා තියෙන්නේ උතුරු නැගෙනහිර වෙන් කර ගන්න. ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් හරහා රට කෑලි නවයකට කඩලා උතුරු නැගෙනහිර වෙන් කර ගන්න එතුමන්ලා උත්සාහ කරන අතරේ අනෙක් පැත්තෙන් ලෝකේ ඉන්න බලවත් රාජ්‍ය කිහිපයකට රටේ සම්පත් ටික භාරදෙන්න එජාපය සූදානම් වෙනවා. හම්බන්තොට වරාය ඇතුලූ අක්කර 20000ට ආසන්න ප‍්‍රමාණයක් චීනයට දෙන්න සියලූ දේක රලා අවසන්. ඊට කිලෝමිටර් 12ක් එහා පැත්තේ මත්තල ගුවන්තොටුපල ඇතුලූ අක්කර 5000ක් ඉන්දියාවට දෙන්න සූදානම් කරලා ඉවරයි. රටේ අනෙක් පැත්තට යද්දි ති‍්‍රකුණාමලය, පලාලි ගුවන් තොටුපළ ඇතුලූ අක්කර 35000ක් ඇමරිකාවට දෙන්න සුදානම්. ලෝකයේ බලවතුන් අතර සීතල යුද්ධයක් මේ වෙද්දි කි‍්‍රයාත්මකයි. ඉන්දියාව, චීනය, ඇමරිකාව අතර ලොකු ප‍්‍රශ්නයක් තියෙන බව ලෝකයම දන්නවා. පොලව යට ගෙනියන මේ යුද්ධය භූමිය මතුපිටට එන්නේ අපේ රට ඇතුලෙනුයි. එක පැත්තකින් චීනය, අනෙක් පැත්තෙන් ඇමරිකාව, ඊටත් එහා පැත්තෙන් ඉන්දියාව. මේවත් එක්ක අපේ රටේ සම්පත් විකුණපුවාම අපිට අදාල නැති යුද්ධයකට අදාල නැති දේකට පැටලිලා වන්දි ගෙවන්න වෙන්නේ අපේ රටේ ජනතාවටයි. හෙට අනිද්දා හැදෙන්නේ ඒකීයවත් එක්සත්වත් රාජ්‍යයක් නෙවෙයි. ලෝක බලවතුන්ගේ යුදපිටියක්.

දැන් නැවතත් උද්ඝෝෂණ වැඩිවෙමින් තිබෙනවා. අපේ දින 52 ආණ්ඩුව කාලයේ උද්ඝෝෂණ නැති වුනේ අපි ජනතාව එක්ක කතා කරපු නිසා. නමුත් මේ ආණ්ඩුව නැවතත් බලයට ඒමත් සම`ග නිලධාරින් වේවා ශීෂ්‍යයන් එක්ක වේවා සාකච්ඡුා ප‍්‍රතික්ෂේප කරලා. ඒ නිසයි උද්ඝෝෂණ ඇති වෙන්නේ.රේගුවේ ප‍්‍රශ්නය අපි දැක්කා. අද වෙද්දි රේගු අධ්‍යක්ෂ ජෙනරාල්තුමිය ඉවත් කරලා. හොරකමට වංචාවට විරුද්ධ නම් ඇමැතිවරුන්ගේ හිතවතුන්ට බදු සහන දෙන්නේ නැත්නම් මේ ආණ්ඩුවේ ඉඩක් නැහැ. ගම්මිරිස් ප‍්‍රතිඅපනයනය කරලා පාඩු වෙද්දි, හොරාට බදු අඩු කරලා ප‍්‍රාඩෝ ගෙන්වන්න යද්දි ඒවාට විරුද්ධව කතා කරපු නිසා තමයි අද එතුමියව ඉවත් කරලා තියෙන්නේ. වැඩ වර්ජනය නිසා දින දෙකට මිලියන 6000ක් පාඩු වෙලා. මේක සාකච්චා කරලා නිවැරදි විසදුම් දුන්නා නම් මේමුදල් ඉතිරි කර ගන්න තිබුනා. සේනා දළඹු හානියට ලක්වුනු කණ්ඩායමට සහන දෙන්න වැය කලේ කෝටි 25යි. දවස් දෙකේ රේගුවේ පාඩුව කෝටි 600යි. මේකට රජය වගකියන්න ඕනේ. මේවා සාකච්ඡුා කරලා විසදා ගත්තේ නැත්නම් රටේ ආර්ථිකය තවත් විනාශ වෙන එකයි වෙන්නේ.
සජිත් පේ‍්‍රමදාස මහත්තයා ගෙවල් හදාදෙනවා කියලා රටට බොරු මවා පෑමක් කළා. ඒ ව්‍යාපෘති පෙන්නුවට ඇත්තටම ගෙවල් හැදුවේ නැහැ. ලක්ෂ 4 ගානේ ණය දුන්නා විතරයි’.හම්බන්තොට දිස්ති‍්‍රක්කය ගැන අවධානය යොමු කලොත් ලක්ෂ 4 ගානේ ණය දිලා ගෙවල් 1000ක් හදලා තියෙනවා. මේකේ ඇතුලේ අලූත් සේවකයෝ 1008ක් ඉන්නවා. හැම නිවසකම එක සේවකයෙකුට වැඩිය ඉන්නවා. එක නිවසක් හදන්න ඒක බලන්න නිවාස අධීකාරියේ එක්කෙනෙක් ඉන්නවා. මේ අය ගත්තේ ප‍්‍රාදේශීය සභා මැතිවරණයට කළින් ඔය ගෙවල්වල සජිත් පේ‍්‍රමදාසගේ පෝස්ටරේ ඇලෙව්වද කියලා බලලා හරියක් දාන්නයි නිලධාරින්ට තිබුනේ. රුපියල් 20000 පළවෙනි වාරිකය දුන්නට පස්සේ දෙවැනි වාරිකය ගන්නනම් පෝස්ටරය ගහන්න ඕනේ. නිවාස සංවර්ධන අධිකාරියේ සබාපතිවරයා කියා තිබුණා එතුමන්ලා පළකයක් හදන්න රුපියල් 5000ක් පමණක් වැය කරපු බව. අමූලික බොරු. මෙතුමන්ලා දෙලක්ෂ තිස් එක්දාහක් වියදම් කළා. මෙතුමන්ලාගේ සභාපතිවරයා අත්සන් කරපු ලියවිල්ලේ තියෙන්නේ පළක සදහා පමණක් පක්ෂ 430ක් වැයකරපු බවයි. එක පළකයට 5000ක් වැය කළා නම් ගම්මාන 8600ක් මේ වෙද්දි හදලා තියෙන්න ඕනේ. නමුත් මෙතුමන්ගේ මුහුණු පොතේ තියෙන්නේ උදාගම්මන 160ක් විවෘත කරපු බව. මෙයින්ම පේනවා බොරුවක් කරන බව. නිවාස හදනවාට වඩා වියදමක් තමන්ගේ ප‍්‍රචාරණ කටයුතු වෙනුවෙන් වැය කරලා බදු සල්ලි වැඩියෙන්ම නාස්ති කරන අමාත්‍යංශය නිවාස අමාත්‍යංශයයි. ගිය වසරේ වැඩිම මුදල් ප‍්‍රචාරණය ස`දහා වැය කලේ නිවාස අමාත්‍යංශයයි. ඇමැතිතුමාගෙනුයි සභාපතිවරයාගෙනුයි අපි ඉල්ලා සිටින්නේ රටේ ජනතාව එක්ක සෙල්ලම් කරන්න එපා කියලයි. ඔබලා ඇත්තටම නිවාස හැදුවා නම් බෝඞ් ගහන්න පෝස්ටර් ගහන්න ඕනේ නැහැ. ජනතාව කියයි අපිට ගෙවල් හදලා දුන්නා කියලා. බොරු කරපු නිසයි පෝස්ටර් ගහන්න රූපවාහිනි දැන්වීම් දැන්න වෙලා තියෙන්නේ. මේ විදියට ජනතාවගේ බදු සල්ලි නාස්ති කරන්න එපා.

මාධ්‍ය – දුමින්ද දිසානායක මන්තී‍්‍රවරයා කිව්වා කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලයේ ප‍්‍රධාන සාමාජිකයා ජනාධිපතිවරයායි. ඔහුට ඇමැතිධූරයක් තියෙන නිසා කොහොමත් තියෙන්නේ ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් බවයි ඔහුගේ අදහස වුනේ.

ඞී. වී. චානක – ජනාධිපතිවරයාට නිල බලයෙන්ම අමාත්‍යංශය ලැබෙනවා. නමුත් කිසියම් ආකාරයට මෙය ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් වෙන්න නම් එක්සත් ජනතා නිදහස් සන්ධානයේ ලේකම්වරයා හා එක්සත් ජාතික පන්ෂයේ මහලේකම්වරයාත් අතර ගිවිසුමක් ඇති වෙන්න ඕනේ. ඒ ගිවිසුම තුලිනුයි ජාතිකආණ්ඩුවක් ඇති වෙන්නේ. කළින් වතාවේ ගිවිසුමක් තිබුණා. එක්සත් ජනතා නිදහස් සන්ධානයේ ලේකම්වරයා ලිපියක් දෙමින් ඉල්ලා අස්වුනා. ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් හදන්න නම් මුස්ලිම් කොංග‍්‍රසයට අමතරව මේ අය තවත් කණ්ඩායමක් එකතු කරගන්න අවශ්‍යයි. ඕනේ නම් හැංගිලා ඉන්න ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුනේ අය එක්ක එකතු වෙලා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් හදන්න පුලූවන්. එහෙම නැතුව ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් හදන්න අයිතියක් නැහැ.

කනක හේරත් – 2001 – 2004 ආණ්ඩුවේ ජනාධිපති චන්ද්‍රිකා බණ්ඩාරනායක මැතිණියයි. ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් තිබුනේ නැහැ. ආණ්ජුව රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ මහත්තයාගේ. දුමින්ද දිසානායකට එතනදි පොඞ්ඩක් වැරදිමක් වෙලා.

මාධ්‍ය – සජිත් පේ‍්‍රමදාසට විරුද්ධව ටොප් 10 වගේ වැඩක් කරන්නේ නැද්ද?

කනක හේරත් – අපි ටොප් 10 කළා. මමත් අල්ලස් කොමිෂමට හා අපරාධ පරික්ෂ දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවට චෝදනා භාරදෙන්න ගිහින් තියෙනවා. අද වෙනතුරු පැමිනිල්ල භාරදුන් අපෙන් කටඋත්තර ගත්තා පමණයි. ඒ චෝදනාගත් නිලධාරින් හෝ ඇමැතිවරුන්ගෙන් කිසිම විමසිමක් කරලා නැහැ. අපි කොහොමද ඉදිරියට කටයුතු කරන්නේ. මේ අය ඒවා නොසලකා හරිනවා. නමුත් අපි ඉදිරියේදී අනෙකුත් අමාත්‍යංශවල වංචා ¥ෂණ සම්බන්ධයෙනුත් නීතිමය කි‍්‍රයාමාර්ග අපි ගන්නවා.

Insight EP 97 With Waruna Chandrakeerthi

පසුගිය ඉරිදා (ජනවාරි 27 වැනි දා) රාත්‍රි 8 ට දෙරණ 24 X 7 නාලිකාවෙන් විකාශය කළ Insight වැඩසටහන මෙම Youtube සබැඳිය තුළින් නැරැඹිය හැකිය.

By C. A. Chandraprema Courtesy The Island

January 24, 2019, 12:00 pm

When former minister Sarath Fonseka was denied a ministry by President Sirisena last December, he threatened to go before courts to obtain what he deems to be his rightful place in the UNP government, formed following the restoration of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe to that post. He has not yet followed up on that threat, but we now hear that some of the SLFP members who defected to the UNP recently are also contemplating petitioning courts because they, too, have been denied ministerial appointments. The fact is that after the 19th Amendment, these aggrieved parties do have provisions under which they can petition courts to seek redress.

Article 43(1) of the present Constitution, as amended by the 19th Amendment, states that the President shall, in consultation with the Prime Minister, where he considers such consultation to be necessary, determine the number of Cabinet Ministers and the assignment of subjects and functions to such Ministers. Thus, to determine the number of ministries in the government and the assignment of subjects to those ministries, the President is not bound to obtain the Prime Minister’s advice but can do so if he so wishes. However, under Article 43(2) when the President appoints individuals to the Cabinet slots determined in accordance with Article 43(1), he is mandatorily required to obtain the advice of the Prime Minister. Article 43(2) goes as follows: “The President shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint from among Members of Parliament, Ministers, to be in charge of the Ministries so determined.” The word ‘shall’ denotes a mandatory requirement.

The 19th Amendment made the President’s actions justiciable and that is what gives certain individuals the confidence that they would be able to go to courts and obtain redress. According to the system that all Sri Lankans had got used to until the 19th Amendment came along, it was the President who would decide who got ministries and who didn’t, and there was no higher authority that could be appealed to if the President refused to appoint someone as a minister. What happened after 1994 and 2001 when the parliamentary elections of those years were won by political parties opposed to the incumbent President was that the latter bowed to the public will and appointed as Ministers anybody recommended by the Prime Minister. After 15 December 2018, we once again have a situation where the President represents one party and the Prime Minister another political party.

Where today’s situation differs from that of 1994 and 2001 is that in this case, the President tried to call a general election and was thwarted in that attempt due to new provisions, introduced into the Constitution by the 19th Amendment, and now he is constrained to work with the very people he had tried to get rid of. Thus, the new Article 43(2) now comes into play and though the President is required by the Constitution to heed the advice of the Prime Minister in appointing Ministers, he has not abided by that requirement. In the recent judgment in the fundamental rights case relating to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a general election, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“Article 35 (1) of the 1978 Constitution stipulated that during the period when a President holds office, no proceedings can be instituted or continued against him in any court or tribunal in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in his official or private capacity. Thus, prior to the 19th Amendment, Article 35 (1) conferred a blanket immunity upon a President [so long as he holds office] from being sued in respect of any act or omission done by him in his official capacity qua President or in his private capacity. However, as is well known, the proviso to Article 35 (1) introduced by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution introduced a very significant change. It states, “Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be read and construed as restricting the right of any person to make an application under Article 126 against the Attorney-General, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, in his official capacity.”

“Thus, the proviso to Article 35 (1) entitles any person who complains that an act or omission by the President in his official capacity has violated a fundamental right of that person to institute a fundamental rights application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution against the Hon. Attorney General and seek a determination by the Supreme Court with regard to his complaint. In other words, the proviso to Article 35 (1) makes acts or omissions by the President in his official capacity justiciable within the limited sphere of an invocation of the jurisdiction for the protection of fundamental rights conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 118 (b) read with Article 126 of the Constitution and subject to the stipulation that the Hon. Attorney General [and not the President] is to be made the Respondent to the fundamental rights application filed by that person.”

Give and take: Giving and then taking, literally!

If the dissolution of parliament and the calling of a general election are deemed to be within the rubric of ‘executive and administrative’ action of the President, then the appointment of ministers also falls into the same category, and the parties, aggrieved by President Sirisena’s decision to refuse ministerial appointments to some MPs, recommended for appointment by the PM, can, in fact, move the courts. What then is preventing them from filing action in courts? We saw that in the wake of the SC suspending the gazette dissolving Parliament and calling a general election, some people were so emboldened as to actually file a petition in courts asking for an order to have the President’s mental health examined. Then why has no one yet gone to the Supreme Court to complain that there has been a fundamental rights violation due to the President’s refusal to appoint certain individuals as ministers?

The stumbling block is Article 43(3), which was also introduced to the Constitution by the 19th Amendment. What Article 43(3) says is that “the President may at any time change the assignment of subjects and functions and the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers. Such changes shall not affect the continuity of the Cabinet of Ministers and the continuity of its responsibility to Parliament.” What this means is that even if the aggrieved parties go to courts and obtain a judgment to the effect that their fundamental rights have been violated because the President has not abided by Article 43(2) of the Constitution, and the President is forced to swear the said individuals in as ministers of varying rank to the few vacancies still available, the President can sack the whole lot under Article 43(3) even before they leave the Presidential secretariat after the swearing in! Article 43(3) does not restrict the President’s ability to change the composition of the Cabinet in any way he likes and at any time he wishes.

There is a practical issue here in that the 30 Cabinet slots available under the Constitution are already taken and those who have been left out may have to be satisfied with a non-Cabinet portfolio. What Article 44(1) says about non-cabinet Ministers is that “The President may, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint from among Members of Parliament, Ministers who shall not be members of the Cabinet of Ministers. The use of the word ‘may’ in this provision indicates that it will be the President who has the discretion to decide whether he is going to appoint any non-Cabinet ministers at all. Even if the Prime Minister advises him to appoint some non-cabinet ministers, the final decision whether to do so or not will be the President’s. If, by some chance, the President decides to have non-Cabinet ministers, under article 44(2) it will be the President who determines the assignment of subjects and functions to those no-Cabinet Ministers. He can consult the Prime Minister on the assignment of functions to those non-Cabinet ministers only if he deems such consultation to be necessary. Furthermore, under Article 44(3) the President may, at any time, change any assignment made to any non-Cabinet Minister. That basically leaves only the deputy minister slots. However, according to Article 45(1), it is the President who has the final discretion to decide whether there will be any deputy minister positions at all. What Article 45(1) says is that The President ‘may’ on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint from among Members of Parliament, Deputy Ministers to assist Cabinet Ministers in the performance of their duties. Once appointed, it will be the minister concerned who will assign subjects to his deputy and the President has no role in that. However, the initial decision to have a deputy minister for a given Cabinet minister will be with the President. Thus, we see that even though article 43(2) purports to empower the Prime Minister to appoint Cabinet Ministers, he actually has no such power in terms of the other provisions of the 19th Amendment. Welcome to the madhouse that is the Constitution of Sri Lanka today!

By C. A. Chandraprema Courtesy The Island

January 31, 2019, 12:00 pm

For nearly two decades, the view that appointments to high state positions should be made only on the recommendations of an apolitical vetting body styled the Constitutional Council has been propagated by certain interested parties. The need for some kind of a vetting process in making high state appointments became a matter for discussion because unsuitable appointments were in fact made at various times and certain parties were able to use that to propagate the view that the elected government and especially the elected President could not be trusted to make such appointments and that a mechanism had to be set up to confer that power on an apolitical body that brings both the government and the opposition together along with some wise and distinguished non-politicians. On the face of it, this seems quite a reasonable idea. The problems arise when you try to put what looks like a good idea into practice.

The key state appointments that were deemed to need a wider consultative process were positions like the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, the Attorney-General, Auditor-General, Inspector-General of Police, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) and the Secretary-General of Parliament, the Chairmen and members of the Election Commission, Public Service Commission, National Police Commission, Audit Service Commission, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, Finance Commission, Delimitation Commission and the National Procurement Commission.

Under our present Constitution (after the 19th Amendment), the Constitutional Council consists of the Prime Minister; the Speaker; the Leader of the Opposition; one Member of Parliament appointed by the President; five persons nominated jointly by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of whom two persons shall be Members of Parliament; and one Member of Parliament nominated by agreement of the majority of the Members of Parliament belonging to political parties or independent groups, other than the political parties to which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition belong. The Speaker of Parliament is the ex-officio Chairman of the Constitutional Council. Thus at present the Constitutional Council is made up of seven Parliamentarians and three outsiders. In naming their five nominees to the CC, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are required to consult the leaders of political parties and independent groups represented in Parliament so as to ensure that the Constitutional Council reflects the ‘pluralistic character’ of Sri Lankan society.

The three non-parliamentarians who are to sit on the CC are to be persons of eminence and integrity have distinguished themselves in public or professional life and who are not members of any political party. Even though the three wise outsiders are not supposed to be members of any political party, the Constitution requires the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to consult the political parties in Parliament when making appointments to these three positions! In the Constitutional Council that was set up immediately after the 19th Amendment was promulgated, appointing the CC was a simple matter because the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan were both on the same side and had contributed to getting President Maithripala Sirisena elected to power. Thus the first CC appointed under the 19th Amendment was a 100% yahapalana outfit. The Prime Minister was a yahapalanite, the leader of the opposition was a yahapalanite, the Speaker was a yahapalanite, the five nominess to be appointed by the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition were all yahapalanites, the President’s nominee to the CC was a yahapalanite and the nominee of the political parties to whom neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the opposition belongs was a yahapalanite.

Thus the body which was supposed to ensure that appointees to high state offices would not be political appointees became the body that guarantees that every person elected to high office in the past four years was a yahapalanite. Even the former Solicitor General turned UNP provincial councilor Srinath Perera admitted in an interview with this newspaper, that top positions were being given to political fellow travelers of the government. Probably, never before in a democratic country has a constitutional provision introduced specifically with a view to ushering in good governance, been perverted in that manner. Despite the fact that the yahapalanites themselves perverted the Constitutional Council in that manner, the idea that this CC should consist of a majority of non-parliamentarians in order to ensure that it was not politicized and continued to hold sway so much so that in the proposed new constitution, provision has been made to reduce the number of parliamentarians on the CC and to make the number of non-parliamentarians the majority.

Going round and round in circles

Under the proposed draft constitution, the Constitutional Council is supposed to be made up of the following persons – the Prime Minister; the Speaker of Parliament; the Leader of the Opposition; the Speaker of the Second Chamber; one person appointed by the President; five persons appointed on nomination by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition; and one person nominated by agreement among the majority of the Members of Parliament belonging to political parties or independent groups, other than the political parties to which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition belong. Thus we see that the number of persons on the CC is to go up from ten to eleven with the addition of the speaker of the second chamber. The composition is also to change from having seven parliamentarians and three non-politicians at present to just four parliamentarians seven non-politicians under the proposed constitution. This is obviously in keeping with the idea that non-politicians were somehow more exalted, more independent, more upright and less likely to do the wrong thing than a politician.

There is a specific provision in the draft constitution which says that other than the Speaker, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker of the proposed second chamber, none of the other members of the CC should be Members of Parliament, Members of the proposed Second Chamber, Members of a Provincial Council, or members of any political party. However in selecting their supposedly non-political nominees, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are mandatorily required to consult the leaders of political parties represented in Parliament ‘so as to ensure that the Constitutional Council reflects the pluralistic character of Sri Lankan society, including professional and social diversity’. The now defunct 17th Amendment also had very similar provisions in appointing the ostensibly non-political majority in the CC. What the 17th Amendment said was that in nominating the said five persons, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are to consult the political parties represented in Parliament and three such persons were to be appointed only in consultation with the Members of Parliament who belong to the respective minority communities, so as to represent minority interests. The proposed draft constitution has not been as specific as the 17th Amendment in stating that the minority community political parties had to be consulted. However, when it is said that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have to consult the leaders of political parties and independent groups represented in Parliament ‘so as to ensure that the Constitutional Council reflects the pluralistic character of Sri Lankan society’, what is meant is more or less the same thing.

In an adversarial political system with the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader representing opposing sides, the only practical way an agreement can be reached on making nominations to the CC will be if the two sides divide up the slots among themselves with the PM appointing two of his catchers, the Leader of the Opposition appointing two of his, and taking turns to appoint the remaining member. That is how things happened when the 17th Amendment was operational. In addition to these five persons, the President can appoint someone to represent him and the smaller parties in Parliament who have not been able to get either the position of Prime Minister or the position of Leader of the Opposition can nominate their own representative to the CC.

What happened in these instances also was that the President appointed his catcher and the smaller parties took turns appointing their catchers to the CC in turn. When the 17th Amendment was first promulgated nearly two decades ago, many people thought there would be a gridlock because the adversaries in parliament may not be able to agree on nominees to the CC but a ‘I’ll scratch your back, you scratch my back’ kind of cooperation soon evolved with the political parties sharing out the slots among themselves. From the very first Constitutional Council that was formed, it was painfully obvious that all those sitting on it were stooges of various political parties just as it is obvious today that the three ostensible non-politicians on the CC are all yahapalanites.

Why this proposal for a Constitutional Council has been included in the draft constitution at all is a moot point. The purpose of having a CC was to curb the power of the executive President had in making these appointments. If the executive presidency is going to be abolished as the draft constitution has proposed, then what is the purpose of this Constitutional Council? If the executive power is to be exercised by a Prime Minister and Cabinet appointed from within parliament as has been proposed, why would a committee of Parliament like COPE not be able to do the same job even better? It will of course be argued in keeping with the ideas driving this proposal that even if the executive power is to be exercised by the Prime Minister and cabinet appointed from within Parliament, they are still politicians and therefore they cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions. If politicians elected by the sovereign people are not to be trusted, how can anyone trust the catchers, friends and fellow travelers of these very same politicians who are nominated to the CC?

The purpose of the CC appears to be to provide the cronies of politicians with a respectable station in life. Furthermore if politicians are so untrustworthy, why do we have elections at all? It should be recognized that all mechanisms that have been proposed to keep politicians out of the decision making process are bound to fail because even if the politician is not involved in making the relevant appointments, his catchers will be; under all the hare brained schemes that have been proposed in this regard over the past two decades. Perhaps it’s time to take due cognizance of the fact that the elected representatives of the people cannot be kept out of the loop no matter what mechanism we try to devise. The present arrangement where seven of the ten members are parliamentarians is in fact better than the arrangement that existed under the 17th Amendment and which has now been proposed once again in the draft constitution. At least the seven members of Parliament on the CC are peoples’ representatives and not foreign funded agents masquerading as do gooders. The most rational course of action may be to get rid of the three remaining non-parliamentarians in the CC and to turn it into a permanent parliamentary oversight body like COPE which is made up of representatives of all parties in Parliament.

That should more than suffice to supervise the appointments to high office made by a Prime Minister and Cabinet selected from within the same Parliament. Even if the executive presidency were to remain, such a parliamentary committee will be able to do the work of the CC much better and the people will have the benefit of knowing that these decisions were at least being made by people’s representatives and not by unelected agents of foreign interests and various cronies of politicians.

BY Dr. Janaka Ratnasiri Courtesy The Island

January 31, 2019, 9:25 pm

The Cabinet decision

The Cabinet of Ministers at its meeting held on 22.01.2019 has apparently granted approval for a project for preventing floods in the Ratnapura and Kalutara districts, and providing drinking water to the Hambantota district, by diverting Kuda Ganga, which is a tributary of the Kalu Ganga, as announced in the Cabinet Office website. The decision further says that a feasibility study has been carried out to implement the Kalu Ganga development project at an investment of Rs 123 billion, and has decided to call for proposals for Expression of Interest from International Construction Companies which can implement the project with foreign investment, to call for project proposals from eligible construction companies and to appoint a Cabinet Appointed Committee to evaluate the proposals.

Flaws in the decision

This Cabinet decision raises some doubts as to the feasibility of the project. Kuda Ganga described as a tributary of Kalu Ganga commences near Molkawa after the confluence of Kukule Ganga with Maguru Ganga and ends at Mabogoda where it confluences with Kalu Ganga. Though the Cabinet has decided to divert Kuda Ganga, technically it may not be feasible to do so because Kuda Ganga flows at an elevation below 20 m according to Survey Department toposheets. To divert this water, it is necessary to build a large reservoir and the topography there does not appear suitable for that even to a layman like the writer. It is surprising that such a flawed paper has been submitted by officials of the Ministry and got it approved. So, now, international bids are to be called based on this flawed decision.

Another flaw in the Cabinet decision is that though an objective of the project is said to prevent flooding in Ratnapura District, the diversion of Kuda Ganga will not achieve this objective. Flooding of Ratnapura town and its low-lying areas is caused during heavy rain by water surging down Kalu Ganga and Wey Ganga which confluence at Ratnapura town and not by waters flowing down Kuda Ganga which is in the Kalutara District. It appears that the officer who drafted the Cabinet paper does not know his basic geography.

Thirdly, the statement that a feasibility study on Kalu Ganga development has been carried out and according to this study, an investment of LKR 123 billion is required to implement the project. However, this study may not be referring to diverting Kuda Ganga, in view of the non-feasibility of diverting that river as stated above. It may be referring to diverting either Kalu Ganga or Kukule Ganga which has been attempted a few times in the past. If this is the case, the paper is only misleading the Cabinet. Attempts by the writer to get a copy of the annexure to the cabinet paper describing the project from the Ministry to find out which river is planned to be diverted were not successful.

Further, according to the Cabinet decision, this amount of money is to be raised through foreign investments. A foreigner will invest money in a project only if it will bring some return. Does it mean that water to be diverted to Hambantota will be sold to people there enabling the investor to get a return? Or, does the government plan to export the water diverted? What is the rationale for undertaking such a massive project where there are so many uncertainties? What is the urgency for the new minister to submit a poorly drawn up cabinet paper on such a massive project soon after he assumed office without properly understanding its history and verifying the facts?

Previous proposal to divert Kukule Ganga

Proposal to divert surplus Kalu Ganga water to water-deficit Hambantota is not a new one. The initial proposal to divert Kalu Ganga basin water to Hambantota was made more than 50 years ago by an American firm of consultants under the title “Three Basin River Development” covering the three rivers Kalu Ganga, Gin Ganga and Nilwala Ganga, published in 1968. Under the Kalu Ganga basin, the proposal was made to divert water from a large reservoir built across Kukule Ganga. This river commences from hills in the Sinharaja Forest and flows at an elevation more than 200 m. Diverted water is to be taken via a trans-basin canal, comprising both open segments and tunnels, referred to as the South East Dry Zone (SEDZ) canal to be built along the 120 m contour up to Lunugamvehera Reservoir. The report also recommended building a reservoir across Kalu Ganga at Meehitiya, 3 km upstream of Ratnapura Town to control flooding and develop hydro power. However, with priority given for the development of the Mahaweli River Projects in the 1970’s, the Kalu Ganga project was not pursued.

Kalu Ganga development was undertaken in the 1990’s when feasibility studies commenced to build a 100 m high dam across the Kukule Ganga near Kalawana for the purpose of developing hydro power and to take water from the reservoir to Lunugamvehera along the SEDZ canal. The rapid gradient of the river through 200 m elevation over a short distance made it an ideal site for hydropower development. The large reservoir formed with a high dam, however, was found to cause inundation of large extent of land including Kalawana Town with the water reaching the western boundary of the Sinharaja Forest, which was declared as a UNESCO World Heritage site. This prompted many environment organizations to raise objections including affected people in the area.

In view of its serious adverse environmental and social impacts and also considering protests from the public, this proposal has not been pursued, and instead a smaller pond with a 20 m high low dam was built to operate a run-of-the-river hydro power plant of capacity 70 MW, which was commissioned in 2003. Further, the German-based Lahmeyer International, who along with Skanska and Electrowatt formed part of the Skanska International Engineering Consortium (SIEC) that was responsible for planning the dam, found the geology in the area of the head pond unsuitable to build a high dam required for a large reservoir (https://www.water-technology.net/projects/kukule/).

Proposal to build a reservoir at Ratnapura

A few years later, the diversion of the Kalu Ganga received renewed attention when the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was reported to have said at a function of the new administrative complex in Hambantota in March 2006, that he wanted Kalu Ganga diverted to Ruhuna thereby solving two problems in one attempt, referring to the constant recurrence of floods in the Ratnapura and the occurrence of severe droughts in the Hambantota District, (Daily News of 13.03.2006).

Subsequently, several studies on preventing flooding due to spilling of Kalu Ganga waters have been undertaken including a study by a second American team, a Chinese Team, a Japanese team (JICA) and finally an Israel Team. All these teams have considered building a reservoir at Meehitiya to hold back the flood water, with varying sizes and hydro-power capacities along with other alternatives. However, according to Eng. G.T Dharmasena, a former Director General of Irrigation Department, this water cannot be diverted to Hambantota due to the low elevation of the Meehitiya reservoir site thogh it is feasible to have a reservoir there. Therefore, the benefit of Ratnapura reservoir would be for flood protection to Ratnapura city and for hydro power generation, but not for taking water to Hambantota as anticipated in the project (http://www.island.lk/2006/03/17/features1.html).

JICA study on providing flood protection for Ratnapura

The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) undertook a detailed study on Flood Management Planning for Kelani, Kalu, Gin and Nilwara Rivers and its report was published in March 2009. Part II of the report covered the Kalu Ganga basin which considered four alternatives as described in the Table 1 along with the estimated costs (http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11931946_02.pdf).

The comments made in the JICA report on the proposed alternatives are as follows:

“The reservoir of Malwala dam, which is planned in the upper streams of Kalu River is expected to be 4 km wide (East-West) and 8 km long (North-South). Due to the formulation of the reservoir, many communities will be submerged, which is expected to lead to the occurrence of involuntary resettlement for hundreds of households. Furthermore, the farmlands formulated in the bottom of the valleys, together with the gem mining sites in the river beds will vanish. The partial submerging of a B class national road crossing the area will spread its impact to other districts as well as the adjacent areas of the dam site. Furthermore, other factors that are expected to receive negative impact include; cultural / religious heritage, hydrology, flora/fauna and bio-diversity, landscape, and other factors relevant to construction work, and the overall negative impact of dam construction is expected to be significant. In order to minimize the impact of the dam and reservoir, a resettlement action plan with not only measures for land compensation, but also with clear measures to compensate for factors such as livelihood and economic activities must be prepared and implemented. Such action plan should be prepared based on detailed socio-economic surveys, disclosure of information/participation of local residents. Moreover, consensus on the resettlement action plan must be built with the local residents from the stage of preparation”.

“The economic analysis shows that Alternative I (flood bund) is most viable “Overall”, whereas “Short” term measures show smaller EIRR than those of Alternative IV (flood control purpose). The result of IEE shows that Alternative I is expected to have minimum negative impact among the four Alternatives. Further, since there is high potential for large scale involuntary resettlement for the Malwala Dam scheme, it was judged difficult to be implemented under present conditions. On the other hand, technical viability of the proposed works is almost equivalent among the four alternatives because the Government of Sri Lanka has experienced implementing similar structural measures and they do not involve any complex conditions and/or restrictions for design and construction phases. Hence, Alternative I was selected for the flood management master plan in the Kalu River basin”.

Feasibility study by Israel Consultants

Despite the fact that the JICA study has rejected the proposal to build a reservoir upstream of Ratnapura, the Ministry of Irrigation has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with TAHAL Engineering Ltd, in Israel, for Kalu Ganga development in January 2009. The development work was to take place in three phases.

i. Full feasibility study for Ratnapura reservoir. ii. Installation and calibration of the flood protection management model iii. Water Resources development study for the entire basin. According to the Ministry’s Performance Report for 2011, the Consultants were mobilized by 2011 and the prefeasibility study in the whole “Kalu Ganga” basin was going on. The consultants were also carrying out the prefeasibility study to identify the possible locations for reservoirs. It is baffling for anyone to note that Sri Lanka seeks advice on water resources from consultants coming from a desert country.

(http://www.parliament.lk/uploads/documents/paperspresented/performance_report_ministry_of_irrigation_water_resources_management_2011.pdf)

When the team visited homesteads to carry out the survey and fix stakes marking boundaries of areas getting inundated by the proposed 100 m high reservoir, people got concerned and started demonstrations expressing their protests. People argued that there was no rationale for inundating their land permanently to give relief to people in Kalutara District whose land gets inundated by floods only occasionally. They also cited previous instances when people who got displaced from such development activities were given land in alien areas lacking resources to maintain a sustainable livelihood.

It was subsequently revealed that this work was being carried out on a directive from the Secretary to the Irrigation Ministry who had issued a circular dated 02.08.2011 to the District Secretaries of Ratnapura and Kalutara Districts with copies to all Divisional Secretaries and Chairmen of all Pradesheeya Sabha in the two districts, apprising them of a ministry decision to undertake a feasibility study for the purpose of developing water resources in the Kalu Ganga basin and finding solutions to minimize the flood damage. However, the project was later abandoned on a political decision due to public protests as announced by the Minister himself at a public meeting held at Malwala Temple to apprise the public about the Government’s decision. The meeting was attended by two Ministers representing Ratnapura District and by the secretary to the Irrigation Ministry. The exercise of this futile study done by the Israel Consultants against the findings of the JICA would have cost an enormous sum of money, and who is responsible for this expenditure?

Despite this decision, more recently, in October 2018, at a meeting held at the Ratnapura District Secretariat, Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka was reported to having said that “as a permanent solution to the occurrence of floods frequently experienced in the Ratnapura and Kalutara districts, a dam will be constructed across the Kalu Ganga in Malwala, close to Ratnapura town. The Kalu Ganga will also be diverted up to Hambantota via Embilipitiya through a tunnel”, the Minister said (Daily News of 18.10.2018). It appears that the Minister was not aware of the previous attempts to build a reservoir across Kalu Ganga at Meehitiya and how the plans were abandoned. So, now he wants to start the exercise again, probably to end up in a dead-end again. Doesn’t the minister realize that making such a statement on a project twice rejected by the people will only give wrong signals to the people.

Need for diverting surplus Kalu Ganga water to the South

Kalu Ganga is Sri Lanka’s third longest river (110 km) originating from Adam’s Peak at an elevation over 2000 m above mean sea level (amsl) discharging annually about 4,000 million cubic metres of water to the sea at Kalutara. Several tributaries carry water to Kalu Ganga from a wide catchment area, and these include Kuru Ganga, Kuda Ganga (after confluencing Kukule Ganga and Maguru Ganga), Wey Ganga, Denawak Ganga and Rath Ganga. During heavy rain, the last three rivers along with the upstream of Kalu Ganga bring large amounts of flood water flowing down at high gradient to the town. From thereon the flow is slow as the low gradient of 0.15 m/km from Ratnapura to Kalutara is not adequate enough to remove these flood waters as rapidly as the incoming water and hence the frequent flooding.

While the regular monsoon rains bring minor floods inundating the low-lying areas at Ratnapura, occasional torrential rains caused by cyclonic storms originating in the Bay of Bengal once in several years cause major floods inundating land extensively both in the Ratnapura and Kalutara Districts. Such major floods had occurred in recent times in 1992, 2003, 2010, 2014, 2016 and more recently in 2017, causing many casualties and billions of rupee property damage. Hence, flood protection has been at the top of the development agenda at Ratnapura.

Though government after government has been attempting to divert Kalu Ganga surplus water to the South, no workable solution could be reached hitherto because of technical, social and environmental issues. Building a high dam across Kukule Ganga was not found feasible because of poor geology, public protests and being close to the Sinharja Forest. Further, it will not solve the flood problem at Ratnapura town. Even building a high dam across Kalu Ganga at Meehitiya is questionable because the adjoining hills are prone to land-slides as indicated on a warning sign board erected by the Disaster Management Centre in close proximity to the site. Further, it is technically not feasible to take water to Hambantota from a reservoir there and owing to public protests, the project had to be abandoned. Hence, inviting proposals from foreign parties to invest on the proposed diversion which ran into problems previously without first alerting the people and getting their consent will most likely be a futile exercise again.

An alternative proposal to prevent flooding and take water to Hambantota

In view of the impasse as described above in building reservoirs across Kalu Ganga and Kukule Ganga, the writer proposed an alternative scheme for taking surplus water from Kalu Ganga to the South, which was published in the Island of 12th and 14th of November 2011, under the caption “Flood protection at Ratnapura and taking surplus water to Ruhuna- An alternative scheme”. This article could be accessed via:

http://www.island.lk/index.-php?page-_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=38840, and

http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=39005.

If taking water from a reservoir at Meehitiya to the South is not feasible because of its low elevation, then the solution is to tap the river at a higher elevation. Meehitiya Reservoir is to receive water from the main Kalu Ganga and two of its tributaries Rath Ganga and Denawak Ganga fed by Bambarakotuwa (BK) Oya. Both these rivers, originating from the Southern wall of the Adam’s Peak Range, cover a larger catchment area than the Kalu Ganga which originates from the Peak. If one examines the path traced by these two waterways, it is possible to identify suitable locations where small reservoirs could be built at elevations high enough to feed water to a trans-basin canal for taking water to Ruhuna. Details of the proposed locations are given in the writer’s original article.

Rath Ganga flows past the 300 m and 200 m contours at Raththurugala and a bund could be built with its base at about 200 m elevation and crest below 300 m. On the BK Oya, two waterways join the river slightly below 200 m elevation near Batewela and a reservoir could be built just below the confluence. A tunnel dug through the hills in between at 200 m elevation could take water from the first reservoir to this second. A third reservoir could be built on the upstream of Wey Ganga near Madole where the river crosses the 200 m contour. Water from the second reservoir could be taken to this third reservoir through a tunnel linking the two.

A third tunnel could take water from this third reservoir to Medagan Oya which runs below 200 m elevation and this water could then be fed to the proposed SEDZ canal running at 120 m. If the outlet of this tunnel is located at an appropriate location, it should be possible to get a head of at least 50 m enabling the operation of a medium size hydro power plant. The project involves building three small reservoirs and three tunnels of total length of about 33 km, all within the capability of Sri Lankans. Thus, with this project, it is possible to fulfill the three objectives listed – flood protection of Kalu Ganga basin, supplying water to Ruhuna and harnessing water to generate hydroelectricity. Since this scheme does not involve building large reservoirs, no public protests are anticipated. A concept paper describing the above alternative project was submitted to the President’s Office, Minister’s office, Secretary’s office in early 2012, but none responded.

Need for public awareness of the proposed project

The writer made several attempts to get information on the proposed diversion project to clarify which river is planned to be diverted, whether Kuda Ganga as mentioned in the Cabinet decision, or Kalu Ganga or Kukule Ganga where previous proposals for diversion were made. Regrettably, no positive response could be obtained. What the officers do not realize is that though plans and decisions are made behind doors, their implementation has to be done in public. In view of the wide range of potential negative impacts, it is the responsibility of the authorities to make the public aware of their plans at the conceptual stage itself and get their consent to proceed, rather than do it at the final stage after spending a lot of money on designs and studies and then forced to abandon, as happened in the past.

Since a feasibility report is said to be already available, an opportunity should have been given to a professional/academic forum to deliberate on it before submitting the proposal to the Cabinet. Had this been done, the many shortcomings in the cabinet paper could have been avoided. Now the project is approved by the Cabinet, it is desirable if the Ministry commences immediately a publicity campaign through both print and electronic media to make the public aware of the proposed project, its benefits and plans for resettlement, so that they will not be taken by surprise when foreign consultants visit their homestead to carry out surveys. The sooner it is done, the better it is.

BY   KANISHKA GOONEWARDENA  Courtesy JACOBIN

Sri Lanka is being convulsed by political crisis. A lasting solution will require transcending the politics of ethnic nationalism and neoliberal technocracy.

හර්ෂනී අර්සකුලරත්න උපුටාගැණීම  මව්බිම

පන්ති සටන්, පරිසර සටන්, ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය දිනාගැනීමේ සටන් ඇතුළු නානා විධ සටන් කොයි කවුරුත් ඉදිරියට ගෙනාවද මේ අවස්ථාවේ රට ඉදිරියේ පවතින්නේ විදේශීයකරණයට එරෙහි වී රට බේරා ගැනීමේ සටන බව ජාතික නිදහස් පෙරමුණේ නායක පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රි විමල් වීරවංශ පවසයි.

මන්ත්‍රිවරයා මේ බව කීවේ පසුගියදා (30දා) ජාතික නිදහස් පෙරමුණ කොළඹ පදනම් ආයතනයේ සංවිධාන කොට තිබූ ‘කිරුළ නොරටුන්ට අවුල මෙරටුන්ට’ මැයෙන් පැවැති ජාතික කතිකාව අමතමිනි.
මන්ත්‍රිවරයා එහිදී මෙසේද පැවැසීය.

මාතෘභූමිය සිතනවාටත් වඩා තීරණාත්මක කාලවකවානුවක් පසුකරමිනුයි සිටින්නේ. ඔබත් මමත් අප සැම සිටින්නේ මාතෘ භූමිය තියුණු අභියෝග සමුදායකට මුහුණ දෙමින් සිටින සමයකයි.
2019 වසර මේ මාතෘ භූමිය වෙළා ගෙන තිබූ බිහිසුණු ත්‍රස්තවාදයෙන් රට බේරා ගෙන මේ වසර වෙද්දී දස වසරක් සම්පූර්ණ වෙනවා.

එදා කිරිබත් කාපු අපි නැවත දස වසරක් ආපස්සට හැරිලා කල්පනා කරලා බැලුවහම ඇවිල්ලා තියෙන්නෙ කොතැනටද? ගෙනයමින් තිබෙන්නේ කොතැනටද? ගෙන යා යුතුව තිබෙන්නේ කොතැනටද කියන ස්වරූප 3ට පිළිතුරු සෙවිය යුතු කාලයක් මේ පසුවෙන්නේ.

රට බේරා ගැනීමේ සටන තමන් ඉදිරියේ තිබේ නම් වෙන වෙන සටන් නෙවෙයි රට වෙනුවෙන් එන අභියෝගයයි පැරදවිය යුත්තේ. ජාතික රාජ්‍ය වෙනුවෙන් ඒ තීරණය ගත යුත්තේ.
මේ වන විට අප ඉදිරියේ ප්‍රධාන උපද්‍රව 7ක් පවතිනවා. මේක සප්ත මහා උපද්‍රව ලෙස හැඳින්විය හැකියි. අතිවිශාල ණය උගුලකට මෙරට හසුවෙමින් රට ඉදිරියේ පවතින ආර්ථික උපද්‍රව්‍ය ඉන් එකක්. පැරැණි ආණ්ඩු ණය ගත්තාය කියලා ඔවුන්ට අවලාද නඟන ආණ්ඩුව කෙටි කාලයක් ඇතුළත ඒ ගත්ත වගේ 50%ක ප්‍රමාණයක ණය ගනිමින් ජනතාව එදා වේල පමණක් කරගෙන යන තැනට රට වට්ටල තියෙනවා. රුපියල කඩා වැටීම ඇතුළු බොහෝ ආර්ථික ව්‍යසනයන් සිදුවෙමින් පවතිනවා.

රටේ මහ ඉහළින් කතා කරන ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය ගැන කතා කළොත් නාවික හමුදාවට පසුගියදා මහ ඉහළින් ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය බෙදමින් යුද ජයග්‍රහණයේ ඒ දස වසර ප්‍රීතියෙන් සමරමින් ඉන්නවා. පළාත් සභා ඡන්දය ගැන අහද්දී ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී කතාවලින් කන් අඩි පැළෙනවා. ‘කොමිසමේ සභාපතිට යන්න කියන්න. ආණ්ඩුව අපේ අපිට ඕන විදියටයි ඡන්දෙ තියන්නේ’ අන්න අද තියෙන ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය. පසුගිය දවස්වල සටන් කරලා දිනාගත්ත ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය තමයි ඒ. අනුර කුමාරගෙ ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය. බටහිර නඩවල ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය තමයි ඒ.

මේ සියල්ල අතරේ දූෂණයත් අන් කවරදාටවත් වඩා ඉහළින්ම සිදුවෙනවා. මහ බැංකු බැඳුම්කර වාර්තාවේ ගිලපු ගාණ හදාගන්න පුළුවන් කෙනෙක් තාමත් මේ රටේ නැහැ. පයිතගරස් ආවත් ඒ ගාණ හදාගන්න පුළුවන් වේවිද දන්නෙ නැහැ. ඒනිසා ආසන්න අගය කිව්වත් සමස්ත අලාභය කියාගන්න අද බැරිවෙලා ඉන්නේ.

වත්මන් ආණ්ඩුව බලයට ඒමත් සමඟ ඒ බෙදුම්වාදී මතවාදය බලවත් වීම ඇරැඹෙනවා.

අපි ජවිපෙ ඉඳිද්දී චන්ද්‍රිකාගෙ මතවාදයට විරුද්ධව සටන් කළා. මතවාදය හැදුවා. ඒ කාලේ එන්.ජී.ඕ. අපිට ජාතිවාදීන් කිව්වා. පැකේජයට එහා ගිය එකක් දැන් රනිල් අරන් එනවා. දැන් ඉන්න ජේ.වී.පී. එක අර එන්.ජී.ඕ. නඩයක් එක්ක අපට ජාතිවාදීන් කියනවා. ඒගොල්ලො ජාත්‍යන්තරවාදියො වෙලා එකපාරට. අපි නම් එදා වගේමයි අදත්. වෙනස් වෙලා නෑ.

සුමන්තිරන්, සම්පන්දන් කියද්දී ඒ ව්‍යවස්ථාවෙ ෆෙඩරල් ලක්ෂණ තියෙනවා, ඔව් මේක ෆෙඩරල් කියලා. ජවිපෙ කියනවා අපි ෆෙඩරල් බිල්ලෙක් මවනවා කියලා. කවුද එතකොට බෙදුම්වාදයට මුට්ටිය අල්ලන්නෙ. අන්තිමට මේකෙන් වුණේ වික්‍රමබාහුගෙ ජොබ් එක නැති වුණු එක. ඒ මිනිහා ඔය ඩොලර් කීයක් හරි හොයාගත්තා දමිළ බෙදුම්වාදයට පක්ෂපාතීව මොනව හරි කියලා. දැන් ඒක හොයා ගන්නෙත් අනෙක් කට්ටිය.

දැන් ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක මෙහෙයුම් මණ්ඩලේ වාර්තාව ආවා. වික්‍රමසිංහ මහත්තයා කියනවා සැකිල්ලක්වත් නැහැ කියලා. සුමන්තිරන් කියනවා ඒක සැකිල්ලක්. සම්පන්දන් කියනවා යෝජනාවලියක්. අනුර කුමාර දිසානායක තෙමේ කියනවා මුකුත් නැහැ කියලා. මුකුත් නැත්නම් සුමන්තිරන්ට රෑට කොට්ටෙ යට තියාගෙන ඉඹ ඉඹ ඉන්න රෑට බල බල ඉන්න මේක සුළඟේ පාවෙන පෙම් කුසුමක්ද?

මේ ව්‍යවස්ථාව සම්මත කරගන්න රනිල් මහත්තයා 2/3 හදාගන්න දතකට පූට්ටු කරගෙන දත කනවා. මෛත්‍රි ජනාධිපතිට එක එක පැතිවලින් අලුත් කසාද පණිවුඩ එවනවා. දික්කසාද වුණාට කමක් නෑ. ආයෙත් බඳිමු ඕක මොකක්ද කියලත් අහනවා.

ජාතිවාදී ආගම්වාදී ගැටුම් ඇවිළීම කොයිපැත්තෙන් ආවත් වළක්වා ලියයුතුමයි. වනාතවිල්ලුවෙන්, ගෙවල් ඇතුළෙන් අවි ආයුධ අහුවෙද්දී කවුද මේකට විරුද්ව කට ඇරලා කතා කරන්නේ. කොටි පින්තූර අරගෙන සමාජ මාධ්‍යවල දාන තැනට වැටිලා තියෙන්නේ. පාසල්වල නිවාසාන්තර ක්‍රීඩා උත්සව පවත්වනවා. දමිළ ඊළාම් ලාංඡනය තමන්ගේ නිවාසයේ අලංකාරයට යොදාගෙන කොටින්ගේ වීර සාහිත්‍යයත් දකුණු ඉන්දියාවෙන් මුද්‍රණය කරලා එවනවා. ගෝලීය වශයෙන් දමිළ ඩයස්පෝරාව මේවා ප්‍රවර්ධනය කරනවා. මේ අන්තරායන් මේ විදියට අපි ඉදිරියේ මතු වෙලා තිබෙනවා.

මේ රටේ රාජ්‍ය දේපළ, ආර්ථික මර්මස්ථාන, මුළු මහත් රාජ්‍ය විදේශීයකරණය කිරීමේ මෙහෙයුම දියත් වෙලා තිබෙනවා.

මේ පොළොවේ පැළපදියම් වෙන විදේශීය බලවතුන්ට මේ රට තවදුරටත් අස්ථාවර කරන්න මෙතැන අයි.එස්.අයි.එස්. ඉන්න ඕනෑ වෙනවා. මෙතැන එල්ටීටීඊ ඉන්න ඕනෑ වෙනවා. මෙතැන තව අන්තවාදී කල්ලි ඕනෑ වෙනවා. මේ එකිනෙකා මරාගන්න ඕනෑ වෙනවා. එහෙම මරාගද්දී බටහිර බලවතුන් තමන්ගේ දෙපය මේ මහපොළොවේ හරි හැටි තියාගෙන එහි සම්පත් ගිලගෙන ඔවුන් ස්ථාවරවෙද්දී සමාජ අස්ථාවර බවක් ඇති වීම නවත්වන්න බැහැ. ඒ සියල්ල වූ විට මේක අසමත් රාජ්‍යයක් බවට පත්වෙනවා. දැන් මේ වෙමින් පවතින්නේ ඒක.

අක්කර 33,000 ඇතුළෙ වෙනමම ආයෝජන කලාපයක් හදන්න සැලැසුම් කරලා තියෙන්නේ.

එහි තියෙනවා ඉන්දීය සාගරයේ නාවික කටයුතුවලට හා සබ්මැරීන් සඳහා සේවා සපයන ඒකකයක්. ඒ අක්කර 33,000 ඇතුළෙ ආයෝජනය කළ හැක්කේ ඇමෙරිකානු, ඉන්දියානු හා ජපන් සමාගම් පමණයි. ඒ දැවැන්ත ව්‍යපෘති ඇතුළෙ ඔවුන්ගේ මිලිටරිමය වුවමනාවක් සිදු නෙවෙයි කියලා කියන්න පුළුවන් කාටද?

ඇමෙරිකාවේ සහස්‍ර අභියෝග ජයගැනීමට සැලසුම් හදන මිලේනියම් චැලෙන්ජ් කෝපරේෂන් ආයතනය මෙරටට යෝජනා එවනවා. එහි ප්‍රධානියා තමයි ඇමෙරිකානු රාජ්‍ය දෙපාර්න්තුමේන්තුවේ ලේකම්.

මිලේනියම් චැලෙන්ජ් කෝපරේෂන් සමාගමේ ලංකාවේ කාර්යාලය කොහෙද තියෙන්නෙ. වෙන කොහේවත් නෙවෙයි අරලියගහ මන්දිරය ඇතුළෙයි. මේකට අනුයුක්තව වැඩ කරනවා දේශීය නිලධාරීන් කිහිපදෙනෙක්.

මේකෙ තව යෝජනාවක් තියෙනවා. ත්‍රිකුණාමල වරාය හා කොළඹ වරාය යා කොට විශේෂ ආර්ථික පටියක් ඉදිකිරීම. රට මැදින් දිස්ත්‍රික්ක 7ක් අතරින් එය දිවෙන්නේ. දළ වශයෙන් එහි දිග කිලෝමීටර් 200යි. අක්කර කොපමණ අඩු වෙයිද කියලා ගණන් හදන්න බැහැ.

රටේ දිස්ත්‍රික් 7ක් හරහා හැදෙන මෙහි ඇමෙරිකානු නීතිය බලපැවැත්වුණොත් මෙයින් වෙන්නේ රට භෞතිකව දෙකඩ කිරීමක් නෙවෙයිද?

අගමැති රනිල්ගෙ පට්ටම නැතිවෙද්දී යුරෝපා තානාපතිවරුන්ට නින්ද ගියෙ නැත්තෙ ඇයි කියලා දැන් තේරෙනවා නේද?

මේ පැවැසුව සැලැසුම් එකකට එකක් සම්බන්ධයි. අනතුරුව ඇමෙරිකානු උපාය මාර්ගයට අනුව සියල්ල සිදුවෙන්න ගන්නවා.

ශිරාන් රණසිංහ, නිසංසලා අබේගුණසේකර උපුටාගැණීම  මව්බිම

පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කර තිබෙන නව ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා කෙටුම්පතට අගමැති රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා එකඟද නැද්ද කියා සිය ස්ථාවරය රටට හෙළි කළ යුතු බව යුතුකම සංවාද කවයේ සභාපති ගෙවිඳු කුමාරතුංග පැවැසීය.

‘ඒකීය’ වචනය යොදා ගනිමින් තවදුරටත් ජනතාව රවටමින් කටයුතු නොකරන ලෙසද ඒ මහතා කීය.

ඒ මහතා මේ බව කියා සිටියේ කොළඹ 7 ශ්‍රී සම්බුද්ධත්ව ජයන්ති මන්දිරයේ ඊයේ (31දා) පෙරවරුවේ පැවැති පුවත්පත් සාකච්ඡාවකදීය.

ගෙනැවිත් ඇත්තේ විශේෂඥයන්ගේ යෝජනාවක් පමණකැයි අගමැතිවරයා කියා තිබූ බවද ඒ මහතා කීය. මෙය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේදී තුනෙන් දෙකකින් සම්මත විය යුතු නිසා බිය විය යුතු නැතැයි අගමැතිවරයා කියා තිබූ බවත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ තුනෙන් දෙකක කැමැත්ත අකැමැත්තට ප්‍රථමයෙන් මෙම යෝජනාව ගෙනා අගමැතිවරයාගේ ස්ථාවරය රටට කිවයුතු බවද ඒ මහතා කියා සිටියේය.

මෙම කෙටුම්පතට ඒකීය නමැති වචනයක් දමා සිංහල, දෙමළ, ඉංග්‍රීසි පිටපත් හරහා වචන හරඹයක් කර ඇතැයිද ඒ මහතා කීය.

ඒකීය වචනය ඉංග්‍රීසි පිටපතට දමා යුනිටරි වචනය භාවිත නොකර ඉතා භයානක ලෙස ජනතාව රවටමින් සිටින බවද ගෙවිඳු කුමාරතුංග මහතා පැවැසීය.

මවුපියන් විසින් දරුවන් රවට්ටනවා සේ පාලකයන් එක්ව ජනතාව රැවටීම ඉතා අභාග්‍ය සම්පන්න මෙන්ම අවාසනාවන්ත තත්ත්වයක් වී තිබෙන බවද ඒ මහතා කියා සිටියේය.

රටේ ව්‍යවස්ථාව පාවිච්චි කරමින් රට බෙදා වෙන්කරලීමට මේ පාලකයන් ක්‍රියා කරමින් සිටින බවත් නව ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් නොවන බව කියමින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට අගමැතිවරයා විසින් ගෙනැවිත් ඇති මෙකී කෙටුම්පතට තමා එකඟද නැද්ද යන්න මුලින්ම ප්‍රකාශ කළ යුතු බව ගෙවිඳු කුමාරතුංග මහතා එහිදී පැවැසීය.

පාලකයන් විසින් රට බෙදන ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් ගෙන ඒම විදේශ ආක්‍රමණයකටත්, ත්‍රස්තවාදයටත්, බෙදුම්වාදයටත් වඩා ඉතා භයානක යැයිද පාලකයන්ගේ මේ දුෂ්ට ක්‍රියාවට එරෙහිව ජනතාව පෙළ ගැසිය යුතු බවද ගෙවිඳු කුමාරතුංග මහතා කියා සිටියේය.

දෙනගම ධම්මික රණවීර උපුටාගැණීම  මව්බිම

ඇමෙරිකා යුද නැව්වලට ත්‍රිකුණාමලය වරාය ලබා දීම මේ රටේ ඉඩම් ඇතුළු ස්වෛරීත්වය අහිමි කිරීම බෙදුම්වාදී න්‍යාය පත්‍රයේ තවත් අවස්ථාවක් යැයි වෛද්‍ය වසන්ත බණ්ඩාර ප්‍රකාශ කළේය.

ඔහු එම අදහස් පළ කළේ ඊයේ (31දා) ජාතික සමතා බලවේගය රාජගිරියේදී පැවැත්වූ මාධ්‍ය හමුවකට සහභාගි වෙමින්ය. එහිදී වැඩිදුරටත් වසන්ත බණ්ඩාර මහතා මෙසේද පැවැසීය.

ඇමෙරිකාවේ කඳවුරු මේ රටේ නොපිහිටුවන බව ආරක්‍ෂක රාජ්‍ය ඇමැති කියනවා. ජපානයේ ඔකිනාවහි තිබෙන ඇමෙරිකා කඳවුරේ හමුදා සෙබළු 25,000ක් විතර ඉන්නවා. එහෙම කඳවුරක් ලංකාවේ පිහිටුවන්නේ නැහැ. ඒ අතින් ආරක්‍ෂක රාජ්‍ය ඇමැති කියන කතාව ඇත්තක්. ඒ වගේම කොරියාවේ හැම්ප්‍රෙස් වගේ භටයෝ 25,000ක් විතර ඉන්න කඳවුරක් පිහිටුවන්නත් ඇමෙරිකාවට අවශ්‍යතාවක් නැහැ.

ඒත් මුළු රටම උපායමාර්ගික වශයෙන් ඇමෙරිකා අරමුණු වෙනුවෙන් යොදා ගැනීමේ අවස්ථාවක් තමයි මේ නිර්මාණය වෙන්නේ. ඇමෙරිකාවේ ජෝන් සීස්ටනිස් කියන ආරක්‍ෂක ගුවන් යානා 100ක් නතර කරන්න පුළුවන් නෞකාව මේ වන විට ත්‍රිකුණාමලයේ රඳවා තිබෙනවා. ඔවුන් කියන්නේ මේක තාවකාලික සැපයුම් කේන්ද්‍රයක් කියලයි. එහෙම කියන්නේ නැවක් නිසායි. ඒත් මේ නැව අවශ්‍යතාව අනුව සදාකාලිකවම වුවත් තියන්න පුළුවන්. එතකොට මේක සැපයුම් කේන්ද්‍රයක්.

‘පැසිපික් ප්ලීඩ්’ කියන ඇමෙරිකාවේ විශාලතම හමුදා බළඇණිය විසින් ලෝකයේ මුහුදෙන් 50%කට වඩා අත්පත් කරගෙන සිටිනවා. ට්‍රම්ප් ජනාධිපතිතුමා මේ බළඇණිය ඉන්දියා ශාන්තිකර බළඇණිය ලෙස නම් කරලා තියෙනවා. මේ හමුදා බළඇණියට අනුකණ්ඩ 9ක් තියෙනවා.

ත්‍රිකුණාමලයේ සැපයුම් කේන්ද්‍රයට කටුනායක ගුවන්තොටුපළ භාවිත කරනවා. හමුදා සෙබළු 6500කට පහසුකම් සපයන්න පුළුවන් මේ යාත්‍රාව මඟින් ඉන්දියන් සාගරයේ සියලු යුද නැව්වලට හා සබ්මැරීන්වලට සැපයුම් ලබා දෙන්න පුළුවන්. ඉන්දියාව විසින් අත්කර ගෙන සිටින ත්‍රිකුණාමලය තෙල් ටැංකිවලින් ඉන්ධන ලබා දෙන්නත් පුළුවන්.

මේ ගිවිසුම 2018 අගෝස්තු 28දා තමයි ආණ්ඩුව අනුමත කරන්නේ. ගිවිසුමක් කිව්වට ඇමෙරිකාව කළ ඉල්ලීම පිළිගැනීම තමයි එහිදී සිදු වන්නේ. 1995දී එවකට සිටි ජනාධිපතිත් ඉතා කුඩා කාරණා කිහිපයකට මෙවැනි ගිවිසුමක් අනුමත කළා. රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ එම ගිවිසුම පුළුල් කරලා දීර්ඝ කළා.

ඒ නිසා අමෙරිකාවේ කොන්ත්‍රාත්කරුවන්ට, භූමි හිමිකරුවන්ට, සේවකයන්ට පවා තානාපති මුක්තිය ලැබෙනවා.

ඇමෙරිකාවේ සාම හමුදාවකුත් ග්‍රාමීය ප්‍රදේශවලට ඉංග්‍රීසි උගන්වන්න එනවා. ඔවුන් ඔත්තුකරුවන් ලෙස කටයුතු කරන අතරම ඇමෙරිකාවේ වුවමනාව සාධාරණීකරණය කරනවා.

ඒ වගේම මිලේනියම් චැලේන්ජ් කෝපරේෂන් කියන සමාගමකුත් තියෙනවා. ඇමෙරිකා රාජ්‍ය දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේ මූලිකත්වයෙන් හදන එම සමාගමේ කාර්යාලයක් මෙරට අගමැති කාර්යාලය තුළ තිබෙනවා. ඇමෙරිකාවේ රාජ්‍ය ලේකම් තමයි එහි සභාපති. ත්‍රිකුණාමලය ආයෝජන කලාපයක් කොට ත්‍රිකුණාමලය සිට කොළඹ දක්වා ආයෝජන පටියක් ඔවුන් නිර්මාණය කරනවා. ‘සුබානා ජුරෝම්’ නමැති සිංගප්පූරු සමාගම තමයි උපදේශන සිදු කරන්නේ. එම ආයෝජන කලාපයට එන්න පුළුවන් ඉන්දීය, ජපාන සහ ඇමෙරිකා සමාගම්වලට විතරයි. ඒ කියන්නේ යුදමය සන්ධානය තුළ ඉන්න රටවලට පමණයි.

එම ආයෝජකයන්ට ඉඩම් දෙන්න ඉඩම් බැංකු පනත ගේනවා. රාජ්‍ය ආයතන සතු ඉඩම් ලියාපදිංචි කරලා ඉඩම් බැංකුවෙන් ඉඩම් දෙනවා. 1972 ඉඩම් ප්‍රතිසංස්කරණ කොමිසම යටතේ සුද්දන්ගෙන් ගත්ත ඉඩම් ඇතුළු සියලු දේ ආයෙත් සුද්දන්ට දීමේ දුෂ්ට පනතක් තමයි මේ ක්‍රියාත්මක වෙන්නේ.

රියාර් අද්මිරාල් සරත් වීරසේකර,
ඇමෙරිකා එක්සත් ජනපදය සමඟ රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ හිතුමතයට ගිවිසුමක් අස්සන් කරලා. ඒක ගැන ජනාධිපති, කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලය හා පාර්ලිමේන්තුව දැනුවත් කරලා නැහැ. 2001 සාම ගිවිසුම අස්සන් කළෙත් කිසිවකුගෙන් හෝ විමසා නොවෙයි, මෙවැනි සංවේදී ගිවිසුම් අස්සන් කරන්න ශ්‍රී ලංකාව රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහගේ බූදලයක් නොවෙයි.

ආචාර්ය ගුණදාස අමරසේකර මහතා,
බටහිරට අවශ්‍ය කඳවුරක් ඇති කිරීමේ ක්‍රියාමාර්ගයක් තමයි නිරන්තරයෙන් දියත්වන්නේ. ආරක්‍ෂක ලේකම් හේමසිරි ප්‍රනාන්දු අළුගුත්තේරු කියමනක් කියලා තිබුණා. රණවිරුවන්ට විරුද්ධව කටයුතු කරන්න දමිළ ඩයස්පෝරාවෙන් උදවු ඉල්ලා තිබුණා. අපේ රට ප්‍රභාකරන්ගේ ත්‍රස්තවාදයෙන් බේරාගත් රණවිරුවන් අමතක කරන හැමෝම දේශද්‍රෝහීන්.

ජේ‍යෂ්ඨ නීතිඥ කල්‍යානන්ද තිරාණගම,
ඇමෙරිකාව සමඟ ගිවිසුමක් අස්සන් කරන්න රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහට නීත්‍යනුකූල බලයක් නැහැ. ඒක ව්‍යවස්ථා විරෝධීයි. 2007දී ඇමෙරිකාව සමඟ අනේ‍යාන්‍ය සහයෝගිතා ගිවිසුමක් අස්සන් කළා. ඒකත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කර තිබුණේ නැහැ. වාසුදේව නානායක්කාර ඇතුළු පිරිසක් එම ගිවිසුම අස්සන් කිරීමට විරුද්ධව ශේ‍ර්ෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ගියා. එහි ප්‍රතිඵලයක් ලෙස එම ගිවිසුම පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කළා.

ප්‍රභාකරන්ට විරුද්ධව යුද්ධයක් තිබුණු නිසා ජාත්‍යන්තර සහාය ලබා ගන්න එවැනි ගිවිසුම් අවශ්‍ය වුණා. වරායේදී පහසුකම් සැපයීම පමණයි ඒකෙන් සිදු වුණේ. ඒත් ඇමෙරිකාව සමඟ රනිල් අස්සන් කළ ගිවිසුම ඉතා භයානකයි. සමස්ත රටම ඇමෙරිකා කඳවුරක් බවට පත්වීම තමයි ඒකෙන් සිදු කෙරෙන්නේ. කොළඹ වරායේ සිට ත්‍රිකුණාමලය දක්වා විශේෂ කලාපයක් හෙවත් පාරක් කැපීමටද නියමිතයි. රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහගේ මේ ක්‍රියාකලාපය නිසා රට අනාරක්‍ෂිත වෙනවා. විදේශ රටවලට රට උකස් තැබීමක් තමයි මේ කරන්නේ.

පාඨලී චම්පික විසින් රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ හැඳින්නුවේ නූතත ‍ෙදාන් ජුවාන් ධර්මපාල කියලයි. ඒත් ‍ෙදාන් ජුවන්ට කෝට්ටේ විතරයි පාලනය කරන්න පුළුවන් වුණේ. රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මුළු රටම විනාශ කරනවා. චීනය හා රුසියාවට විරුද්ධ යුද්ධයකදී මේ රට භාවිත කිරීම මේ ගිවිසුම් අස්සන් කිරීමට ප්‍රධාන හේතුවක්.

Courtesy Adaderana

Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella today submitted a proposal for Parliament approval to increase the number of ministerial portfolios, stating that the United National Party (UNP) has formed a national government.

The proposal states that whereas the UNP which obtained the highest number of seats in Parliament has formed a National Government, Parliament determines in terms of Article 46(4) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka that the number of Ministers in the Cabinet of Ministers shall not exceed 48 and the number of Ministers who are not Cabinet Ministers and the number of Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 45.

Leader of the House and Minister of Public Enterprise Lakshman Kiriella has handed over the proposal to the Secretary-General of Parliament in order to take steps to present it for Parliament’s approval.

Xinhua

A shield tunneling machine self-developed by China Railway Construction Heavy Industry Co. Ltd (CRCHI), a major heavy machinery producer, passed acceptance tests on Friday and will be exported to Sri Lanka soon.

It will be the country’s first domestically-made shield tunneling machine to be exported to Sri Lanka, according to the company based in Changsha City, central China’s Hunan Province.

The machine, with a diameter of 3.7 meters and a 120-meter-long body, is relatively small in size but its functions and digging efficiency are equal to larger machines, said Zhang Ruilin, a designer of the machine.

The machine will be used in drainage projects in Sri Lanka starting from April.

Courtesy Adaderana

Sri Lanka, which last year handed over a strategic port to a Chinese firm for a 99-year lease as a debt swap, will soon sign a USD 1 billion consessional loan agreement with Beijing to fund a major highway project linking Colombo to the hill capital of Kandy.

The construction of the first phase of the road linking Colombo with Kandy had been delayed for more than two years due to a lack of funding.

Sri Lankan Ambassador to China Karunasena Kodituwakku, was quoted by the official media in Beijing on Friday as saying that the USD one billion will be used for the first stage of the central highway.

The second stage will be financed by Sri Lankan consortiums and the third by Japanese loans.

Earlier, the chief of Sri Lanka’s central bank said the country will receive a sovereign loan of USD one billion from the Bank of China in the first quarter of this year, and it will be used to meet repayments in the coming months.

Kodituwakku did not confirm if it was the same loan and whether it is linked with the USD one billion loan from the Export-Import Bank of China, the state-run Global Times reported.

The envoy thanked China which he said had provided assistance to Sri Lanka in both long-term project loans and day-to-day needs. Kodituwakku also revealed that the country was negotiating with the China Development Bank for short-term loans.

Playing down the allegations that China’s financial assistance to Sri Lanka has led it into a debt trap, he said, We don’t agree with that. China never forced us to take a loan. If there is something wrong with the loans we have taken, it’s our responsibility. It’s not fair to blame China or another country, saying Sri Lanka is a victim”.

According to reports, Sri Lanka owed USD eight billion debt to China.

The envoy said though Colombo has borrowed from many countries, including India and Japan, as well as multilateral organisations, it is not heavily indebted.

This year Sri Lanka has to settle nearly USD 4 billion, and the country has more than USD 8 billion in reserves. But we cannot use all that money just to pay back. We have to keep a minimum balance,” he said.

Sri Lanka is in talks with China on a free trade agreement. They have reached consensus on many issues, but (the agreement) isn’t finalised,” the Ambassador said, adding We hope this year will be the critical year to finalise it.”

He said the Colombo port is a very crucial transit port serving India. India’s strong economy will prop up the port as a successful entity.

Sri Lanka last year granted a 99-year lease on Hambantota port to a Chinese firm over its inability to repay loans to Beijing for the USD 1.4 billion project.

He expressed hope that Chinese firm can turn the Hambantota port into a successful facility.

-Agencies