SAMPANTHAN CALLS FOR STERN ACTION AGAINST THE OF THE PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE IN AMPARA

28/02/2018

Condemning the attacks carried out against the Muslim community in Ampara  R. Sampanthan, leader of the ppposition, Parliament of Sri Lanka and  leader of the Tamil National Alliance has urged the government  to take stern action against the preparators of the violence  and to take adequate measures to prevent such incidents being repeated in future.

Full statement fellows:

28^th February 2018

Press Release

I strongly condemn the attacks carried out against the Muslim community in Ampara. Any form of violence is not acceptable and I urge those who committed these unwarranted acts to create disunity and bring division among the communities to stay away from such activities and not to create ethnic tension among people.

I urge the government to take stern action against the perpetrators of the violence in Ampara and to take adequate measures to prevent such incidents being repeated in future.  We have witnessed such incidents in the past and we have experienced the repercussions of such unacceptable behaviour and actions. I urge the police and the other officials to enforce the law and order impartially.

I humbly appeal to the religious leaders to ensure that peace and harmony are maintained in these areas and not to allow any extremist elements to take advantage of these incidents.

I appeal to the people in Ampara and other areas to remain calm and to set an example to others of the importance of unity among communities.
R. Sampanthan

Leader of the Opposition – Parliament of Sri Lanka

Leader Tamil National Alliance

Rajitha denies govt. co-sponsored Geneva Resolution against Lanka

Rajitha

By Shamindra Ferdinando-February 28, 2018, 11:00 pm 

Cabinet spokesman Dr. Rajitha Senaratne yesterday stressed that the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government hadn’t co-sponsored Geneva Resolution 30/1, which calls for a hybrid war crimes tribunal.

 Dr. Senaratne blamed President Mahinda Rajapaksa for accepting UN call for investigation soon after the conclusion of the war in May 2009.

 Dr. Senaratne said so when The Island sought a clarification as to the identity of the party/parties who had falsely accused the previous government of using cluster ammunition against the LTTE as well as other unsubstantiated allegations leading to Sri Lanka co-sponsoring the Resolution after the change of government in 2015 January.

 Senaratne was in Rajapaksa’s Cabinet at the time the conflict was brought to a successful conclusion. He switched his allegiance to the UNP in Dec 2014 when the then SLFP General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena declared himself the Opposition presidential candidate.

 The Island pointed out that the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration had endorsed Geneva Resolution 30/1 on Oct 1, 2015 but the cabinet spokesman stressed it was not so. Minister Senaratne alleged that the media had conveniently forgotten Rajapaksa’s culpability in paving the way for international intervention. Senaratne recalled how Rajapaksa had promised 13 plus.

The Island raised the issue after yesterday’s post-cabinet media briefing was told of the yahapalana government decision to accede to Convention on Cluster Ammunition aka the Oslo Treaty as contrary to claims by certain parties, the Sri Lankan military had never deployed such ammunition during the conflict.

 Dr. Senaratne was flanked by Lands and Parliamentary Reforms Minister Gayantha Karunatilleke and military spokesman Brigadier Sumith Atapattu.

 Pointing out that the second item in the Cabinet decisions read out by Karunatilleke specifically referred to unsubstantiated allegations in respect of use of cluster ammunition, The Island asked Dr. Senaratne whether he could name those who had propagated misinformation he said that it was a section of the international community.

 Both Karunatilleke and Atapattu refrained from commenting on the issue.

 The Island pointed out that Geneva sessions were now on.

 At the onset of the briefing, Karunatilleke, having declared that Sri Lanka had never used cluster ammunition, assured that there was no evidence that it had been used here.

 Karunatilleke said that President Maithripala Sirisena had, in his capacity as the Defence Minister, proposed that Sri Lanka acceded to the Oslo Treaty. Recently, Sri Lanka ratified Ottawa anti-personnel mine treaty.

 Former External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris yesterday told The Island that the yahapalana leaders had co-sponsored the Geneva Resolution just over a week after Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative there Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha had opposed the resolution at an informal session. Prof. Peiris pointed out that having co-sponsored accountability resolution, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government had secured additional two years to fulfil obligations including the enactment of a new Constitution.

SALIYA PEIRIS TO HEAD OMP OFFICE

Zahrah Imtiaz-Thursday, March 1, 2018

President Maithripala Sirisena yesterday confirmed the appointments of the seven members to the Office of the Missing Persons (OMP) which was established in September 2017.

At a meeting held at the Presidential Secretariat, the President appointed President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris as Chairman of the Office with six others also being appointed as members to work with him.

The members are: Jayatheepa Punniyamoorthy, Major General Mohanti Antonette Peiris, Dr Sriyani Nimalka Fernando, Mirak Raheem, Sumanasiri Liyanage and Kanapathipillai Venthan.

OMP Chairman Peiris speaking to Daily News said all members would meet next week to decide on their future course of action and how the office would be set up.

The OMP (establishment, administration and discharge of functions) was established through Act No.14 of 2016 and amended by Act No.9 of 2017 and came into effect on September 15.

The Act stipulated that the OMP would, “Provide for the establishment of the office on missing persons; to provide for the searching and tracing of missing persons; to provide assistance to relatives of missing persons; for the setting up of a database of missing persons; for setting out the procedures and guidelines applicable to the powers and functions assigned to the said office; and to provide for all matters which are connected with or incidental to, the implementation of the provisions of this act’.

In December 2017, the Constitutional Council nominated the names of seven persons to the OMP, having selected them from over 100 applications and the 2018 Budget allocated Rs 1.4 billion for the OMP.

The OMP is one of the four big transitional justice mechanisms proposed by the government, o0thers being an office to handle reparations, a truth commission and a judicial mechanism to address allegations of wartime abuses.

According to the last Paranagama Commission appointed to investigate into missing persons; close to 19,000 persons have been confirmed to have gone missing during the three decade war. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has recorded 12,000 cases of enforced disappearances related to the Janatha Vimukthi Perumuna (JVP) uprisings and during the armed conflict between Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)and the Sri Lankan government forces from 1980 to 2010

National Policy on Reconciliation and Co-existence in Sri Lanka launched

All must unite to overcome challenges against peace & reconciliation – President

( March 1, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Maithripala Sirisena says all must unite together to conquer the challenges against the peace and reconciliation. The President pointed out that the reconciliation is a spiritual philosophy and in a society where spiritual values are not considered, it is challenging to achieve targets sets in this regard. He further said that it is the responsibility of all to fulfill respective duties towards achieving this target.

President Sirisena made these remarks participating at the launch of the “Thundenek” film produced by the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation, along with launch of the National Policy on Reconciliation and Co-existence, held at the Regal Cinema in Colombo, yesterday (27).

The Office for National Unity and Reconciliation prepared this National policy, fulfilling the need for a comprehensive national policy which emphasizes the need of reconciliation, and this is the first time that such a policy was launched.

The national policy for reconciliation and public co- existence has been drafted taking into consideration the destruction and damage caused to the society, security and the reputation of all the citizens of Sri Lanka due to the socio- economic unrest including the war and conflict that lasted three decades and with the fullest commitment of the government to ensure that such conflicts would not occur again, formulation of futuristic principles for reconciliation with multiple approaches, under democracy, good governance, rights to language and cultural heredity, guarantee and respect for human rights, authority of law, national unity and diversity.

This policy statement was presented to President Sirisena by the Director General  of Office of National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR), M.S.Jayasinghe.

The film “Thundenek” co-directed by Prasanna Vithanage, Vimukthi Jayasunadara, and Asoka Handagama exhibits the tragedy of the humankind going through the unrest caused by war and conflicts that lasted 30 years.

This film is composed of three inter- connected short stories with three parts. The film depicts the pain and sheer terror of the individuals living today memorizing the lost members of families and the terrifying experiences they had to undergo due to the war.

The film expects to give a message to the society by depicting the aftershock caused during the war as well as trauma after the war was over, lost of family members, pain and sufferings caused due to the war and it emphasizes the imperative need to build a country where all the Sri Lankans live in peace and harmony.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Chairperson of the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation, former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and other State officers, experts, artistes and other distinguished guests were present at this event.

NATIONAL-POLICY-FINAL-EST.pdf by Thavam on Scribd

PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR POST WAR RECONCILIATION LIES WITHIN SRI LANKA

Image: Solders patrolling Jaffna, Sri Lanka.

28/02/2018

Sri Lanka’s commitment to human rights is being debated in Geneva at the 37th session of the Human Rights Council, which meets in Geneva from 26 February to 23 March 2018.  There is a considerable amount of international dissatisfaction with the slow pace of progress due to the long delay in setting up the reconciliation mechanisms, such as the Office of Missing Persons, Office of Reparations, Truth Commission and Special Judicial Mechanism.

 The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein has stated that the fulfilment of the transitional justice commitments made under Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 of October 2015 has been virtually stalled for more than a year.  The High Commissioner has also called on the UN Human Rights Council to explore other avenues that could foster accountability in Sri Lanka, including the application of universal jurisdiction that could foster accountability.

 The International Organisation of Migration (IOM), one of the specialized UN agencies in Sri Lanka last week held an international conference on the role of reparations in the transitional justice process.  International experts who participated in the conference gave examples from other conflict-ridden countries where reparations had been used to meet the needs of victims and to send a message of care to those who had been victims from all sides.  This type of collaboration between international and national experts points to the way forward in the transitional justice process.

 The National Peace Council is of the view that the government’s failure to take the reform process forward with requisite speed is due to the popular misconceptions that are fed by opposition and nationalist politicians.  They see the post-war reconciliation process as being driven by the international community who wish to set up hybrid mechanisms in the country.  The Office of Missing Persons that has been legislated is an example of a Sri Lankan mechanism, with eminent Sri Lankans proposed by the Constitutional Council at the helm that can address the needs of victims while drawing on the relevant resources, advice and experiences of the international community in dealing with similar problems elsewhere in the world.

The primary responsibility for healing the wounds of the war and post-war period lie with Sri Lankans as the victims whose rights have been violated are Sri Lankans and so are the perpetrators.  This is reflected in the legislation of the Office of Missing Persons.  We call on the government to likewise establish an Office of Reparations and a Truth Commission on similar lines.

-National Peace Council

Technocratic Cabinet With An Iron Fist

By Ameer Ali –MARCH 1, 2018

Dr. Ameer Ali

The anti-Muslim violence in Ampara, breaking out soon after a cabinet mini-reshuffle in which the Prime Minister has taken over the law and order portfolio, is going to test not only his personal resolve to act decisively against unruly elements in society, but also the coalition’s governing ability after its debacle at the local polls. It appears that there is a hidden hand operating outside the law to hasten the dissolution of the parliament by creating maximum chaos. Islamophobia is once again threatening to show its ugly head as demonstrated in Ampara. Those who celebrated the victory at the local elections want to convert it into a national grand finale before the voters’ protest mood against the coalition evaporates. They obviously want to make hay while the sun shines. Here lies the danger to Sri Lanka’s democracy and society. If saner minds in the society sit quiet and allow this sinister plan to succeed, there is no doubt the country will descend fast to kakistocracy. The silence of the government and of the opposition over the Amapara mayhem speaks volumes about what is going during the rest of this government’s term of office.

What has democracy especially after the 1970s produced so far? Elections came and went nationally, provincially and locally; political parties emerged and they colluded and collided at their convenience, not in the interest of the nation but in the interest of power and profit; and, the membership of the legislature and executive increased to unaffordable and unmanageable levels just to reward electoral warlords. At the end of all these experiments, the country is fast sinking in debt, steeped in corruption and fallen hostage to the manipulation of transnational capital and regional power centres, while becoming a paradise for shady venturers and sordid power brokers. The ultimate victims of this derelict democracy are its ordinary citizens, majority of whom are facing a bleak economic future amidst inordinately rising cost of living and personal debt, political disruptions and social dislocations. Do Sri Lankans still want to continue with this hollowed democracy?

The need of the hour therefore, is a third alternative that can command the respect of the majority by its dedication and sacrifice to govern with an iron fist and tackle the issues facing the country head on and without fear or favour. It should not be a one-person rule but a one-team rule, and that team be predominantly staffed with technocrats, who would keep the lobbyists and hate mongers at bay. If there is going to be one solid lesson that one could learn from the experience of countries like Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan it is their success with technocracy. These countries also had political parties and periodic elections, but whichever the party that came to power it did not sacrifice its technocratic character. True, they are not perfect examples for a free society, but the constraints placed on liberty and freedom by those authoritarian regimes have been tacitly tolerated by the citizens because they could clearly witness the material benefits of the freedom deficit. One should remember that they are also societies following Buddhism of some sort.

Thanks to the welfare state that Sri Lanka enjoyed until the 1970s, it has produced a highly educated and technocratic intelligentia who are capable of taking up the challenge. They remain unidentified and unrewarded because the nation’s silent majority are too lethargic to encourage them, gather this elite under one umbrella and act as the vanguard for a bloodless revolution. This, I stress, is one of the patriotic duties of the silent majority. By disengaging itself from active political involvement, the silent majority has allowed the mediocre run riot and rule over everyone.

The current leadership at the helm has proved itself incapable and incompetent to be trusted with a fresh mandate. Its record of broken promises, weak governance, judicial laxity and above all, tolerance of financial maleficence has betrayed the confidence that people placed on the regime. The alternative leadership that is challenging the current one also has a sordid past with even more diabolical political traits. There is no demonstrable evidence so far to convince the people that this alternative has a new and workable plan to carry the nation forward with a clean slate and in the interest of national development with respect for diversity and differences, social harmony and rule of law. There are too many risks in bringing them back to power. One should recognise at the same time that there is a small technocratic element present within both leadership camps but tainted with a poisoned political atmosphere.

Read More

Yahapalana 'hyper-debt regime' to take on even more mega-debt

By C. A. Chanadraprema-February 28, 2018

In a recent article titled "Yahapalana government as a hyper-debt regime", Professor Milton Rajaratne of the University of Peradeniya has pointed out that even though the yahapalana government accuses the Rajapaksa government of having imposed an immense debt burden on the country, the present government too has borrowed ‘surprising amounts’ of money. Rajaratne points out that by the time Rajapaksa rule ended on 9 January 2015, the total government debt stood at Rs. 7.3 trillion and the debt burden of the country, as a percentage of the GDP, stood at 71.3%. He states that despite the rhetoric of cutting down on debt, under the new government, the debt burden had rapidly increased from 71.3% to 79.3% within two years and based on the statistics reported by the Central Bank for eight months up to August 2017, this figure would have reached 90% by the end of 2017. This would indicate a growth of almost 50% in the total debt burden in just three years.

Rajaratne has also stated that under the yahapalana government, economic growth has been much slower than the growth in borrowing and that government debt has outgrown the per capita income at a rate of more than 200% and that an increase in debt with a decrease in economic growth eventually leads to a debt trap. He has also pointed out that foreign debt has grown faster than domestic debt between 2014 and 2017. While domestic debt has increased by 40%, foreign debt has grown by 60% - an alarming development. The increase in the foreign debt component has not only intensified the debt burden but has heavily increased external dependency as well. Rajaratne has argued that his findings nullify the claim of the coalition government that Rajapaksa rule has overloaded the country with debt and that this claim is only political propaganda. Statistics prove that if the Rajapaksa government was a debt regime, the coalition government is a hyper-debt regime.

Minister to have unbridled power over finance

It is in this context, that the yahapalana government has introduced in Parliament the Active Liability Management Bill with the stated objective of managing public debt and ensuring that the financing needs and payment obligations of the Government are met at the lowest possible cost over the medium to long term. This Bill aims to authorize the government to raise a sum equal to 10% of the total outstanding public debt – which works out to well over Rs. One trillion. This money is to be used for the purposes of refinancing public debt. The annual borrowing limit set by Parliament through the Appropriation Act will not apply to the money raised under this proposed law.

Under this proposed legislation, the Minister in charge of the subject will be authorized to make the decision as to which debt will be refinanced with this money and the procedures applicable to the refinancing of that debt. Every regulation made by the Minister shall, within three months after its publication in the Gazette, be brought before Parliament for approval. Any such regulation which is not so approved shall be deemed to be rescinded as from the date of its disapproval, However, anything done by the Minister before the regulation was rejected by Parliament, will still be valid and legally binding on the government. Furthermore, this proposed legislation seeks to provide immunity from civil or criminal liability to those handling this money so long as they can prove that they acted in good faith and exercised due diligence and reasonable care.

Joint Opposition parliamentarian Bandula Gunawardene has petitioned the Supreme Court requesting a ruling that this Bill has to be passed with a two thirds majority in Parliament and also a referendum because it is in conflict with the entrenched Articles of the Constitution relating to the people’s sovereignty and the manner in which that sovereignty is exercised through the legislature. The petition states that the proposed law will abrogate the powers of the parliament to have full control over public finance as provided in Article 148 of the Constitution and make inoperative the powers of the Central Bank and the Monetary Board to manage public debt in terms of section 113 of the Monetary Law and will instead empower the Minister with the authority to regulate and control matters in relation to public debt.

The Petition states that the overall effect of the proposed law would be to create a system that has no meaningful guidelines but functions on the arbitrary decisions of the Minister and the Cabinet, thus paving the way for the mismanagement of public finances and possible fraud and corruption. In this regard, the petition points out that the immunity given by clause 9 of the proposed Bill to public servants, members of the Monetary Board and other persons, including private persons, from civil and criminal liability will further endanger the economy of the country. By extending this immunity to ‘agents’ of the Central Bank, who may also include non-public servants, the executive is vested with powers to arbitrarily exempt such non-state parties from civil or criminal liability.

The petition further points out the danger in removing the control and regulation of public funds and debt, which are parts of the consolidated fund, from the management and control of both the Central Bank and the Parliament, especially by empowering the minister to deposit such money in ring-fenced accounts at Commercial Banks. The petition points out that this will enable the Minister and the Cabinet to discriminate between licensed commercial Banks by empowering them to decide arbitrarily in which commercial banks to deposit such funds without any guidelines.

That the yahapalana government would present such a Bill in Parliament in the wake of the Central Bank bond scam which has shaken the entire country, shows how thick skinned this government is. The proposed Active Liability Management Bill seeks to vest unrestricted power to borrow and dispose of over Rs. one trillion on the very individuals who were called on to give evidence before the Bond Commission not so long ago.

Let’s Not Insult Women Devolving Powers to Women is no Burden

By S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole-2018-02-28

There have been recent calls to not implement fully the legal requirement of having at least 25% women in each local government authority. The Daily News (15 Feb.) reports that "The Election Commission is to ask that the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Act No. 22 of 2012 to be amended to allow councils to be established even without the mandatory 25 per cent quota under special circumstances." This is incorrect for two reasons. First, the 25% quota is of very recent origin and is from Act No. 16 of 2017. And second, no such decision was ever taken at any meeting of the commission.

The Island (16 Feb.) has a statement by women's groups that speaks of "moves to change the 25% quota for women" and of "recognizing the exceptions in the quota." The Financial Times (15 Feb.) says "Fresh amendments for the Local Authorities Elections Act would be essential to allow local governing bodies to establish councils, even without the mandatory 25% quota for women, under unique conditions."

Colombo's Mayor-elect, Rosy Senanayake says, according to the Daily Mirror (16 Feb.) the implementation of the 25% quota for women in local government elections being uncertain, and urges that steps be taken to implement the 25% Quota for Women in LG polls immediately."

Quota is the law

Speaking for myself, as a member of the Election Commission (and not for the Commission) I say that the women are right; in feeling their long-fought-for gains are threatened. Indeed, I do not see any lacunae in the law. When the quota is the law, we cannot have exceptions. In my view, backdating changes to the law to affect the elections that have already been conducted is improper.

The problem that many see is from the fact that the Local Authorities Election Act states-
27F. (1) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Ordinance, not less than twenty five per centum of the total number of members in each local authority shall be women members
That is, if we do not have 25% women as members in a local authority, that authority has no standing.

This would not be an issue (and in my view is not a serious issue) if not for the exemptions provided
65AA. (1) Where the number of members elected from any recognized political party or independent group for a Local Authority results in an overhang and thereby exceeds the number ascertained to be elected and returned as members under [subsection] (3) of section 65(3), and such number of members so elected [does] not include any women members, then the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of this section shall not apply to such recognized political party or independent group.

(2) Where any recognized political party or independent group has received less than twenty per centum of the total number of votes polled in a local authority area, and [note well the word and] has less than three members elected or returned, then the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of this section [which are on the method of apportionment of members] shall not apply to such recognized political party or independent group.

First note that the exemption applies only to parties fulfilling both conditions – receiving less than 20% of the vote and getting fewer than 3 representatives. The purpose is to give such small parties wide choice in putting forward their best nominees for the few seats they have.

These conditions are often misstated as exemptions for meeting either condition as in one of the news articles cited above. There is also the wrong idea that ward candidates contest and that those on the PR list do not contest. In fact, they all contest. In English, a voter elected is returned; but some official documents in Sri Lanka use elected and returned as being of different meanings. We voted only for the party of our choice and that led to the election of both ward candidates and PR candidates. To ensure their getting in, the PR list candidates also had to campaign – so they too are elected. Therefore it is incorrect to suggest that choosing a person from the PR list is choosing a person who did not contest.

Then what is the problem today? As seen by many, it is twofold. First, it is that the methodology specified by Parliament is unlike what one would expect – that 60% of seats are filled from the wards and 40% from PR. To explain, let me take the Ambalangoda UC results that all three Commission Members sat down together to check the method employed by our staff:

PR eligibility list

After the finalized PR eligibility list is computed by the prescribed method, the number of wards won by a party or a group is taken into account. Thus the Podujana Peramuna, which has won 10 wards, is eligible for 09 PR seats but gets no actual PR seats (that extra seat is what is called an overhang). So it gets no PR seat and since all 10 of its representatives are directly elected, any contribution from it to the women's quota can be only if any of the 10 elected /returned persons happens to be a woman.
The second alleged problem is that small groupings in a chamber (with less than 20% of the vote and fewer than 3 members) are exempted from having to nominate women.

Thus in Ambalangoda, the Podujana Peramuna cannot contribute to the women's quota, the PLF (People's Liberation Front) cannot be asked to contribute because they have only 2 members and 7.5% of the vote, and the UNFF has no seat. So the women's quota (with the exception of any women elected to wards from the Podujana Peramuna) will have to come only from the UNP and UPFA. In Batticaloa, the ITAK with the most seats by far had all its ward winners' men with no PR member.

This might be unfair, only insofar as the parties that need to contribute have less choice than the smaller groupings in choosing whom to nominate from among the pool of men and women on their lists. To call that a burden or unfair is a stretch. It is an insult to women – recall strong and determined women who ruled us effectively (if not always justly) such as from Queen Victoria to Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. It would never be a burden if the parties had chosen their best women and not their relatives.

Is it really a burden or unfair to name a woman instead of a man? It shows that we men, especially we old men, do not want to let go. We imagine (because it fits our prejudices) that the 25% quota is a set quota. It really is a minimum standard to exceed which is no crime. We think it is a burden. That by itself shows we really need our women to be liberated from such insulting caricatures.

There is talk of having to amend the laws. The Local Authorities Elections Act as recently amended reads-

27F. (2) The [Elections Commission] shall by notice published in the gazette, specify the number of women candidates to be nominated in respect of each local authority."

Thus the Commission has the authority to force the groupings that can, to nominate more than 25% women.

The term overhang

The so-called problem is said to stem from the concept of the opposite of an overhang defined in the ordinance as "overhang" means the number of candidates elected for a local authority from any recognized political party or independent group in excess of the number of such recognized political party or independent group is entitled to have elected in terms of subsection (3) of section 65B of this Ordinance;"

A party has to nominate a woman after the declaration of results only when it wins fewer ward seats than by PR. So why complain even if they all have to be women, especially when they are the party's own nominees? Besides, even here, the above referenced Act gives the Commission the authority to decide on its own:

"65B (4) Upon ascertaining the number of candidates entitled to be elected and returned as members of that local authority by each recognized political party or independent group, as the case may be, in terms of subsection (3) [which states how to arrive at the figures], if it is found that the number of members elected from such recognized political party or independent group for that local authority—
(a) exceeds the number ascertained to be elected and returned as members under subsection (3), then such overhang shall be determined by the [Elections Commission].

No tinkering required

Let's please not see problems where there is none. Let's not delay the inauguration of these long awaited local authorities by waiting for Parliament to tinker where no tinkering is required. Any legal change would be required only if even with all free PR candidates nominated by the parties able to do so are women, the 25% quota is not met.

Women have a right to be representatives knowing better than us men the special needs faced by women, children, and the elderly; and knowing and possessing the skills to address as well as us men the general needs of all of us in society.

They worked hard for this miserly 25% quota. Let's not haggle over having to cede just a little more to be in mandatory compliance with the law.

The world over, devolution of powers is seen as the way to include everyone in decisions that concern them. Local authority decisions must be taken at local level and further delays in the inauguration of these bodies cannot be brooked. We men have been deciding all these years with just 1.8% women in our midst in local government. It is time to devolve our powers and let women too have a say.

Inhibitions on the Way forward for Govt

2018-03-01

The routine discussion of papers went on as usual during the first half of Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting, the first time after the reshuffle on Sunday. But the second half, meant for the discussion of currently important matters, turned out to be stormy as President Maithripala Sirisena, backed by some Cabinet Ministers, showered criticism on the Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) headed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. 

The CCEM was established shortly after formation of the 100-day government following the Presidential Elections on January 8, 2015. 

Any Cabinet paper related to economic affairs is supposed to be referred to this body headed by the Prime Minister and attended by the key Ministers and officials. Any proposal could be implemented only if it got the go-ahead from the CCEM. It was seen by some as a Cabinet within the Cabinet. 

Most Cabinet Ministers appeared to have been averse to this procedure of clearing economic and investment proposals with the participation of a coterie of Ministers and officials. Other ministers feel that they are denied the chance to weigh the pros and cons of any economic matter. Incensed by the CCEM calling the shots in this manner, these Ministers complained to the President. 

After being patient for some time, President Sirisena timed his criticism on the CCEM at Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting.

“Today, I have to raise one matter. I received a whole lot of complaints against the CCEM taking economic decisions. Even some Ministers representing the UNP brought this to my notice,” he said. 
Then, the President suggested that such decision making should happen at the Cabinet, and therefore, the CCEM should be disbanded forthwith. 

The Prime Minister resisted the President’s idea. He defended the establishment of CCEM saying such a body was absolutely needed for the discussion of economic matters with the participation of key government officials who couldn’t be convened otherwise to the Cabinet sessions routinely. 
In his counter argument, the President, however, said the Cabinet subcommittees could be appointed to serve I accommodate officials if that was the case.

This led to a storm of arguments hurled back and forth by the Cabinet ministers. Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera and Development Strategies and International Trade Minister Malik Samarawickrama stood for the Prime Minister’s position. Nevertheless, Health Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, Sports Minister Dayasiri Jayasekara, Megapolis and Western Development Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka aired out their views in support of the President - more or less. 

President says UNP deceived people on Volkswagen 

The cross talks dragged on for a while, and at one point, the President became furious. In a veiled threat, he said, “I have a lot to be revealed if you persist with your stance in this manner.” Consequently, he was even harsher in his criticism directed towards the UNP’s handling of economic affairs. 
He rebuffed the UNP for misleading the public by promising to put up a Volkswagen car manufacturing plant in Kurunegala. 

With his eyes staring at Education Minister Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, he said, “You claimed that Volkswagen would invest. You took us to the groundbreaking ceremony. Immediately after that, we received a message that Volkswagen Company would not be investing here. It is deception of people.

That is how you hoodwinked people.”

The Prime Minister reportedly responded to the President saying that investment proposal had nothing to do with the CCEM.

It was cited as a project approved by the Board of Investment (BoI), not the CCEM. Afterwards, the President threw his glance at Malik Samarawickrama and levelled similar criticism at the UNP on the much-hyped tyre factory in Horana. 

Dayasiri bemoans ‘Battery Cage’ housing for egg laying hens 

After the President, Minister Jayasekara seized the opportunity to unleash his criticism on the UNP policies during the last three years. He spoke of the introduction of  the ‘Battery Cage’ system for poultry farmers in his Kurunegala district which is virtually the egg basket of Sri Lanka. 

It is a system for the housing of egg laying hens in rows and columns of cages connected to each other. The natural movement of birds is restricted. There was a storm of opposition from poultry farmers to this system introduced under the new government. 

“These poultry farmers were loyal to the UNP right throughout. But, you antagonized them by introducing this system. At the LG polls, they all voted for the Lotus Bud as a protest,” he said. 
Finally, the Cabinet meeting ended with indecision on the CCEM. This is yet another example of inhibition in the government, particularly after the electoral defeat at the local government polls. The two parties have decided to forge ahead despite differences, but the way forward is inhibited by many issues. 

Two-fold crisis for UNP

For the UNP, it is a period of two-fold crisis. One is from within the government. Besides, it is afflicted with an internal problem as some Ministers are openly revolting against the party hierarchy. Already, State Ministers Palitha Range Bandara and Vasantha Senanayake have threatened to bring a vote of no confidence against the PM. 

 

  

GL, PM chat with each other 

Chairman of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) Prof. G.L. Peiris is a harsh critic of the PM at political events and press conferences. The duo happened to meet with each other on Tuesday at an event to mark the launch of a book written by Munchee Biscuits chairman Mickey Wickramasinghe. Prof. Peiris was seated on the left of the writer and the PM to his right. Despite political differences, the two were seen chatting with each other.     

Cabinet reshuffle fell below expectations: Rajitha

By Chathuri Dissanayake-Thursday, 1 March 2018

A subdued Rajitha Senaratne yesterday admitted that the cabinet reshuffle did not go as many anticipated, saying that more significant changes were expected by Government Ministers, including him.

The reshuffle, which saw only a few members of the United National Party being reassigned ministries, fell well below expectations, Senaratne said at the weekly Cabinet press briefing. He also confirmed rumours about a move to reassign the Law and Order Ministry, which was assigned to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on 25 February.

“We accept that the reshuffle was not completely successful, we wanted changes in some ministries which were underperforming, and we expected changes. But there are some elements that were good, but yes, it was not all successful,” he told reporters.

The Minister claimed that concerns over how certain subjects, such as Higher Education and Highway, have been joined in assigning ministerial posts went unheard even during the reshuffle, as members of the Government were too busy managing the political crisis to address the issues.

“We said we are not happy about how the Ministry subjects have been assigned. A meeting was set up with Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera, Minister Malik Samarawickrama, and the Ministry secretaries to discuss the issue and figure out how best to couple ministries. But then the political crisis dragged on, and they had to rush for meetings to negotiate the situation, and the meeting never happened,” Senaratne claimed.

Attempting to make light of the displeasure expressed by some members of the Government after Cabinet changes were made last Sunday, the Minister insisted that no politician has ever been happy about their assigned subject after a cabinet reshuffle.

When asked why the Government is struggling to carry out a complete reshuffle resulting in the reforms being dragged on over a two-week period, Senaratne side-stepped the question, saying that the negotiations in the changes to UPFA Cabinet Ministries was an internal matter.

Confirming rumours that Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, currently functioning as the Minister of Regional Development, is being considered to be appointed the Law and Order Minister, Senaratne admitted the idea has been met with opposition within the Government and the Department of Police.

“The decision to temporarily assign the Ministry to the Prime Minister was because Minister Sarath Fonseka was not in the country. Once the matter is discussed with the person concerned, a concrete decision will be taken and the subject will be reassigned to him when the second part of the reshuffle takes place,” he said. 

MORE POWERS FOR BRIBERY COMMISSION TO PROSECUTE

Ishara Mudugamuwa and Nushka Nafeel-Thursday, March 1, 2018 

Cabinet approval has been granted to empower the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to file cases based on facts revealed by the Commissions of Inquiry.

Co-Cabinet Spokesman and Health and Indigenous Medicine Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne said the decision to transfer the power of filing cases based on facts revealed by the Commissions of Inquiry to the Bribery Commission was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on Tuesday. Accordingly, Director General of the Bribery Commission will be given the power to file cases under the Bribery Act or Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law based on the findings of Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the President.

The Legal Draftsman has drafted legislation to amend the Commissions of Inquiry Act No. 17 of 1948 to allow the CIABOC to file cases based on the investigations and facts revealed by the Commissions of Inquiry.

 The Attorney General has informed that the amendment Bill has to be passed by a 2/3 majority in Parliament.

The Cabinet paper submitted by President Maithripala Sirisena seeking to publish the bill in the Gazette and subsequently present it to Parliament. This proposal received the Cabinet approval. Minister Senaratne said that the above amendment to the bill will quicken the process of taking legal action against the wrongdoers.

He assured that the above measure was taken to hear the cases soon and punish the perpetrators involved. According to the Act, the President can appoint Commissions of Inquiry, whenever it appears to him that an investigation or inquiry or both is necessary on the administration, management and functions of any Government institution or the conduct of any public officer. Presidential Commissions of Inquiries can be appointed on any matter relating to the national interest of the public safety or well-being as decided by the President.

Gota Sings A Different Tune On Lasantha Murder

Gotabaya

MARCH 1, 2018

Replying to an article carried in banner headlines in the Island newspaper of 27th February under the caption “Inquiry into Lasantha murder in a muddle” Gotabaya Rajapaksa who was Secretary Defence at the time Lasantha Wickrematunge was brutally murdered offers an explanation as a cover up after his much publicised ” Who is Lasantha?” interview with the BBC shortly after the killing. He also said that he filed action as it was the correct thing to do. Will he file action against the Island? That would also be the correct thing to do by his own admitted standards.

The infamous interview shocked the entire world when Gotabaya arrogantly said “who is Lasantha? He was a tabloid journalist criticising every President. Why ask about one man? There are so many murders”. In his reply carefully crafted as one suspects by a lawyer, he goes on to put the blame on Brigadier Keppetiwalana a known acolyte of Gen Sarath Fonseka when he was the Commander of the Army. If one were to recall, Brigadier Keppetiwalana and some other Army Intelligence personnel were arrested and kept in CID custody after being held by the Military initially. At the time Gotabaya was yet the all powerful Secretary Defence. They were released after a visit by Rohan Guneratne arranged and approved by Gotabaya himself. It is indeed funny that the former Secretary Defence now places the blame at the feet of Keppetiwalana, having lost power but did release him whilst he was in power. Rumour was rife that Keppetiwalana et al were pushed to blame Gen Fonseka of the murder whilst being held but when they capitulated by saying to Guneratne they would speak of other murders if they were pushed. Hey presto, the release took place. The CID would do well to follow up on that lead too.

Lasantha

The Rajapaksa government with Gotabaya as Secretary of all he surveyed did nothing with investigating murders let alone corruption. Thajudeen’s murder was an accident. Lasantha’s murder was done by LTTE and hence pushed to SSP Wakista in the anti terrorism unit. Keith Noyahr was released after a near death experience when calls were made to MR and GR. Ekaneligoda was found wandering around overseas. Forget the Udayan journalists. They had no chance. Shame on you journalists in the South. How is it that the former Secretary Defence now says these crimes need not be investigated? How is it that it is convenient to hide behind statements made by Ranil Wickremesinghe and Joseph Michael Perera that it was Gen Sarath Fonseka who killed Lasantha Wickramatunge,at a time he was in power ? Why did he not believe those statements at that time and take action? He was in power !!!!

The former Secretary Defence goes on to say that the Government is hell bent on incarcerating the self proclaimed War Winning Hero ( forgetting Gen Fonseka) because of his efforts in defeating the LTTE and beautifying Colombo. All by himself. Due to the super performance by his brother at the recent Local Government elections the Yahapalanaya boys have got jittery and are hell bent on “fixing” them, says he. Perhaps Gotabaya has forgotten that his brother got such a mandate mainly because the Yahapalanaya’s did not move against them after making serious charges prior to defeating MR. The people felt that the Rajapaksa clan were now, spring chicken. Close behind is the looming possibility of Field Marshal Fonseka becoming the Law and Order Minister, that has sent shivers down their collective spines. Hence the reply.

The gung ho super hero who commandeered all he surveyed when he was in power seems to be cowering without the tri forces and the police to hide behind. He goes on to explain that he did file action against the late senior journalist and his newspaper for billions over the reporting of the “MiG Deal” as he himself calls it. Observers will do well to remember that Gotabaya in an interview with Hard Talk during his period as Secretary Defence arrogantly said to a question whether he wished The Sunday Leader to shut down as they will not be able to pay billions “Of course”. Watch You Tube interview. Yet when the paper changed hands he accepted an apology from Rajapaksa codger Asanga Seneviratne who was by then the owner. Observers must also remember that Gotabaya was out of power when he accepted the apology. So, the all powerful Secretary Defence who wanted the Leader Newspaper shut down, meekly accepts a contrived apology from his poodle when out of power.

Having set in motion his papers to revoke US citizenship Gotabaya takes his first steps to run for President in 2020. Viyath Maga stands testimony. For the first time Gotabaya accepted in an interview that he was a US citizen. Why? Because he has already set in motion the revoking of his US citizenship. If readers do not believe it please ask Malraj Silva in California who knows inside out of all, We mean ALL of Gotabaya’s affairs in the USA. Maybe the CID should follow that lead too.

Maybe, just maybe The Island carried this on the front page to open the debate for Gotabaya
to respond in this fashion since Field Marshal looms large. The Island has been openly supporting Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya with Shamindra Ferdinands and Dayan J, leading the cheer squad. If this is as it seems it’s a shame that a newspaper is helping to cover up for a fellow scribe,s murder let alone of a former colleague within their fold.

The script is clear. Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot run for President in 2020. Gotabaya is the choice of the Pohottuwa. As stated early in this article the Yahapalanaya brought this upon themselves. Between President Maithripala Sirisena and PM Wickremesinghe both are guilty of vacillating over the many investigations against the former regime bigwigs. They read it wrong and now there is hardly time but to make haste in getting about what was promised and needed. Thajudeen, Lasantha, Eknaligoda, Udayan journalists and Noyahr, apart from the grand larceny of a corrupt and dictatorial regime.

Read More