Health, environment and economy of North-East devastated by explosive weapons - AOAV

Photograph: AOAV

31May 2018

The health, economy and environment of the predominantly Tamil North-East in Sri Lanka have all suffered from the use of explosive weapons, said Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) in a report released this week.

The report, entitled “When the Bombs Fall Silent: The Reverberating Effects of Explosive Weapons”, based on interviews conducted across the North-East, detailed the widespread and long lasting impact of explosive weapon use.

According to the report by the London based not-for-profit organisation, health services have been severely affected by explosive weapons and violence, with mental health illnesses such as  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, particularly prevalent in the North East. The report said,

“In Jaffna, almost a decade after the end of hostilities, there are just two psychiatrists in a population of about 600,000– people deeply impacted by the war.

“It is estimated that about 30% of those coming to outpatients’ departments in the Northern Province were displaying symptoms of depression. After the war this rose to about 48%.”

The violence is thought to have had an impact on the number of suicides that take place in the Tamil areas, with a representative from the HALO organization in Kilinochchi, estimating that there were as many as 30 women a month committing suicide.

Children in particular were vulnerable, said the report noting that,

“Two out of every five children in the war-torn North and East are today thought to have mental health disorders.”

The report repeatedly mentions the various psychological impacts on the population in the North East, especially as the social and economic consequences of explosive violence are closely connected with the exacerbation of individuals’ mental health.

Physical health too had suffered, the report noted, stating that,

“According to data from the government-run Mine Action Center, since 2010, there have been 285 casualties from mines and other ERW – though many casualties may go unrecorded in rural areas”.

AOAV also highlighted the ongoing effect of the destruction of civilian infrastructure and economic development. “In Sri Lanka’s most impacted areas, for example, over 74% live below the international poverty line,” it stated. “Youth unemployment in key northern towns stands at 60%.”

The report also detailed concerns around ongoing militarization and acquisitions of Tamil land. It stated,

“The ongoing stationing of the Sri Lankan national army throughout the impacted areas – an action frequently justified and deemed necessary as a bulwark against future instability – continues to cause local tension. Land protesters in Keppapilavu, who remain displaced from their land, told AOAV that many had turned desperately to loans after their livelihoods had been disrupted. Such loans, which many said they had no way of repaying, had stimulated a number of suicide attempts.”

Continued Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism has also been detrimental, it noted.

“In Sri Lanka, the Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism was reinvigorated by their victory and significant efforts were made to stamp this nationalism onto the Tamil majority impacted areas. These efforts sought to wipe away much of Tamil and LTTE culture and replace it with Sinhala-Buddhism. Archaeologists and monks even scoured the North and East to establish the antiquity of Sinhala Buddhism in the region. In any case, this served to remind Tamils of their loss and the violence faced, as well as lengthen the recovery process. The Sinhalese nationalism is also linked to further discrimination against Tamils and Muslims in particular, with attacks on Muslim communities occurring as recently as March 2018.”

Furthermore, the continued militarization of the North-East has prevented “healing” from taking place, it added.

“The impact of the war is very evident in the North and East of Sri Lanka, with destroyed houses still lining roads in many locations. Many of the most impacted stretches in the north, such as the A9, still heavily contaminated and marked by destruction, remain all but deserted. AOAV were told that these sites are seen by Tamils as ‘symbols of occupation’, preventing local Tamils from healing.”

Read the full report here.

Reverberating-effects-v4.pdf by Thavam on Scribd

President, PM Security Forces and TNA discuss release of land

  

2018-05-31

President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, members of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the Chiefs of the Security Forces discussed on how to expedite release of lands in the North and East.

TNA MP Mavai Senathirajah told the Daily Mirror that his party stressed the need for expediting the release of lands held by the security forces to the rightful civilian owners, when Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe visited the North recently.

Mr Senathirajah said a decision was made to have a broad discussion with the President, and the security forces, while Prime Minister also agreed to participate in it.

“We stressed the release of lands as a major issue as it is long overdue. The Government promised to release lands six months after coming into power, but it had not been done although two-and-half years have passed since the Government was elected into office,” he said.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister had stated that the Government hoped to go ahead with several projects in the North, including the Palali Regional Airport Development Project, Paranthan Industrial Zone, Kankesanthurai IT Zone and the development of the Pooneryn Town.

He had told Government officials to focus on fulfilling the needs of the people in the North rather than thinking of their facilities.

“Some Government officials complain about lack of vehicles and other facilities. We accept that there are shortcomings, but one should focus on fulfilling the needs of the people,” he told officials.

A special committee comprising representatives of all Ministries had been appointed to look into the development in the region. (Yohan Perera)

How Long Can Sri Lankan Government Hoodwink The UN & The International Community? 

By Kumarathasan Rasingam –MAY 30, 2018

Kumarathasan Rasingam

The Sri Lankan State runs on Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism, the Maha Sanga and the Buddhist Clergy. The Sri Lankan State has to obtain the blessings of these people to enact any laws regarding devolution of powers to the Tamils in the North and East of Sri Lanka and the participation of foreign judges to investigate the war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan armed forces. 

The President of Sri Lanka has openly said on several occasions that he will not allow anyone to punish any soldier who participated in the war. He also openly stated that he will never allow foreign judges or investigators to investigate the Sri Lankan soldiers.
The Government has shown no genuine interest in security sector reform. Pervasive militarization and the concomitant lack of accountability for past abuses have ensured that human rights violations in the country’s north and east remain widespread. 

It is to be noted what the Chief Minister of Northern Province Hon. C. Wigneswaran [Attorney at law and former Judge] said on the occasion of the Genocide Remembrance Day and remembering those dead during the war in Mullivakkal  on May 18th 2018

Wigneswaran accused the Sri Lankan State of being communal.

“Those in the highest echelons of power have been heard to say that they will not allow even a single Sinhalese soldier to go to jail. Does that mean criminality depends on one’s race and community?” he asked.

“We have no paucity for Sinhala politicians who consider any offence committed against the Tamils by a Soldier is no offence at all,” he pointed out.

Wigneswaran recalled that Sri Lanka had consented to install a hybrid Inquiry Panel before the world body and pointed out that now it refuses to abide by its promise.

“This would point out to the world the manner in which our successive governments for 70 years have deceived and fooled our Tamil people,” he said.

The culture of impunity still continues under this so call “Good Governance” The DRACONIAN PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT IS STILL IN FORCE.  The Government promised to repeal this Act to the United Nations. European Union long ago and was successful in obtaining its GSP + concessions from EU by making false promises and cheating and by persuading the EU Officials.

Sri Lanka has failed in its commitments to the UN and the International Community and has succeeded in hoodwinking in myriad ways so far and will continue to pursue these tactics in future also.

Sri Lanka having co-sponsored Resolution 30/1 in 2015 and 34/1 in 2017cannot go back on it now. Sri Lanka cannot dodge the implementation of the Resolutions fully.

It is shocking to note that the International Community and the United Nations giving time extensions to implement the UNHRC Resolution 30/1 ever after knowing the GOSL’s policy of promising everything and doing nothing,.

GOSL’s Lessons learnt and Reconciliation Commission:
Interim recommendations: GOSL failed to fulfill its own recommendations even after 8 Years?

In September 2010 the LLRC published its interim recommendations: 

Read More

Speaker informed former President Rajapaksa of Noyahr’s abduction

Shavini Madara-Thursday, May 31, 2018

Former Military Intelligence Director and Army Chief of the Staff retired Major General Amal Karunasekara arrested in connection with the abduction and assault of Nation newspaper deputy editor Keith Noyahr in 2008, was further remanded till June 13 by the Mount Lavinia Additional Magistrate Lochana Abeywickrama.

Senior State Counsel appearing on behalf of the CID informed the Magistrate that Speaker Karu Jayasuriya had made a statement regarding this incident.

According to the Speaker’s statement it was revealed that former Nation newspaper colleagues of his had informed Karu Jayasuriya regarding Keith Noyahr’s abduction.

Jayasuriya had been the Public Administration Minister at the time of the incident and he had been the first person to inform then President Mahinda Rajapaksa about Keith Noyahr’s abduction.

It is reported that Karu Jayasuriya has discussed this incident with the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and emphasized that he would feel ashamed to be in the government if the government had involved in this incident.

According to the Karu Jayasuriya he informed then President Mahinda Rajapaksha if any harm comes to Keith Noyahr he will resign from his post.

SSC also stated that Criminal Investigation Department again recorded a statement from Amal Karunasekara. According to his statement Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka had no any connection with this matter.

CID investigated Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka’s phone call records and SSC stated that there is no evidence related to Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka had any involvement.

Senior State Counsel Lakmini Girihagama stated that CID recorded a statement from Lance Corporal who worked at the Batuwatte safe house.

According to the lans corpral’s statement a person had been brought to the safe house that night and assaulted. According to CID investigations, Noyahr was abducted from his home in Dehiwela and was taken to a Military Intelligence safe-house in Dompe in a white van by a platoon led by Major Bulathwatte.

SSC also stated that Keith Noyahr later travelled overseas, for security reasons.Senior State Counsel Lakmini Girihagama also informed the magistrate that statements were recorded from first and fifth suspects regarding the matter.

Senior President’s Counsel Nalinda Indatissa and other lawyers appearing for Karunasekara pleaded his client be granted bail. However the SSC objected to bail for the suspect and pleaded to remand the suspect.

The Magistrate thoroughly advised lawyers appearing for the suspects not to involve any other outside lawyers into this case.The magistrate fixed the inquiry for June 13.

20th Amendment? Probably too late and confused

 Friday, 1 June 2018

What is categorically defective in the 19th Amendment is that it failed to rationally demarcate the powers between the President and the Prime Minister or Cabinet, or in other words, the State and the Government (the links included). We have this conundrum at present.

The 19th Amendment created an ambiguity by retaining the President as the Head of Government while curtailing most of the functional powers. Some of the powers were handed over to the PM, but not fully. The President is responsible for the Government, but has no power to remove the Prime Minister clearly. The President however has many other powers to control or even ‘manipulate’ the ministerial portfolios and their assignments with or without the consent of the PM.

These are the institutional ambiguities that have largely created the inefficiency of the present Government in addition to the policy defects and inadequacies and political party and personality rivalries within the coalition. The coalition has largely disintegrated today.

Too late?

Therefore, if the intention of the 20th Amendment is to correct that ambiguity, it is logical but too late. It is unlikely to receive consensus among main political parties for a major constitutional change towards the end of a parliamentary term. The aborted new Constitution in August 2000 is one example. There are barely 18 months left for the next presidential election. The election preparations have already started.

It is not clear why the JVP or those who realised that there were major defects in the 19th Amendment didn’t attempt to bring forth the 20th Amendment before. There can be a lame excuse that when the 19th Amendment was brought in, the Government didn’t have the required two-thirds majority. But this cannot be said after the elections and after the coalition agreement between the UNP and the SLFP. It can be argued that the President and the SLFP didn’t like further curtailment of powers. But there is no proof. There were no known efforts on the part of the JVP or the constitutional reform advocates to bring a further amendment sooner.

The proposed constitutional change therefore is like trying to close the stable after the horse has bolted. It requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament and then a referendum. Although the JVP is arguing that it might be passed only through parliament without a referendum that cannot be the case. A fundamental change to the constitution which affects the sovereignty of the people in respect of electing the President has to be endorsed by the people. It is wishful thinking to think otherwise.

To prevent GR?

It is also argued that the 20th Amendment is the surest way of preventing a person like Gotabaya Rajapaksa winning the next presidential election and grabbing power to be an all-powerful executive president again. It is true that even after the 19th Amendment, given the ambiguities so far exposed, that a person like GR could grab all power and revert back to the full executive presidential system.

Even on that count it is too late now and in any case that is not the way constitutional reforms should be proposed. Constitutions should not be changed to suit or deprive personalities. This has been one of the curses of constitution-making in Sri Lanka since 1978, including the 19th Amendment. There can be other ways of preventing Rajapaksa coming to power and those have to be political and not constitutional.

It has been proven correct that when the state power and the government power are concentrated in one person or institution that tends to be abused. In developed democracies the state power is highly institutionalised and therefore even under a presidential system, democracy is fairly safe. However, in underdeveloped democracies, when these two powers and institutions combine, abuse and authoritarianism emerge. This is the experience in Sri Lanka in addition to countries like Russia.

JVP proposal?

The key problem of constitutional reform at present fundamentally rests on how to demarcate these two powers - the State and Government. The question of the Head of State is only one aspect.

There is no question that the 20th Amendment apparently has a clear answer to this problem while the 19th Amendment failed to do so. However, the question is whether that is the correct answer. The JVP answer is to completely subordinate the Head of State to the elected Parliament. This was not the case even under the 1972 Constitution. The amendment proposes that after a Parliament is elected, the Members of Parliament elect a President who should not be political. By proposing such, the JVP has shown a peculiar kind of republicanism bordering on anarchism.

Although the appointed person might not be ‘political’ according to the JVP proposal, he or she can be susceptible to political manoeuvres by political parties and politicians. The JVP apparently has a liking for cultivating “independent” personalities close to their policies. Even at the last parliamentary elections, they nominated some independent personalities as national list candidates. This thinking is there in the JVP proposal, although the proposed President is elected by the whole Parliament.

Judging by experience, one could wonder however whether something similar would happen to such an elected President like what happened to Chandrasiri Mayadunne after the last parliamentary elections?

It is true that the present JVP proposal is not completely on those lines, but on the lines of the Indian constitution, particularly after the 42nd Amendment in 1976. The Indian President is the Head of the State, but not the Head of the Executive today. It is like the British Monarch with only symbolic value and functions. But this is only one model. There can be other models or reasoning on how to institutionalise a Head of State and what would be the functions.

Past lessons

As we all know, all present-day states evolved on the basis of past monarchies, continuously or with discontinuities. Unfortunately no state has evolved on the basis of ancient republics which were limited and rare. British monarchy might be the best example for the general evolution. It has evolved finally into a symbolic Head of State.

When America broke away from the British monarchy, it combined the Executive as well as governmental power in the elected President. In other words, it brought about the system we know as the presidential system but with checks and balances. When Ireland broke away from the British monarchy, it opted for parliamentary democracy but elected the President as the Head of State. That is a different model.

In Sri Lanka, when we finally broke away from the British monarchy, we remained as a parliamentary democracy then the Head of State was appointed by the Prime Minister. But this didn’t last for long and we opted for a presidential system, without many checks or balances.

In addition to the lack of checks and balances, the people by and large wanted to nostalgically go back to the Westminster system. But it is not clear whether the people completely want to give up electing their President or not.

Any value to the presidency?

The JVP has argued that almost all parties and leaders have promised the abolition of the presidential system but have always hesitated to do so. Power is the popular explanation for this hesitation. However, it is not only the incumbents and aspirants who have hesitated to totally abolish the system, but there are different views on the subject from different quarters. No one has done a proper public opinion survey. While there are valid criticisms, there is also some liking for the institution.

Therefore, the best consensus would be on a middle path so to say. Why not allow the people to elect their own Head of State? It is more democratic than a President elected by the Parliament. Even in India, the President is not elected by the House of Representatives alone but by an electoral college composed of both houses, upper and lower. It is more democratic than what is now proposed.

An elected President is the only person whom all communities and all sections of society can elect collectively. This is the most tangible national institution that the minorities can influence. Abolition of the popularly-elected president would possibly succumb to majoritarianism.

Of course the elected President should not be the Head of the Government. The President should represent the State and the nation. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet should handle the day-to-day governance or the Government. Nevertheless, there could be some executive functions or responsibilities that an elected President could handle. Those can be limited to:

n National security

n National reconciliation

n Provincial councils

n Anti-corruption

On these matters, the President should be answerable and responsible to Parliament and should coordinate with the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Sri Lanka desperately needs cooperative governance.

Avoiding a reversal

There can be many worthwhile suggestions in the JVP proposal in reducing the excessive powers or unnecessary functions of the President even as the Head of State. No one can figure why, when a Deputy Speaker resigns he or she should inform the President for that resignation to be effective as it was required recently! However, those detail rectifications could be postponed to the future.

If the intention of the proposed 20th Amendment is to prevent a reversal to the oppressive presidential system under an undesirable person elected in 2019, the effort is too late and that is also not the way to go about constitutional reforms. A common democratic candidate might be the best way to prevent such an eventuality.

LTTE bogey to scuttle Constitution making As many countries Governments conduct affairs on old Constitutions, in Sri Lanka, these are viewed as tools to grab power or to sustain grabbed power

LTTE bogey came to a head when the Rajapaksa loyalists accused Sarath Fonseka, being an LTTE agent when challenged Rajapaksa

Sri Lankan politicians have a habit to look for a nexus between the ethnic issue and anything under the sun, in order to convince their community 

 The constitutional issues such as the mode of governance are the ones having far-reaching effects on the future of the country as well as its people

2018-06-01

It is interesting and in a way puzzling to note that the political parties and leaders who agitated to scrap the Executive Presidential system of Governance during the height of the separatist war, are now expressing fear to do so, on the grounds that the country would be divided.

The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) group functioning under former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) led by Dinesh Gunawardane, Wimal Weerawansa and his party men, who were then members of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the group of 16 of the SLFP and many others who are now aligned with the former President were agitating to abolish the Executive Presidency some time back.

At the 2005 Presidential Election, these groups supported the candidacy of Mahinda Rajapaksa, whose main pledge was to do away with the Executive Presidential form of governance. 

It was a time when the entire Vanni, a part of the Jaffna Peninsula and many parts of the Eastern Province were under the control of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the United National Front (UNF) Government of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was begging the Tamil rebel group to return to the negotiating table.

Even Rajapaksa, who went back on his words to abrogate the previous UNP Government’s Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) and the peace process resumed talks with the LTTE, despite the organisation having attempted on the life of his Army Commander the then Lieutenant General Sarath Fonseka. 

Yet, his Government stood for the scrapping of the Executive Presidency, without seeing any danger in doing so. For them, the ethnic issue had then nothing to do with the form of Governance. Soon after Rajapaksa assumed power for the second time in 2010, when there was no longer a separatist war nor a separatist armed group, they tied up the two issues and even now, they remain the same.

Most Sri Lankan politicians have made it a habit to look for a nexus between the ethnic issue and anything under the sun, in order to convince especially their community whatever the point they make and to justify any crime they have committed or alleged to have committed.

Thus, those soldiers who are accused of harming leading journalists such as Lasantha Wickramatunga, Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon, are war heroes as they had fought against the LTTE, whereas the Army Commander who spearheaded a successful war against the separatists is not.

The northern politicians usually do not touch upon an issue that has nothing to do with the ethnic problem. Thus they see everything through the ethnic prism. They criticize their rivals in the region largely for “betraying the Tamil and their interests to the Sinhalese” and rarely for corruption or something unrelated to ethnicity.
Their southern counterparts too, especially those in the Opposition, despite they taking up national issues, always attempt to tie them up with the ethnic issue and accuse their rivals of “betraying the Sinhalese and their interests to the Tamils and to the LTTE.

Thus, the constitution-making process of the Chandrika Kumaratunga Government between 1994 and 2000 was seen by the United National Party (UNP) as a sellout of the country to the LTTE and the UNP members burnt copies of a draft Constitution within the chamber of the Parliament in 2000.

And the same people who were the members of Kumaratunga’s party then and under Mahinda Rajapaksa now, want to scuttle the Constitution making process of the incumbent UNP-led Government, ridiculously on the same grounds.

Their contention is further preposterous in the light of them having participated in the various committees appointed to look into various aspects of the proposed new constitution.

This LTTE bogey came to a head when the Rajapaksa loyalists accused Sarath Fonseka, the war-winning Army Commander, who was acclaimed by leaders of the very Rajapaksa regime as the ‘Best Army Commander’ of the world for “being an LTTE agent,” when he unsuccessfully challenged Rajapaksa at the 2010 Presidential Election.

Soon after Rajapaksa assumed power for the second time in 2010, when there was no longer a separatist war nor a separatist armed group, they tied up the two issues and even now, they remain the same

They also branded Maithripala Sirisena as an LTTE agent, when he announced on November 21, 2014, his decision to contest the Presidential Election in 2015 as the Common Candidate of the Opposition parties.

The then General Secretary of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) Susil Premajayantha in a hurriedly convened media briefing the following day said that the candidacy of Maithripala Sirisena was a result of a conspiracy by foreign powers and separatist forces. One has to understand the stand taken by the Joint Opposition and the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) on the 20th Amendment to the Constitution that has been handed over to the Secretary-General of the Parliament by the JVP last week for the abolition of Executive Presidency, against this backdrop. 

Their argument is that so long as the 13th Amendment to the Constitution that provided for the devolution of power and the institution of Provincial Councils is in force, the scrapping of the Executive Presidency would lead to the division of the country.

Apart from their above-mentioned history, where they had taken a diametrically different position, the experience of several other countries stands against their current view.

India has successfully crushed secessionist insurgencies in several of her ethnically created States such as Kashmir, Punjab, Assam, Tripura and Mizoram while having a Westminster Style Government in the Centre.

The argument can be applied to the United Kingdom as well, where the Government had defeated a long drawn separatist rebellion in Northern Ireland.

Malaysia and Australia are two more countries that have had devolved power to the periphery, while not having a Presidential rule in the Centre.

Some of those countries have effectively waged wars as well against other countries. (India against Pakistan and Britain against Argentina).

On the other hand, it must be recalled that the Opposition parties during the first Executive President J.R. Jayewardene’s tenure - the SLFP, LSSP, Communist Party, MEP and JVP - accused him for muddling the ethnic rebellion by way of sending his nephew Brigadier Tissa Weeratunga to the north, mishandling the first major attack by the LTTE at Thirunelveli in Jaffna in July 23, 1983, which triggered countrywide anti-Tamil riots, passage of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and mishandling the Thimpu talks.

The constitutional issues such as the mode of governance, are the ones having far-reaching effects on the future of the country as well as its people. 

In some countries, the Governments conduct their affairs on a Constitution brought in hundreds of years ago. But in Sri Lanka, these issues are viewed as tools to grab power or to sustain the already grabbed power.

If the Rajapaksa loyalists are to argue that their stance in 2005 or in 2010 on Executive Presidency was taken in the light of the political situation prevailed then, they had then been able to see only about few years into the future.

One cannot assure that complete democracy would be heralded once the executive presidency is done away with. But the experience has it that it is not an indispensable tool to handle separatist forces.

End of Neo-liberalism?

BY N.A.D.E.S AMARATUNGA-May 31, 2018

Neo-liberalism and its future developments would be very much relevant to us in Sri Lanka at this juncture, as the present government seems to be getting locked into a system run by the unholy trinity of the IMF, WTO and the World Bank, which at present are guided by the neo-liberal policies of the western powers. In the West neo-liberalism has caused a huge growth in inequality with the earnings of the top 10 percent markedly increasing, while that of the bottom 10 percent showing a significant drop. This income inequality has emerged as the most important political issue in these countries.

Most leading economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs are critical of the worsening situation. The opposition against neo-liberalist policies among the ordinary people is mounting and it is believed that as a result neo-liberalism may have to give way to a better system. Trump's victory and Brexit vote are considered to be direct consequences of the people's opposition to this system. This discontent seems to engulf the whole West, and it is hoped it would bring in a more desirable system which would serve everybody everywhere equally well. Leading economists are of the view that neo-liberalism in its present form has had its day and is in decline. But it may be too early to celebrate.

The basis of neo-liberalism is the idea that the market is the prime determinant of not only prices of goods, and matters related to trade and commerce, but also social characters and human values. This would mean there is no need for the government to intervene on behalf of the people, and market forces would most efficiently guide the economy with benefits to all stake holders. This theory was first mooted by Friedrich von Hayek, and it was more or less a refutation of welfare capitalism advocated by John Maynard Keynes that had been in practice since the end of the World War in 1948. Hayek had advised Margaret Thatcher on the virtues of neo-liberal economic policies and these were subsequently adopted during Ronald Reagan's time in the US and Margaret Thatcher's in the UK.

These policies had virtually detached the government from the process of management of the economy, and given the market a free hand to run the economy. During the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism that existed from the late 40s to the early 70s, the governments in the western countries had taken measures to protect the ordinary people from the depredations of market forces. Reagan and Thatcher, however, had seen these policies as an impediment to economic development. They came to believe that unrestrained market forces were a better driver of the economy. Thus was born neo-liberalism and its offshoot globalization, which was designed to force the rest of the world to fall in line and accept their open-borders, export-led growth policy. The IMF, WTO and the World Bank were rearranged to serve this purpose.

However, these economic policies have not done any good to the majority of people in the world, including the West. From 1948 to 1972 when welfarism was in practice in the US, every section of the population experienced very similar sizable increases in their standard of living. In comparison between 1972 and 2013 the bottom 10 percent income earners experienced falling real income, while the top 10 percent did far better than everyone else. The median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than it was few decades ago. The income of the bottom 90 percent of the population has stagnated for over 30 years. On average, between 65 to 70 percent of households in 25 high-income economies in the world experienced stagnant or falling real incomes between 2005 and 2014.

In comparison, during the period of welfare capitalism - from end of the war to early 70s – growth rate was double that of the neo-liberal period from 1980 to the present. Moreover a comparison of poverty rates in the pre and post-welfare periods in the developed world, shows that welfarism had definitely helped in poverty reduction; for instance in Sweden poverty rate was 23.7 in the pre-welfare period and it was reduced to 5.8 after the introduction of welfare policies.

The revolt against neo-liberalism is developing and as mentioned has caused political upheaval across the west on both sides of the Atlantic. Trump and Saunders in the US, Brexit and Corbyn in the UK, Le Pen in France and several other similar phenomena in Europe herald the downturn of neo-liberalism. This revolt led by the working class - which is not the same as the labour movement - is often referred to as populism in a denigrating and dismissive fashion. However, this revolt seemed to have paralyzed the governing elite in the UK, it has already claimed one prime minister and left the latest one fumbling around in the dark. In the US though, this revolt propelled Donald Trump to victory he is also floundering as he doesn't seem to have a clear policy to deliver what he promised to the disadvantaged people who feel 'left behind' and voted for him. The 'Occupy Wall Street' phenomena could be attributed to this working class movement. This movement is very much active and is gathering momentum.

In spite of the evidently disastrous performance of neo-liberalism in the western countries as well as in other parts of the world, Sri Lanka seems to be reluctant to resist the dictate of the IMF and the 'Washington Consensus'. Neo-liberal policies practiced in the West include free-market policy, less government involvement, privatization, austerity, low public expenditure, less welfarism, commodification and encouragement of immigration of labour. These policies help the rich to accumulate wealth while the incomes of the poor stagnate or decline. Some of these policies are being diligently followed by Sri Lanka on the advice of the IMF at present. The present leadership does not seem to know that the most successful developing countries have not followed neo-liberal policies.

China for instance has its own homespun policies, both in terms of poverty reduction and industrialization it has outperformed most of the developed countries. Malaysia under Mahathir Mohamad refused to play ball with the IMF and he has made a comeback at the age of ninety two. South Africa started manufacturing AIDS drugs and distributing them free and also installed free water supply to the people, despite of tremendous pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and the IMF. Sri Lanka has burdened its poor with heavy taxes and fuel price increases and seems to be indirectly cutting down on free health and education. Availability of drugs and services is poor in the government hospitals forcing the sick to seek private health facilities. Education often is not available in government schools forcing children to seek private tuition. Senior citizens' savings are also taxed. The government has secretly entered into trade agreements with other countries with terms that may be adverse to us. The US has similar agreements with Mexico and other countries which encourage immigration of cheap labour. This is to reduce the bargaining power of trade unions.

Joseph Stiglitz, Professor of Economics at Columbia University and former senior vice president of The World Bank and Nobel Memorial Prize winner, wrote in April 2000 in an article for the New Republic "They will say the IMF's economic 'remedies' often make things worse – turning slowdowns into recessions and recessions into depressions. And they will have a point. I was chief economist at the World Bank from 1966 until last November, during the gravest global economic crisis in a half century. I saw how the IMF, in tandem with the US Treasury Department, responded. And I was appalled." He was made to resign from his post in the World Bank. John Maynard Keynes in his book 'National Self Sufficiency' (1933) says "Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel, - these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible and above all let finance be primarily national. Experience accumulates to prove that most modern processes of mass production can be performed in most countries and climates with almost equal efficiency."

Sri Lanka is in need of a strong courageous leader who will not slavishly obey the dictates of the IMF. We need a national economy based on Keynesian principles, both with regard to finance and also production of goods. We need an economy based on rural agriculture with rural development as its priority. We need to escape from the clutches of neo-liberalism.

President makes hard hitting speech at Ven.Sobhitha Thera commemoration

Thursday, May 31, 2018

President Maithripala Sirisena said that when he won the election in 2015, the former President took all of the brand new vehicles with him leaving only two vehicles for him.

“I traveled for two and a half years in old vehicles,” President Sirisena said.

“There was a security device which could detect any explosive within a 100 meter radius which was used by the then President. I still do not know what happened to that device,” President Sirisena said.

The President was speaking at a special function to commemorate the 76th Birth anniversary of Ven.Maduluwawe Sobhitha Thera yesterday. The President also expressed his concerns that he did not receive any invitation for the occasion.

“No one still knows who granted permission to the former President to fly to Tangalle in a helicopter. When I inquired from the Air Force, they said that I had given permission for that helicopter to fly, when I had not,” the President further said.

“A daily English newspaper had published about the actions by the present Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. The news item stated how the Malaysian Prime Minister had ordered the arrest of 9 ministers, 144 businessmen, 50 judges and 200 policemen on corruption charges within five days of coming to office.

“The story had also contained a picture of me,criticizing me stating ‘within three years?’ I then contacted the Sri Lanka High Commission in Malaysia and inquired about these matters and found out that the details in this story to be false. If a country can carry out such indictments within five days, then there is no law and order or diplomatic norms in that country. Hence, these statements are completely false,” the President said.

Speaking about the 100 day plan which was put forward prior to the elections, the President stated that he did not know about the person who made it.

“How could 47 seats in Parliament help implement the 19th Amendment? The best option would’ve been to dissolve Parliament the day I was sworn in as the President,” President Sirisena said.

The President also spoke about some proposals which were presented to the Cabinet.

“A proposal was made to transfer all the funds in the state banks to private banks. I was against this proposal which was debated for three months. If the proposal was passed, the Bank of Ceylon, Peoples Bank, National Savings Bank and any state pawning outlets would have faced difficulties,” the President said.

“I am ready to work for a fair and just society which the public aspires. I would not back down from any challenge brought against me. If anyone wants more clarification or evidence about these matters, I am ready for an open discussion with anybody in any media,” the President concluded.

The Rain Maker

 Friday, 1 June 2018


I had been penning long pieces using what the subeditors at your favourite daily are pleased to call ‘dictionary words’, the idiots – all such words are in a dic!

But the error of my ways has been pointed out to me, thank you so much. And I thought of repenting for a change, which is more than one can expect of politicos who can’t remember or sportspersons who don’t recall because they were drunk.

Sorry to start off on the wrong foot, as it were, as the bishop said to the actress. However, I thought given the nature of the column, it was necessary to clear the air with a prayer, some confession and a few Hail Mary’s thrown in for good measure. If the latter fails, I can switch to the bloody version of it.

So here I am: a not-so-old man in a not-so-dry month not waiting for rain…

First impressions

A friend of mine once warned me not to jump to conclusions as concerns the methods and motives of our elected and appointed mandarins. There is, he said, as the actress said to the bishop, much more than meets the eye. He’s a former journalist and presently a high-flying partner in a law firm; I’m not sure I can take his word for it at face value. But one suspects there’s some sense in the suspicion only wastepaper adorns the tip of the political iceberg as revealed in media, press conferences, Hansard, etc.

The real garbage lies beneath the surface, despite the tawdry coughing up of politicos who unashamedly/shamefacedly (mask on/off) confess to being in the pay of perpetual or temporary supporters in business – and never mind the stakeholders whose agenda they should be executing, anyway.

So pardon me for being cynical about even such confessions. Forgive me if I say just about everybody has the right to be blasé about the bottom falling out of honesty and integrity in island politics. Excuse me while I puke… more in protest, than the severe revulsion I feel whenever such an exposé hits the scandal-sheets – from central bank governors being campaign financiers to the powers that be, to mayoral reputations literally flushed down the toilet.

Second dimension

On balance, the incumbents can’t be as bad as we like to think they are. At least, they are cannon fodder to the machine-gun of our cocktail circuit and champagne suite malice. No need to fear a midnight visit by masked men or the dread sight of a white van with tinted glasses shadowing you across town.

But beyond the absence of the abject terror that the state once visited upon its citizens who had the temerity to dissent, what salutary achievement has the government of the day to celebrate, bar peace sans justice? If one gives them credit where it is due – 19A, RTI, OMP (and all that jazz, for there is more) – I’d be hard-pressed to discern a real change. The new political culture is simply the usual suspects but of a different party, playing musical chairs and silly buggers at the same time… And the taxpayer – to say nothing of future generations indebted to other countries – is footing the bill for the party while we pretend parts of Sri Lanka still are and/or not any longer a sovereign state.

Three-D

From the sublime to the ridiculous… In the midst of a lack of forward momentum, there are the mediocrities who help us middle-class misfits muddle through. For who can deny the premier vision of a would-be statesman who issues instructions from on high to cinema-hall owners requiring them to hand out 3D glasses to the hoi polloi and state the new price of inclusion on the stub?

There are perhaps a few charitable ways to salvage the technocratic reputation of our champion of the masses. However I’m not about to waste precious column inches essaying a defence of the indefensible. Except to say one has albeit reluctantly to admire a politician who doesn’t mind been regarded as a duffer as long as he can get on with the business of subverting the popular will with his castle-in-the-air ideas.

And there are less salutary charges one could lay at his exalted feet. But I’m not going there. Because one must retain a sense of proportion, after all, even in the throes of a fit of pique at the pettiness of it all. For while the grand larcenists of the late great regime are still at large – and threatening the return of the Sith with the revenge of the Dark Lord himself thrown in to boot – there are greater issues to keep awake at night over than the fumbling bumbling of even a Machiavellian Mr. Bean.

In all of this, I am acutely aware as a citizen that polities can be ungrateful as much as elected parties can be faithless when confronted with pragmatic necessities. To stay in power as long as possible and safeguard one’s future potential to drive the reforms agenda is the lie that even the best of a mediocre lot seem to have sold themselves. It is the prerogative of priests, psychologists and prostitutes to believe that they have the panacea if only the people they serve would realign their potential to powerful political ambitions. So Do It My Way, they say in dulcet tones – while the country goes to watery limbo in a borrow-boat.

At least the goons aren’t out to get you any longer. So be grateful for small mercies. If you see one rattling sabre on the horizon, pass him by on the other side with a polite nod for old time’s sake and that walk in the park you enjoyed while he dealt with a nasty nuisance in the north.

As for me, I’m turning over a new leaf. Less fuss; no storm and stress; few expectations. Let the small number of straight folks left in civil society – after that devastating revelation that academics and professionals are no less susceptible to the perpetual corrupter: money in the bank – continue to critically engage government for all the good it will do. We are better off lending a helping hand where flood and fever desolate, and leaving realpolitik in the grubby paws of not-so-perpetual politicos.

(Journalist | Editor-at-large of LMD | Writer #SpeakingTruthToPower)

Reflections on history What inflames bigotry?

A careful perusal of history indicates that racism begins with the economic as opposed to the religious or communal. 

2018-06-01

A careful perusal of history indicates that racism begins with the economic as opposed to the religious or communal. When food prices are rising, when it’s difficult to earn a proper income, especially under a barrage of taxes, and when living through today is the credo you wake up to every day, it’s difficult and painfully so to affirm unity and harmony with other communities, particularly if the chauvinists draw a rather negative picture of those other communities. That’s why the Jewish population of Russia inspired so much derision from the elite and the masses before AND after the Revolution: because the economy, in both cases, was so stifling, so unbearably down, that a scapegoat had to be found. One can make the case that wars begin in the minds of human beings, and they do, but before they do, they are fermented by the shifts of economic imperatives. Simply put, if you can’t live properly, you turn to hatred.   

The riots in Digana, and elsewhere in Kandy, a little over two months ago were, I feel, the inevitable consequence of the communal riots which erupted during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency in Aluthgama. I was privy to various comments interjected by members of both communities, with respect how they saw the riots and how they rationalised them. The main issue for the Sinhalese Buddhists, that is, minus the Islamophobic rhetoric about Muslims outstripping Buddhists in terms of population growth, was the inclusion of the Halal certificate in food packaging everywhere. It was just that; a harmless certification. But it was rooted in the economic, as opposed to the religious and the communal, and as with all other racial conflicts, it found its way to riots that it compelled. Unfortunate though they were, those riots were a direct consequence of the Government’s ability to address an issue that had been growing rampantly over the years. The Sinhalese Buddhists, rather the extremists among them, wanted a scapegoat. They found one, conveniently, with that certification. It could have been anything. That anything was a piece of paper. Four years later, here we are.   

What’s news and what’s not

The riots in Kandy District weren’t rooted in anything abstract. It was rooted in an actuality: a man who happened to be brutally killed by a gang (having accidentally damaged a vehicle belonging to one of its members). That man happened to be Sinhalese and Buddhist, and the gang members (who were jailed) happened to be Muslims. A friend of mine told me that around the same time, a Sinhalese teenager was hacked to death just as brutally by a Sinhalese elder. Obviously, some things make it to the news, others are not deemed newsworthy enough to make it there. The first incident was bad enough; the fact that the man succumbed made things worse. Aluthgama came back. It wanted something substantive, rooted in the communal as opposed to the economic. A certification wasn’t going to cause riots. A murder was. So Aluthgama begot Digana. In this sense, it’s interesting to compare the timelines at these two sites with the timeline that transpired in 1915 during the much written about Sinhala-Muslim riots.   

Obviously, contexts matter. 1915 was not 2014 and neither was it 1815. But the centenary of the capitulation to the British in 1915, and the tercentenary thereof, along with the centenary of the riots, in 2014 and 2015, helped accentuate the rifts and the violence rather considerably. Unlike what transpired in Digana and Aluthgama, though, the 1915 kolahalaya (commotion) was instigated, not by an economic issue, but by a communal malaise; specifically, the issue of allowing a Buddhist procession to pass through the vicinity of a mosque in Gampola. The Kandy District Court had given a judgment in favour of the Buddhists; the Supreme Courts, where the judgment was challenged, reversed the decision in favour of the Muslims. Thus came about the first onslaught of racial attacks. For the time being, while the British didn’t do much to contain the violence, they were aware that it could take on a nationalistic character. Ironically, that nationalistic character emerged, not from the bhikkus (monks) and the clergymen from both communities, but from a secular source: trade unions. 

The divide between Sinhalese and Muslims

More than 115 deaths later, the divide between the Sinhalese and the Muslims had been buttressed by a more powerful divide between the Sinhalese and the British. With the conservative Sinhalese elite decidedly on the side of the latter, by their denunciations of the rioters as deviants who were a miniscule minority among those loyal to the Crown and Empire, the moderates, the Senanayakes and the Jayatilakes, were imprisoned. They were the nobodies of Kumari Jayawardana’s narrative, the upstarts who found the first anti-imperialist movement sustained by the bourgeoisie, the Temperance Council. But here too, the economic took precedence over the racial:   

What explains the precedence of the economic over the racial in Aluthgama, and the precedence of the racial over the economic in Digana? In 1915, the trade unions took to the streets and instigated an entire collective against another after, and not before, the issue over the procession near the Mosque in Gampola. At the same time, let’s not forget that while the halal issue proved to be the crux of the riots, it was preceded by a communal clash revolving around a similar assault on the Sinhalese: this time, by Muslims from Dharga Town, and on a Buddhist monk and his driver. (However, this remains a rumour, so it can’t be compared with protests against Muslims stopping Buddhists from conducting their pageant.) Even when we discount this incident, which remains unverified, it must be said that even the leading representative, from the clergy, of the Sinhala Buddhists at the forefront of the riots, the infamous Ven. Gnanasara Thera himself, turned the ruckus over the halal certification into the ultimate symbol of discord between the two communities.   

Perhaps what transformed the economic to the communal, more than anything or anyone else, was Gnanasara Thera himself. No other monk before him, from recent memory, has been capable of inciting so much revulsion. The leader of a breakaway faction from the already ethnicised and reviled Hela Urumaya (reviled particularly owing to the comments of its leader, Champika Ranawaka, to the effect that Muslims were “outsiders”), Gnanasara was the spark that turned Aluthgama from a rumoured assault and paper certificate to attacks on businesses owned by Muslims in even the multicultural metropolis, Colombo.The 1915 riots were informed by the centenary of the biggest humiliation those Sinhalese Buddhists had faced in their troubled history, the surrender of Kandy. As such, for a riot to run riot (proverbially speaking), what was needed was an actual communal rift springing from the actions or the omissions of the Other, in this case, Muslims. 100 years later, with the centenary of the riots themselves, what was needed for history to repeat itself was the smallest rumour, the most mundane issue. Be it the economic or the communal, that carnage thus continues on. History is rather cruel.