|
Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Did The Chief Justice Get A Fair Trial?
Chandra Kumarage
Some citizens including lawyers have filed petitions in the Court of Appeal seeking writs restraining the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) from inquiring into allegations mentioned in the impeachment motion submitted to parliament by some Member of Parliaments (MPs). The court of appeal has referred them to the Supreme Court (SC) since there is a constitutional problem involved. In the meantime some fundamental rights (FR) cases have also being filed in the SC stating that the Standing Order 78 (A) violates FRs under various articles of constitution. Having considered these applications a panel of three judges of the SC has issued notices to the members of the PSC. And everyone knows now that the speaker has made an order to the effect that no court could issue process on the speaker or any committee appointed by him. However the SC has decided to go ahead with the inquiry.
Let us take our memory back to the impeachment inquiry appointed by the speaker to impeach Neville Samarakoon the then Chief Justice (CJ). Mr S. Nadesen QC who represented the respondent CJ took up a preliminary objection that standing order 78 (A) is ultra vires the constitution and that the said select committee had no power to proceed with this inquiry because it violates article 4 (C) of the Constitution which stipulates that except in matters concerning parliamentary privileges the Judicial power of the people has to be exercised exclusively through the courts.
In its report at the conclusion of the inquiry a majority of members (five members) representing the government in the PSC writing a separate report dealt with the objection taken up by Mr Nadesen as Follows. “ While the members of the committee have certain reservations regarding the validity of Mr Nadesan’s contentions particularly in view of the specific provision of Article 107 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka , this committee feels that notwithstanding any objections it is duty bound to carry out the mandate given to it by parliament according to the terms of reference specified. In carrying out this task the committee is fortified by the fact that the exercise of disciplinary power over the higher judiciary in a large number of countries almost without exception is a right which has been exercised by the parliament. Furthermore under the standing order 78(A) parliament exercise its power in the fulfilment of its duty under Article 107(3) of the constitution.
Crisis escalates as PSC finds CJ guilty of three charges
Tamil Women Coerced into Joining the Military- Women’s Action Network
Crisis escalates as PSC finds CJ guilty of three charges
By Our Political Editor
= Bar Association considers resolution that lawyers should not appear before any new Chief Justice; appeals for action by international community= New CJ likely from next month as opposition and defence lawyers challenge the PSC process; US and EU also express concern
Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, who walked out on Thursday from the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) probing her, much to her surprise, received a compromise formula from a leading UPFA politician. The compromise would have ended all her woes.
She would have to tender her resignation. In return she would be appointed to “an important” position and charges of corruption against her husband, Pradeepa Kariyawasam, would be dropped. The offer was made during a telephone call on Thursday morning to one of her senior lawyers. The caller reportedly declared that some ‘unwanted confusion’ had been created. For obvious reasons, the lawyer had asked that he be not named. She did not respond favourably. Hence, the Parliamentary Select Committee process continued and reached finality.
We won’t recognise a new CJ: Lawyers signing a petition. Pic by Mangala Weerasekera
|
Government MPs in jubilant mood addressing a news conference, criticising the opposition walkout
|
Opposition PSC members staging a protest walkout . Pix by Amila gamage
|
That was just one of the major highlights in a week that saw many a spark fly in the on-going open battle between the Legislature and the Judiciary.
On Thursday, ahead of the PSC resuming its probe, a government official made available to the media voluminous photocopies of documents.
They were ‘copies’ of transactions in accounts reportedly operated by Bandaranayake in the National Development Bank, Gazette notifications, cheques reportedly issued by her, a ‘deed’ for the purchase of a condominium apartment at Trillium Residencies in Narahenpita and her “Declaration of Assets.” The official said the documents related to accusations against the Chief Justice but independent verification of any alleged irregularities, misbehaviour, misconduct or wrongdoing, was not possible.
Also included was a four-page, unsigned document that claimed, as referred to in these columns last week, that alleged ‘accounts manipulation’ amounted as much as Rs 250 million in her bank account. Lawyers for the CJ refuted these allegations. They said in a statement that the amount involved was much smaller and Ms. Bandaranayake had utilised the money to buy Treasury Bills.
Concerns in the Government became high last Monday when judges and magistrates countrywide heeded a call by Chief Justice Bandarnayake to attend a meeting. Whilst some of the distant courthouses shut down for the day, in others the magistrates and judges had heard their cases before attending the event. The CJ, in a brief speech, said she had numerous requests for separate meetings with judges and magistrates. Since she could not find time to see them individually, she had invited all of them for the meeting. Thereafter, she gave an account of the charges against her. She vowed she was determined even at the cost of her own life, to vindicate her position.
She then withdrew but the meeting continued. Later the judges and the magistrates issued a joint statement calling upon the Government to protect the dignity of the judiciary from unwarranted attacks by sections of the media.
Constitutional Supremacy Or Parliamentary Supremacy?
Kamal Nissanka
When notices were sent to the Hon speaker, President and the members of the Select Committee impeaching Chief Justice by the registrar of courts, the Speaker and leader of opposition were vociferous about the notion of supremacy of Parliament and they seemed not to heed to the Supreme Court request/order to appear before or submit objections on pending cases against them. They by now should know that only the President of the country under the constitution is immune to litigation. If the parliamentarians concerned had thought that they were also citizens of Sri Lanka as us, they would have readily abide by the Supreme Court directive until the constitutional issue before the court is finally determined. Unfortunately Hon Speaker further kept a step forward and related a speech delivered by Mr.Anura Bandaranaike , then Speaker of Parliament in 2001 upholding the idea of parliamentary supremacy when there was an stay order against the Speaker.
Now if one goes to the root of the logic behind the speaker ‘s speech one can understand that what the speaker believed was that parliamentary supremacy could not be infringed by any other outside body. It is worthy at this stage to note that belief of Parliamentary supremacy is a notion evolved in United Kingdom where there is no written constitution. In short Parliamentary supremacy can be defined as the power of parliament to make laws and unmake laws. The duty or business of the courts is to follow the legislation already enacted by Parliament and then interpret, adjudicate, redress or punish. Yet, though the courts do not make any legislation judgments of superior court are considered as binding law.
In the post independence period political-legal community followed a tradition to accept the notion of Parliamentary supremacy as experienced in United Kingdom. Yet, although the Soulbury Constitution upheld the idea of parliamentary supremacy; it is interesting to note that Parliaments under the Soulbury Constitution also did not enjoy infinite supremacy to make laws as the constitution under Article 29(2) restricted to make legislation in some areas and subjects.
The 1972 constitution which had only one chamber was consciously framed on the basis of the notion of parliamentary supremacy. Accordingly, legislative power was vested in the National State Assembly, executive power in the National State Assembly through President and the cabinet , while judicial power by National State Assembly through courts except in parliamentary privileges. There was also a Constitutional Court to determine matters relating to constitutionality.
The 1978 constitution which lasted for over 30 years now is somewhat different from the two earlier constitutions. The founders of the constitution have clearly deviated from the British tradition of constitutional theory. Prof.A.J. Wilson, former professor of Political Science, declared that the 1978 constitution had been extensively influenced by the present French Constitution. The 1978 constitution took a quasi federal nature with introduction of 13th amendment and parliament lost some of its powers regarding some subjects and lost sole supremacy over legislation.
On the other hand this parliament does not have executive power as in the 1972 constitution. 1978 constitution explicitly says that executive power shall be exercised by ‘the president of the republic elected by the people “(not by parliament). So this is clear deviation from the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy. True that ministers who are also said be in the executive branch are chosen from the parliament but they are subordinated to the president who can keep any ministry or department under him. They do not enjoy the prestige they had under the British tradition. The president through the cabinet can make the parliament his appendage and the dignity of the parliament is completely eroded, added by the PR system of electoral method which allowed all sorts of anti social elements to enter into parliament. Parliament is further devalued because the President can dissolve it after one year of an election.
The position of judiciary is made explicit under the 1978 constitution. According to the Article 118, the Supreme Court is the ‘highest and final court of record’ in the Republic. It has jurisdiction in respect of constitutional matters, for the protection of fundamental rights, consultative jurisdiction, and jurisdiction in election petitions including the election of President. It also has jurisdiction whether to determine a bill was consistent with the constitution. This jurisdiction can invoke by president or any other citizen. Its determination is sought of regarding urgent bills which the cabinet thinks to pass urgently for national interest concerns. It has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the expulsion of a member from a political party. It has role to play in the impeachment of a President of the Republic. Therefore it is very clear that the Supreme Court under the present constitution is a very powerful body that is endowed with important national responsibilities. Further the constitution has endorsed the idea of an independent judiciary.
Standing orders cannot be considered as law by any learned person in the legal profession. Under our legal system laws are legislation, decided cases, customs and may sometimes international covenants. Standing orders are procedural regulations. Further they cannot be formulated against the provisions of the constitution. Rules and regulations are there in various corporations, companies, societies to conduct their day to day activities. Can an outsider be brought to face trial on the basis of these regulations? Is that justice? Is that rule of law?
When there is matter before the Supreme Court to be decided, specially a matter of interpretation it is the sacred duty of all law abiding persons to obey its directives. Under our constitution people are sovereign and the constitution is supreme not the parliament. This is what is called constitutionalism, a legal philosophy derived from the famous case in the United States of America, Marbury Vs Madison, 1 Cr. 137 (1803) decided by John Marshall ,CJ. The decision held that:
“Congress did not have the power to add to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; thus, the available remedy mandamus ,was unconstitutional .More significantly , Marshall logically extracted the power of judicial review from the constitution by reasoning that the document was supreme and, therefore , the Supreme Court should invalidate legislative acts that ran contrary to it.”
In conclusion it could be said that the idea of parliamentary supremacy which both the Hon. Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition attempted to uphold in a holy manner is an outdated and obsolete political-legal concept which has no relevance in the present constitutional framework of Sri Lanka.
*Writer is the Secretary General of the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka, Attorney-at-Law, BA (Hon), PgD(International Relations)
Select (Reject) Committee report in Parliament early morning: Mockery court finds SC guilty of 3 charges
  (Lanka-e-News -08.Dec.2012, 10.45PM) The puppet show select (reject) Committee of MaRa completed its report in a night on the impeachment motion based on a most controversial hearing unilaterally conducted by the Govt. representatives after the CJ, her lawyers and the opposition representatives staged a walk out in protest . This report was presented to the Parliament this morning by the select committee chairman Anura Yapa who holds an unsavory record as a Lawyer who had appeared for Kassippu (illicit liquor) cases only , and who has bribery charges against him. The Select Committee alias Kekille court ( mockery court) report stated that the CJ is fully guilty of the charges , 1,4 and 5 , and partly guilty in respect of charges 2 and 3. It stated , only the indictment 5 was investigated . As the CJ is found guilty in respect of 3 of the 5 charges , and if it is proved that she is guilty just on one indictment ,that would suffice to remove her from the post , only charge No. 5 was investigated , the puppets of the Kekille court (mockery court) dancing to another’s tune had stated in the report. Kassippu case Lawyer Anura Yapa when submitting the report said , the CJ was given an opportunity to file answers to the 14 charges, but she filed answers only to two, which were accepted. As the opposition was not present at the proceedings , it became easy for the Select (reject) Committee (mockery court) to propel itself without hindrance , he noted. |
| Yapa also observed that 139 evidence files and documents were presented , and President’s Secretary Lalith Weeratunge along with 16 others appeared before the Select (reject) Committee and gave evidence. This is a comprehensive report , he added. Might we recall that when the Committee was commencing this report , Lanka e news posted the news that Dr. G L Peiris at a different venue had already prepared it to suit the despotic and deplorable agenda of MaRa. Yapa’s speech was roundly criticized by the opposition representatives as the Committee decisions were arrived at unilaterally , and therefore not acceptable under any circumstance .When the debate began to hot up in Parliament , the speaker looking for an escape route , announced that it is postponed for a month ,and that 10 days will be allocated to debate on it. |
Reducing Of Sri Lanka’s Judiciary To A Mockery
Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena
Nowhere in South Asia or indeed the entire world (excepting in failed states) would a responsible government hire thugs and party supporters to jeer and hoot at the Chief Justice of the country while she was leaving the superior courts complex to appear before a parliamentary select committee considering her impeachment.
Yet in Sri Lanka, this is what happened a few days ago. Nowhere in the world except in pariah nations would government members of parliament have been allowed to verbally insult the Chief Justice (Sri Lanka’s first woman Chief Justice at that) and her lawyers while they were participating in the deliberations of a select committee.
Yet this is what is reported to have happened on Thursday. Unable to bear the continuous insults, the Chief Justice’s decision to walk out of the select committee proceedings must be commended. Her courage in facing such an inquisition with head held high must be recognised.
Spewing of vile abuse against the head of judiciary
This is the culmination of a process that has brought Sri Lanka tremendous shame and lent credence to the claims of its detractors who refer to the country as a democratic graveyard. For the past several weeks, the Chief Justice was mercilessly hounded by government media propagandists as they spewed vile abuse on radio talk shows.
Blatantly contemptuous placards were carried by three wheeler drivers and lottery sellers right outside the seeming citadel of justice on Hulfsdorp Hill. State protection was provided for all these acts.
The government appeared to have abandoned all norms of ordinary decency befitting treatment of a human being let alone a judge, let alone the head of the judiciary. It appeared to have turned virtually mad in its desperate struggle to counter what has turned out to be a huge embarrassment for it.
No wonder that judges and lawyers throughout the country rallied to the support of the beleaguered Chief Justice, from provincial Bars as remote and diverse as Matara, Anuradhapura, Kandy, Jaffna and Vavuniya.
It was as if with a rush, the legal profession and the judicial service particularly in the outstations realized the great dangers that they were in (at last) and decided to push against the rock of executive humiliation of the judiciary with determination.
Walkout of the Select Committee a foregone conclusion
From the commencement of this fiasco, the issue was less the constitutionality of the process, (regardless of the vehement submissions made by lawyers appearing in cases challenging the impeachment), and more the fairness of the procedure followed and the clearly political timing of the impeachment itself.
Certainly the impeachment procedures as constitutionally stipulated violates basic norms of fair adjudication both domestically and on international standards.
Certainly the impeachment procedures as constitutionally stipulated violates basic norms of fair adjudication both domestically and on international standards.
They deny an appellate court judge even the most rudimentary rule of law safeguards afforded to a common criminal. But in previous impeachments, convention and good sense dictated that an unwritten line of propriety was not crossed. Through its intemperate fury at being challenged, the Rajapaksa government has however put paid to that past practice.
In no seemingly democratic country would a Chief Justice be subjected to an impeachment process distinguished by the inquiry committee’s inability to prescribe rules of procedure for its sittings (as pointed out by its members representing the Opposition in the public interest), its refusal to open the hearings for public scrutiny in the interests of transparency and accountability and its reported refusal to allow the Chief Justice’s lawyers to cross examine witnesses cited in the documents filed against her or to allow more time for her to answer allegations contained in a thousand page bundle of documents. Her walking out of the Select Committee proceedings this Thursday was therefore a foregone conclusion.
No need for a contempt law now
From 1999 to 2009, we had a Chief Justice whose conduct in and outside Court as documented opened up the judiciary to unrelentingly harsh public scrutiny. And as much as water rushes out when the walls of the dam is first breached, former Chief Justice Sarath Silva’s successors could do little but pay obeisance to the executive. It was when the judicial tide turned as a result of one humiliation being enforced a step too far that we saw the avalanche of executive anger being unleashed.
The Minister of Justice has pontificated to the media this week that the government plans to enact a contempt of court law soon. But let it be clearly said that there is now little purpose for such a law. The primary aim of a contempt law is to protect the administration of justice and the dignity of the courts while allowing for reasoned and crucial debate on the functioning of the justice system. Yet the administration of justice has already been rendered a snarling mockery and the dignity of courts has been remorselessly stripped away by this government and its media hounds. Day after day, the Chief Justice is attacked beyond all norms of propriety with a government giving the full seal of its approval. A contempt of court law has become quite redundant in this post Rajapaksa impeachment climate as much as the concepts of justice and fairness have also become redundant. This is undoubted.
Painful destruction of an independent judicial system
Those who willfully turned a blind eye to the internal politicization of the Supreme Court from the year 1999 onwards, those who were foolhardy or blinded by their own interests to applaud the handing of a blank cheque to this Presidency to do what it would with Sri Lanka after the ending of the conflict and those who looked away when the 18th Amendment was enacted, should now rue their folly and culpable ignorance.
In previous columns starting from almost a decade ago, predictions that this precise fate would befall the Sri Lankan judicial and legal system if there was no course correction were greeted with shrugs and smiles from members of the legal profession. Some condemned these predictions as unnecessarily dire. Others were cynical enough to say that the system had survived despite past beatings.
In previous columns starting from almost a decade ago, predictions that this precise fate would befall the Sri Lankan judicial and legal system if there was no course correction were greeted with shrugs and smiles from members of the legal profession. Some condemned these predictions as unnecessarily dire. Others were cynical enough to say that the system had survived despite past beatings.
But now as we see a Sri Lankan Chief Justice humiliated by common ruffians who hold the money which they were paid in one hand while they shout slogans with their other hand upraised, these complacent characters may well ruminate on their unfortunate inability to recognise the warning signals. This column makes no apology for repeatedly stressing the most coruscating lesson to emerge from this cataclysmic upheaval, particularly for those of us trained in the discipline of the law.
Even if new struggles are born as a result of the ongoing inquisition cum impeachment of the country’s Chief Justice, this is the comprehensive end of Sri Lanka’s independent judicial system as we have known it since 1948. It is a sad day indeed.
Tamil Women Coerced into Joining the Military- Women’s Action Network
Sunday, 09 December 2012
Women’s Action Network (WAN), as a collective of 11 women's groups from the North and the East, is deeply concerned by the recent efforts to recruit women into the military in the districts of Killinochchi and Mullaitheevu.
Sunday, 09 December 2012 Women’s Action Network (WAN), as a collective of 11 women's groups from the North and the East, is deeply concerned by the recent efforts to recruit women into the military in the districts of Killinochchi and Mullaitheevu.
Post-war development has failed to provide the most basic needs for those who live in Killinochchi and Mullaitheevu, especially the women of the area. People continue to live in vulnerable situations without sufficient security and independence, so may even lack the basics such as a safe place to sleep. After the war over 60% of families in Vanni are headed by women and they have become the primary wage earners of their families, in addition to being the main care givers in the household.
Hence, women play a critical role in fulfilling social, economical and cultural needs and rights in the country. High unemployment and the rising cost of living control the choices and women are forced to make decisions that go beyond choice. This militarised environment, including military involvement in economic activities, administration and even reconciliation, is not conducive for human development further debilitates the already fragile existence of this community.
As the media has highlighted in recent weeks Tamil women have been recruited to the military. While this may seem as an action in the direction towards reconciliation and inclusion, a cursory glance into the appointment process shows a lack of transparency, information and coercion. Military personnel of Mullaitheevu and Killinochchi area were involved in the recruitment process and have targeted economically vulnerable families. In some villages it has been announced through loudspeakers or they have gone in-person and in a few others they have used the GS of the area.
Young women from women-headed families or families with five or more family members have been targeted in general. The greatest concern is the lack of information and informed consent. Those recruited have been informed that they would be engaging in clerical work, or with the GS, that work will only be for a few hours, and that they would be able to work in their own areas. They have also been promised a pay of Rs.30,000 per month. Around 109 women applied and appeared for interviews. The information provided never mentioned that they will be working for the military and will have to join the military to perform these duties.
On the 5th of November 2012, the military took the women who registered their names for these jobs to the military camp in Bharathipuram in Killinochchi District. The women underwent a medical exam conducted by male military doctor and a male-nurse. All information was gathered in Sinhala, except for their names and addresses. The women were also requested to provide a letter of recommendation from GS or Justice of Peace and/or from Christian priest for Christians, birth certificate, and school leaving certificate and to hand to police in their area of residence. Subsequently, the women who went to deliver their documents to their police who fingerprinted them. Later on military personnel visited the houses of these women and instructed to join work on the 15th of November. The military informed the women and girls that they will be in 03 month residential program to learn Sinhala and English.
On November 15th, male military personnel picked up the women from their homes and transported them to the Bharathipuram camp. The first day was spent collecting detailed personal information of the women. A military function for new recruits was held on the 16th, the second day. It was only then that the women realized that they were to join the military. Some panicked and called their families, and informed the military that they did not wish to join. The military informed them that they could only leave after the function. On the 17th the function was held inside the Army camp while some of the family members of the women protested standing on the other end of the same military camp.
A female military officer stood next to each new recruit thus preventing the women from communicating with their families. Fathers of these women had been garlanded and the mothers were given badges with the title of ‘brave mother’. Of the 109 girls, 6 were released due to the efforts of their families. As a result, the rest of the women were permitted to meet their families without any restrictions. As of 2nd December, mobile phones have been barred inside the camp.
The families were informed that the women have been provided with uniforms. It is obvious that the women or the families were not provided with accurate information, and therefore not allowed to make an informed choice. Moreover these activities have violated the gazette notification procedures which is required by law.
This situation raises grave concerns regarding the role of the state and the military in the lives of women, particularly from Killinochchi and Mullaitheevu, the need to provide physical fitness training and the continued militarization of the North, and the continued security of these women while in service. In two other occasions civil service appointments (Montessori teaching and working in government farms run by the military) have been given to women through the involvement of the Civil Defense Department of the Sri Lankan military rather than the relevant civilian administration bodies. The militarization of civilian administration and of the community in the Wanni raises deep questions regarding the commitment of the Sri Lankan Government in creating a society that is equal, equitable and free of violence.
The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 clearly states that the full participation of women is essential for the rehabilitation process in the post war situation, and women’s specific needs should be taken into account in developing a prerequisite to disarmament and demilitarization. WAN is deeply concerned about the lack of choice and decision-making power for women in the formerly war-torn areas request that the civil administration be completely handed over to civil structures as a genuine measure of the Government’s reconciliation program.
‘We Are Shocked To Find That Witnesses Have Been Hurriedly Summoned’ – Legal Team Of The CJ
Saliya Pieris
The Government Information Department has announced that the parliamentary select committee has called several witnesses to give evidence against the Chief Justice within the course of today going onto the night. Until the Chief Justice and her counsel walked out of the Select Committee yesterday it was maintained by the Committee that no oral evidence will be led and despite our demands to cross examine the witnesses we were not given the list of witnesses or documents and were told that there will be no witnesses called. This same observation has been made by the Opposition Members of the Select Committee today at 230 pm, according to the statement issued by them. We now find that after the Chief Justice and her lawyers walked out of the Select Committee, the Committee has called for witnesses and led their evidence. We understand that all those witnesses were summoned today (the 7th) after the lawyers walked out. It appears to us that as long as the Chief Justice and her lawyers were
present witnesses would not have been called. We are shocked to find that witnesses have been hurriedly summoned and their evidence led, taking advantage of the absence of the Chief Justice and her lawyers who were prepared to cross examine each and every witness in order to expose the truth. In fact the lawyers demanded that the witnesses be called, demanded a list of witnesses and document and demanded that the procedure be laid down, all of which were refused.
Saliya Pieris
For and on behalf of the lawyers for the Chief Justice
The UN HRC resolutioncals for independent, transparent investigations on accountability. What has happened? Have you done anything? - R. Sampanthan
by Rajavarothayam Sampanthan M.P.
(Text of speech made in Parliament on November 30th 2012)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad to be able to say a few words on the Votes of the Ministry of External Affairs. I do want to assure the Hon. Minister, who is a much beleaguered person, that what I do say I do not say in a spirit of confrontation, but I think it is our duty to bring to the notice of the Government various matters which we think are important.
Sir, we are all concerned with Sri Lanka and its international relations as of now and we are all concerned with its present standing within the international community.
I mean, there is so much of controversy pertaining to Sri Lanka and its international relations, largely flowing from the domestic situation in this country which cannot be but a matter of very urgent and important concern to all the people who live in this country and who would like to see a more prosperous Sri Lanka, which is more respected by the international community and a Sri Lanka of which we all can be proud.
If I might say so, the most recent gaffe on the part of the Ministry of External Affairs has been the statement that they have issued recently in response to the Report of the Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka. What the Ministry of External Affairs had said is that the Report is regrettably unsubstantiated, erroneous and replete with bias.
Report of the Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel
Sir, this is a rather serious condemnation of what has been done by a Panel appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General and who have come up with a Report. Largely, they have done a self-criticism of their own activities in Sri Lanka when the UN was functional here particularly during the time that the war was in operation in 2009 and the years prior to that.
ගරු (මහාචාර්ය) ජී. එල්. පීරිà·ƒ් මහà¶ා (à®®ாண்புà®®ிகு (பேà®°ாசிà®°ியர்) ஜீ.எல். பீà®°ிஸ்) (The Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Peiris):
That was one part of the Report but it went far beyond that.
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහà¶ා (à®®ாண்புà®®ிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்) (The Hon. R. Sampanthan):
Yes, I know that. I am going to refer to some parts of the Report. The Hon. Minister can respond to what I have to say when he speaks.
The position of Sri Lanka, Sir, was very much the same when there was a Report issued by the Panel of Experts appointed by the Secretary-General of the UN; that Report was issued in April, 2011. There was a Panel of three Experts appointed by the Secretary-General to advise him on accountability issues. One is inclined to pose the question, Sir, whether such summary rejection of reports prepared and submitted by competent and independent persons at the instance of the United Nations or the Secretary-General of the United Nations is in the best interest of the country.
Is such rejection made after a careful study by competent people of the findings in the said Reports or is such a response based upon an erroneously-structured policy framework of the Government suited to serve only its purposes and not in the interests of the country?
This is a question we have to ask. When you make such criticism about international efforts, particularly from the
UN or from the Secretary-General, I think it has long term consequences, long term impacts, as far as the country is concerned. In fact, I talked about the reports of the two UN Panels: one appointed by the Secretary-General in regard to accountability issues and the one appointed also by the Secretary General in regard to the workings of the UN mechanism in Sri Lanka. We also have the Government’s response to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report, a Commission appointed by the Sri Lankan Government itself and comprising of only Sri Lankan persons.
Now, even with regard to that Report, which was submitted unanimously by a group of Sri Lankan persons appointed by the Government, the Government has spoken with different voices in regard to the contents of that Report. Different people from within the Government have spoken with different voices.
There has been no unequivocal acceptance by the Government of that Report; there has been no unequivocal commitment on the part of the Government that it will implement that Report either. Why? You attack international reports, even your own Commission Report which had been prepared and made public by Sri Lankans appointed by you. You have spoken with different voices and there has been no commitment either that you accept the Report or that you will implement the Report.
A great deal of uncertainty prevails in regard to the genuine implementation of the constructive recommendations contained in that Report. Some of those recommendations were outlined in the Resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in March this year. This uncertainty, even in regard to the LLRC Report, falls within that erroneously-structured policy framework of the Government. What that erroneously-structured policy framework of the Government is, I will deal with shortly.
The Government seems to be obsessed with an attitude of indifference to the views of others, however responsible they may be, and one even observes a measure of impunity in regard to the possible consequences of such indifference. The attitude seems to be, “Who cares? You can say what you like. But, we will do what we like and the consequences do not matter”.
Such an attitude on the part of the Government, Sir, may serve its interests domestically for a period of time, but I do not think it can serve the interests of the country and certainly from an international point of view, it can be quite harmful to the long-term interests of the country. The Government’s attitude seems to be, “Well all these things will go away after some time. We do not have to bother about it now because after sometime it will just disappear”. Well, knowledgeable people seem to be of the view that some of these things will not go away, that they will continue to haunt you for a long time to come.
What about GSP +
Talking of the present situation, Sir, I am reminded of what happened to the GSP Plus concession sometime ago. We had three Ministers speaking on behalf of the Government. The former Minister of External Affairs, Hon. Rohitha Bogollagama was one of them. The Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, who was the Minister in charge of Disaster Management and Human Rights, was the second one.
The third one was the Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Peiris, who was also concerned with external trade, one of the subjects in his portfolio. We observed that they were speaking with different voices, like what is happening within the Government now, in regard to the LLRC Report.
The Government’s attitude, once again was one of indifference, one of impunity and an attitude of “Who cares. We could not care less with what decision the European Union takes in regard to GSP Plus”. We know what happened. We lost that facility. When this controversy was raging at that point of time, we decided that we should not add fuel to the fire because we were concerned about the employment prospects of perhaps hundreds of thousands of youth in this country. I did not utter one word that GSP Plus must be removed or that facility must be denied to the Sri Lankan Government.
I did not speak in Parliament one word advocating such a position or outside Parliament because we were concerned with the employment prospects of several hundreds of thousands of youth in this country, though we knew that almost the entirety of those youth came from the majority community. But, the fact of the matter was that they were all Sri Lankans and it was no pleasure for us to see several hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans losing their jobs as a result of that facility being removed. The Government was concerned more with, I think, a false sense of prestige.
“Who cares about what these foreigners have to say?” That was their approach. As you know, the GSP Plus was removed and as a result of it being removed, today, I think some considerable difficulties are being experienced in regard to the export of garments to certain parts of the world and this matter is becoming a matter of grave concern to the exporters of garments. Since that facility is not available, prices of Sri Lankan garments have gone up and consequently we have to face very stiff competition. It is my view that the GSP Plus could have been preserved, could have been retained and we need not have lost it at that point of time, if we handled that whole issue more carefully with better judgment, so as to ensure that whatever action we took was not based upon a false sense of prestige but was done in the interests of the country. That was not done. I am afraid that your present attitude in regard to some vital issues seems to display a similar attitude, which can end in much harm to this country.
What does the Report of the Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka state? As I said before, it is largely a self-criticism of their own functioning, particularly in the Vanni, during the course of war in 2009. But, it also refers to other matters, which I shall refer to shortly. All the UN officials were compelled to leave the Vanni in September 2008. It was not merely they but the INGOs were also compelled to leave; the NGOs were compelled to leave. The media had no access to the Vanni. It was a war being fought without any witnesses. You wanted to get all the independent persons out of the Vanni.
Restriction imposed on UN
I want to deal, Sir, with some aspects of the Report because I think that is important. I will read paragraph 1(4) of page 41 of the Report which gives us some idea of the state of the UN-Sri Lankan relationship during this particular period of time. It states, I quote:
The UN Report, Sir, also deals with the question of accountability and that is contained on pages 43 and 44 of this Report. I would like to read a part of that Report in regard to accountability. It states, I quote:
Population in Vanni; where does 290,000 appeared?
I want to also refer, Sir, to the Report of the Internal Review Committee on the question of food. It appears on Page 55, Paragraph 45 of the Report, which states, I quote:
The UN says 350,000 or 360,000. Eventually, over 290,000 people came out of this area. How were you able to put the figure at 70,000 when eventually 290,000 people came out of the area? Did they fall from the sky? Did you underestimate the figure and keep it at 70,000 because you wanted to reduce the number of casualties? Did your underestimation of the figure at 70,000 have anything to do with the number of civilians eventually killed? These are the questions that have to be addressed, Sir; these are not questions that can go away.
The Panel of Experts appointed by the UN Secretary-General comprising of three persons said that tens of thousands of civilians had been killed, that up to about 40,000 people had been killed. Based upon the number of persons who eventually came out of the Vanni and the number of persons who were admittedly in the Vanni, the UN says the figure was 350,000 or 360,000 and other figures put it at 400,000, there is an estimation that well-nigh over 70,000 civilians were killed in the Vanni. So, the question is very legitimately posed: did the Government say that there were only 70,000 people in the Vanni because it wanted to obscure the actual number of casualties that happened in the Vanni as a result of the war being prosecuted in that particular way?
Then, Sir, I want to deal with the amount of medicine that was available in the Vanni at this point of time.
It is referred to in this Report. I refer to page 75, paragraph 111 of the Report, which states, I quote:
This is your problem. You know what happened. Why did such things have to happen? I must say, Sir, that many of these matters that I have referred to have been referred to by us in Parliament as and when they occurred without any demur from the Government benches. What is the use of a bald denial saying, “It is unsubstantiated; it is replete with bias”? Nice phrases! One does not have to look for phrases when you have somebody like the Hon. (Prof.) Peiris as your Minister. It comes to him quite easily. But, what are the hard facts? Are you answering the hard facts? Sir, I might, at this point, briefly refer to the editorial written in “The Hindu” newspaper on 17th November, 2012 in regard to this Report that has been published by the Committee appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General.
What does it say ? I quote:
Now, I want to say a few words, Sir, in regard to the question of a political solution. I do no want to dwell much about it; I have dealt with it at some length in the course of previous debates. But, I want to tell you this very frankly and with much candour; you cannot deny that you have been fibbing and fudging, I repeat those words, you have been fibbing and fudging on the question of a political solution.
It is all part of the same mindset: concealment of the truth in regard to the violations of human rights, in regard to your excesses, in regard to what happened during the course of war to Tamil civilians, it is the same mindset that makes you fib and fudge in regard to a political solution.
The 13 A promise
I want to however, Sir, – I dealt with this at some length in the past – refer to some aspects in regard to this matter because it is very important. I want to refer to the National Report of the Government of Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review in 2008, presented by the Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe. I will read the second point of para E. 98. from page 21, what is the commitment you made? It states, I quote
Then, I want to read something else, Sir, appearing in para 87 on page 19 of the same report, when the Minister said, and I quote
Hon. Member, you have another three minutes to wind up.
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහà¶ා (à®®ாண்புà®®ிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்) (The Hon. R. Sampanthan):
No, Sir. I have got more time from the UNP. They have given me 45 minutes, but actually they have increased it to 50 minutes.
සභාපà¶ිà¶ුමා (தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்) (The Chairman):
You have already taken 44 minutes.
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහà¶ා (à®®ாண்புà®®ிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்) (The Hon. R. Sampanthan):
I will stick to 50 minutes. The Hon. John Amaratunga agreed to that.
That is the position, Sir. They say that they are going to implement the Thirteenth Amendment fully, that is a national priority that will be done, and in fact they go further and say that they have commenced the implementation of the police powers.
Is that happening? Can you answer me? Was the Minister being very economical with the truth or was the Minister being very uneconomical with the reverse of the truth when he said that this is a national priority four years ago and they are going to implement the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution and it will happen. What does all this show?
I want to also refer at this point of time, it is important that I refer to it, to the statement made by the Indian Ambassador to the UN in Geneva at the last Universal Periodical Review that took place on the 1st November this year. The “Ceylon Today” of 3rd November, 2012 states, I quote:
So, what is your position? Our position is made public. We are for a reasonable, acceptable, workable and durable political solution within a united, undivided Sri Lanka. We are committed to that position. What is your commitment? Are you prepared to put aside your selfish interests and are you prepared to work towards a political solution?
Is there any indication on your part that you are prepared to do it? What does the International Crisis Group say in their Report which has been released just a short time ago? This is what the International Crisis Group says. The Report of the International Crisis Group dated 20th November, 2012, states, I quote
You will sink more and more
That is your problem. Your problem is that you are obsessed with the idea that any solution must be on the foundation of majoritarianism and that you will not accede to the much-honoured concept of unity in diversity, equality and justice in a country that is essentially pluralistic in character. You have to make the choice.
Until you do make the choice you will sink more and more into the mire until a point where you will be beyond redemption. That is what the future holds for you. There is no purpose in furiously opening missions all over the world.
There is no purpose in giving money to other countries and trying to win them over. You will not succeed in winning them over. The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella referred to some of these matters in the morning today. Do the right thing; address the question of accountability. Carry on proper investigations in regard to the five students killed in Trincomalee and the 17 aid workers killed in Mutur. Bring about a political solution. You do not have to fret so much. You do not have to sink into the mire more and more.
You will be automatically redeemed. The choice is yours. We leave it in your hands. But, I want to assure you on the Floor of this House on behalf of myself and my Party and the Tamil people that if you will take the right steps, you will have our complete and unstinted support.
Thank you, Sir.
- Courtesy DBS
by Rajavarothayam Sampanthan M.P.(Text of speech made in Parliament on November 30th 2012)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad to be able to say a few words on the Votes of the Ministry of External Affairs. I do want to assure the Hon. Minister, who is a much beleaguered person, that what I do say I do not say in a spirit of confrontation, but I think it is our duty to bring to the notice of the Government various matters which we think are important.
Sir, we are all concerned with Sri Lanka and its international relations as of now and we are all concerned with its present standing within the international community.
I mean, there is so much of controversy pertaining to Sri Lanka and its international relations, largely flowing from the domestic situation in this country which cannot be but a matter of very urgent and important concern to all the people who live in this country and who would like to see a more prosperous Sri Lanka, which is more respected by the international community and a Sri Lanka of which we all can be proud.
If I might say so, the most recent gaffe on the part of the Ministry of External Affairs has been the statement that they have issued recently in response to the Report of the Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka. What the Ministry of External Affairs had said is that the Report is regrettably unsubstantiated, erroneous and replete with bias.
Report of the Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel
Sir, this is a rather serious condemnation of what has been done by a Panel appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General and who have come up with a Report. Largely, they have done a self-criticism of their own activities in Sri Lanka when the UN was functional here particularly during the time that the war was in operation in 2009 and the years prior to that.
ගරු (මහාචාර්ය) ජී. එල්. පීරිà·ƒ් මහà¶ා (à®®ாண்புà®®ிகு (பேà®°ாசிà®°ியர்) ஜீ.எல். பீà®°ிஸ்) (The Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Peiris):
That was one part of the Report but it went far beyond that.
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහà¶ා (à®®ாண்புà®®ிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்) (The Hon. R. Sampanthan):
Yes, I know that. I am going to refer to some parts of the Report. The Hon. Minister can respond to what I have to say when he speaks.
The position of Sri Lanka, Sir, was very much the same when there was a Report issued by the Panel of Experts appointed by the Secretary-General of the UN; that Report was issued in April, 2011. There was a Panel of three Experts appointed by the Secretary-General to advise him on accountability issues. One is inclined to pose the question, Sir, whether such summary rejection of reports prepared and submitted by competent and independent persons at the instance of the United Nations or the Secretary-General of the United Nations is in the best interest of the country.
Is such rejection made after a careful study by competent people of the findings in the said Reports or is such a response based upon an erroneously-structured policy framework of the Government suited to serve only its purposes and not in the interests of the country?
This is a question we have to ask. When you make such criticism about international efforts, particularly from the
UN or from the Secretary-General, I think it has long term consequences, long term impacts, as far as the country is concerned. In fact, I talked about the reports of the two UN Panels: one appointed by the Secretary-General in regard to accountability issues and the one appointed also by the Secretary General in regard to the workings of the UN mechanism in Sri Lanka. We also have the Government’s response to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report, a Commission appointed by the Sri Lankan Government itself and comprising of only Sri Lankan persons.
Now, even with regard to that Report, which was submitted unanimously by a group of Sri Lankan persons appointed by the Government, the Government has spoken with different voices in regard to the contents of that Report. Different people from within the Government have spoken with different voices.
There has been no unequivocal acceptance by the Government of that Report; there has been no unequivocal commitment on the part of the Government that it will implement that Report either. Why? You attack international reports, even your own Commission Report which had been prepared and made public by Sri Lankans appointed by you. You have spoken with different voices and there has been no commitment either that you accept the Report or that you will implement the Report.
A great deal of uncertainty prevails in regard to the genuine implementation of the constructive recommendations contained in that Report. Some of those recommendations were outlined in the Resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in March this year. This uncertainty, even in regard to the LLRC Report, falls within that erroneously-structured policy framework of the Government. What that erroneously-structured policy framework of the Government is, I will deal with shortly.
The Government seems to be obsessed with an attitude of indifference to the views of others, however responsible they may be, and one even observes a measure of impunity in regard to the possible consequences of such indifference. The attitude seems to be, “Who cares? You can say what you like. But, we will do what we like and the consequences do not matter”.
Such an attitude on the part of the Government, Sir, may serve its interests domestically for a period of time, but I do not think it can serve the interests of the country and certainly from an international point of view, it can be quite harmful to the long-term interests of the country. The Government’s attitude seems to be, “Well all these things will go away after some time. We do not have to bother about it now because after sometime it will just disappear”. Well, knowledgeable people seem to be of the view that some of these things will not go away, that they will continue to haunt you for a long time to come.
What about GSP +
Talking of the present situation, Sir, I am reminded of what happened to the GSP Plus concession sometime ago. We had three Ministers speaking on behalf of the Government. The former Minister of External Affairs, Hon. Rohitha Bogollagama was one of them. The Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, who was the Minister in charge of Disaster Management and Human Rights, was the second one.
The third one was the Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Peiris, who was also concerned with external trade, one of the subjects in his portfolio. We observed that they were speaking with different voices, like what is happening within the Government now, in regard to the LLRC Report.
The Government’s attitude, once again was one of indifference, one of impunity and an attitude of “Who cares. We could not care less with what decision the European Union takes in regard to GSP Plus”. We know what happened. We lost that facility. When this controversy was raging at that point of time, we decided that we should not add fuel to the fire because we were concerned about the employment prospects of perhaps hundreds of thousands of youth in this country. I did not utter one word that GSP Plus must be removed or that facility must be denied to the Sri Lankan Government.
I did not speak in Parliament one word advocating such a position or outside Parliament because we were concerned with the employment prospects of several hundreds of thousands of youth in this country, though we knew that almost the entirety of those youth came from the majority community. But, the fact of the matter was that they were all Sri Lankans and it was no pleasure for us to see several hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans losing their jobs as a result of that facility being removed. The Government was concerned more with, I think, a false sense of prestige.
“Who cares about what these foreigners have to say?” That was their approach. As you know, the GSP Plus was removed and as a result of it being removed, today, I think some considerable difficulties are being experienced in regard to the export of garments to certain parts of the world and this matter is becoming a matter of grave concern to the exporters of garments. Since that facility is not available, prices of Sri Lankan garments have gone up and consequently we have to face very stiff competition. It is my view that the GSP Plus could have been preserved, could have been retained and we need not have lost it at that point of time, if we handled that whole issue more carefully with better judgment, so as to ensure that whatever action we took was not based upon a false sense of prestige but was done in the interests of the country. That was not done. I am afraid that your present attitude in regard to some vital issues seems to display a similar attitude, which can end in much harm to this country.
What does the Report of the Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka state? As I said before, it is largely a self-criticism of their own functioning, particularly in the Vanni, during the course of war in 2009. But, it also refers to other matters, which I shall refer to shortly. All the UN officials were compelled to leave the Vanni in September 2008. It was not merely they but the INGOs were also compelled to leave; the NGOs were compelled to leave. The media had no access to the Vanni. It was a war being fought without any witnesses. You wanted to get all the independent persons out of the Vanni.
Restriction imposed on UN
I want to deal, Sir, with some aspects of the Report because I think that is important. I will read paragraph 1(4) of page 41 of the Report which gives us some idea of the state of the UN-Sri Lankan relationship during this particular period of time. It states, I quote:
“The UN had a generally difficult relationship with the Government, which used its control of visas, as well as harsh and even defamatory articles in the domestic media, as a means to pressure and intimidate any staff perceived as critical of the State. Several Resident Coordinators (RCs) were declared persona non grata (PNG) and a number of senior staff were withdrawn by the UN before they suffered the same fate. Candidates proposed to replace them were apparently rejected because of past experience in conflict situations.”It goes on in that way. That is not a very good situation. You seem to have had a very bad relationship with the UN in terms of this Report. According to this Report, the Panel appointed to conduct investigations seemed to have taken the view that relations between the UN staff and the Sri Lankan Government were not cordial at all. That is not a thing that we can be happy about; that is something of grave concern to us, the people of this country.
The UN Report, Sir, also deals with the question of accountability and that is contained on pages 43 and 44 of this Report. I would like to read a part of that Report in regard to accountability. It states, I quote:
“While calling for a human rights monitoring capacity, a second objective of UN strategy was to push for action on impunity for violations. This was given new urgency after the August 2006 execution of 17 staff of the NGO Action Contre la Faim (ACF) in Muttur. As in the past, the Government rejected calls for an international inquiry and instead established, in November 2006, its own ‘Presidential Commission of Inquiry’ to investigate 16 incidents, including the ACF killings.This is what they say on the question of accountability. This is not a happy state for us to be in. This is in regard to the 17 aid workers in Mutur. Another matter being inquired at that point of time was the massacre of the five students in Trincomalee which took place in January, 2006. You made certain commitments at the last Human Rights Council Meeting in March, 2012 in regard to these investigations. You said that certain action would be taken in regard to these two particular matters: the 17 aid workers being killed in Mutur and the five students being killed in Trincomalee. What have you done? Has anything been done? Have you addressed the question of accountability in regard to those issues? These are not matters that will go away.
In October 2006 an OHCHR internal report said ‘There are several serious problems in the domestic legal system that will hamper the effectiveness of this CoI [including]…. the lack of witness protection programs, and prohibition in the military law in utilizing the concept of command responsibility…. it is difficult to see how this CoI could be effective in leading to prosecution’. The internal report of a second OHCHR mission to Sri Lanka, in February 2007, confirmed the steady deterioration in the human rights situation, and the limited impact that was to be expected of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry.
In a compromise, the Government accepted that the commission’s work be monitored for conformity with international standards by an International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP), established in February 2007. One year later, on 6 March 2008, in a public statement on the Presidential Commission’s work, the IIGEP said ‘[T]he proceedings of inquiry and investigation have fallen far short of the transparency and compliance with basic international norms and standards’, and regretted flaws such as ‘restrictions on the operation of the Commission refusal of the State authorities at the highest level to fully cooperate with the investigations and inquiries. a climate of threat, direct and indirect, to the lives of anyone who might identify persons responsible for human rights violations….’ [T]here has been and continues to be a lack of political and institutional will to investigate and inquire into the cases before the Commission.”
What is happening now on the question of accountability? The UN Human Rights Council Resolution in March, 2012 talks in terms of Government’s responsibility, Government’s obligation to conduct independent, transparent investigations on the question of accountability. What has happened? Have you done anything?Anything whatever? We know you appointed some military officials to conduct investigations into certain matters and their reports are to be submitted to the Army Commander. All these investigations are in respect of service personnel. But, everything is being done within the same orbit; within the same area. You have not appointed any independent domestic mechanism which can be regarded as being impartial, trustworthy, credible and legitimate, to conduct any investigation on the question of accountability. What have you done to satisfy anyone that you are moving in regard to these matters with a commitment towards ascertaining the truth?
Population in Vanni; where does 290,000 appeared?
I want to also refer, Sir, to the Report of the Internal Review Committee on the question of food. It appears on Page 55, Paragraph 45 of the Report, which states, I quote:
“The Government continued to insist that there were no more than 70,000 people in the Wanni. According to the most credible information available, the actual number was at least 360,000 (see Annex II). The UN believed there to be about 350,000, but did much of its assistance planning on the basis of a figure of 200,000 beneficiaries. Using WFP calculations of nutritional measurements per person, the total food needed for the period October to December alone was 10,350 metric tons for the beneficiary planning figure of 200,000, and 18,630 metric tons for the actual population of 360,000. Between 2 October 2008 and 15 December 2008 a combined 4,120 metric tons of food were dispatched to the Wanni by the UN, about 40% of the requirements for the planning figure and just under 20% of the requirements for the actual population numbers.”The food sent to the Vanni during this period comprised of less than 20 per cent of the actual requirement by the number of people who were there at that point of time. How can you get away with this? Why did you put the figure at 70,000? According to our own figures, there was, in the Vannni at that time, a population of around 400,000.
The UN says 350,000 or 360,000. Eventually, over 290,000 people came out of this area. How were you able to put the figure at 70,000 when eventually 290,000 people came out of the area? Did they fall from the sky? Did you underestimate the figure and keep it at 70,000 because you wanted to reduce the number of casualties? Did your underestimation of the figure at 70,000 have anything to do with the number of civilians eventually killed? These are the questions that have to be addressed, Sir; these are not questions that can go away.
The Panel of Experts appointed by the UN Secretary-General comprising of three persons said that tens of thousands of civilians had been killed, that up to about 40,000 people had been killed. Based upon the number of persons who eventually came out of the Vanni and the number of persons who were admittedly in the Vanni, the UN says the figure was 350,000 or 360,000 and other figures put it at 400,000, there is an estimation that well-nigh over 70,000 civilians were killed in the Vanni. So, the question is very legitimately posed: did the Government say that there were only 70,000 people in the Vanni because it wanted to obscure the actual number of casualties that happened in the Vanni as a result of the war being prosecuted in that particular way?
Then, Sir, I want to deal with the amount of medicine that was available in the Vanni at this point of time.
It is referred to in this Report. I refer to page 75, paragraph 111 of the Report, which states, I quote:
“111. On 16 March, the Regional Directors of Health Services of Mullaitivu and Killinochchi addressed an open letter to the Secretary of the Ministry of Health saying ‘… less than 5 percent of the combined quota of drugs and dressings that are meant for the last quarter of last year and for the first quarter of this year have been sent to us, so far. You are well aware of the fate of the remaining bulk – to be kept in Vavuniya awaiting security clearance from the Ministry of Defence, despite our repeated requests and reminders made to you. Since January 2009, more than 500 civilian deaths, either on or after admission, have been registered at hospitals and thousands of civilian deaths could have gone unrecorded as they were not brought to the hospitals. Most of the hospital deaths could have been prevented if basic infrastructure facilities and essential medicines were made available. We have been supplied with no antibiotics, no anesthetics and not a single bottle of IV fluid’. A separate source described deaths related to the lack of medicines as being from war related injuries” and other causes.It goes on to state, I quote:
“The source referred to ships under ICRC flags that could have brought in medicines, but which experienced heavy shelling in their immediate vicinity, forcing them to withdraw. ‘Badly wounded civilians on the beach, who needed urgent transport to a full medical facility in Trincomalee or Pulmoddai, would often die when the security forces attacked preventing the ships from being able to pick them up or causing the ships to leave early”We know you were fighting a war. We know you were fighting an enemy who was a dangerous enemy. There is no question about it. We do not mince our words in regard to that matter. But, did you show any concern whatever for the poor civilians who lived there in their hundreds of thousands? You not merely reduced their numbers, but did you make food available to them? Did you make medicine available to them? They lived under trees. Did you make shelter available to them? They were subjected to aerial bombardment; they were subjected to heavy artillery fire.
This is your problem. You know what happened. Why did such things have to happen? I must say, Sir, that many of these matters that I have referred to have been referred to by us in Parliament as and when they occurred without any demur from the Government benches. What is the use of a bald denial saying, “It is unsubstantiated; it is replete with bias”? Nice phrases! One does not have to look for phrases when you have somebody like the Hon. (Prof.) Peiris as your Minister. It comes to him quite easily. But, what are the hard facts? Are you answering the hard facts? Sir, I might, at this point, briefly refer to the editorial written in “The Hindu” newspaper on 17th November, 2012 in regard to this Report that has been published by the Committee appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General.
What does it say ? I quote:
In the report, Sri Lanka emerges none the purer, as it contains cogent evidence of how Colombo worked to stave off international scrutiny and brazenly hounded U.N. and aid agencies out of the conflict zone so that there were no witnesses to its undoubted excesses.It further states:
“The government deliberately underestimated the population trapped in the Vanni region and issued patently false denials about targeting no-fire zones and hospitals. It carried on a campaign of intimidation and calumny against U.N. officials, detained its national staff and shelled convoys carrying essentials for the trapped population.”That is what a respected newspaper like “The Hindu” had to say about the situation that prevailed in the Vanni. Sir, I think you need to do much more than merely engage in a bald denial of this position.
Now, I want to say a few words, Sir, in regard to the question of a political solution. I do no want to dwell much about it; I have dealt with it at some length in the course of previous debates. But, I want to tell you this very frankly and with much candour; you cannot deny that you have been fibbing and fudging, I repeat those words, you have been fibbing and fudging on the question of a political solution.
It is all part of the same mindset: concealment of the truth in regard to the violations of human rights, in regard to your excesses, in regard to what happened during the course of war to Tamil civilians, it is the same mindset that makes you fib and fudge in regard to a political solution.
The 13 A promise
I want to however, Sir, – I dealt with this at some length in the past – refer to some aspects in regard to this matter because it is very important. I want to refer to the National Report of the Government of Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review in 2008, presented by the Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe. I will read the second point of para E. 98. from page 21, what is the commitment you made? It states, I quote
“Full implementation of the 13th amendment to the Constitution”What you told the Universal Periodic Review in 2008, four years ago, was the full implementation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Have you implemented the Thirteenth Amendment? What is happening now?
Then, I want to read something else, Sir, appearing in para 87 on page 19 of the same report, when the Minister said, and I quote
“One important initial step in the implementation of police powers, under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, was the recent induction of 175 persons of Tamil linguistic origin (including 50 women) into the police force in the Eastern Province.”සභාපà¶ිà¶ුමා (தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்) (The Chairman):
Hon. Member, you have another three minutes to wind up.
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහà¶ා (à®®ாண்புà®®ிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்) (The Hon. R. Sampanthan):
No, Sir. I have got more time from the UNP. They have given me 45 minutes, but actually they have increased it to 50 minutes.
සභාපà¶ිà¶ුමා (தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்) (The Chairman):
You have already taken 44 minutes.
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහà¶ා (à®®ாண்புà®®ிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்) (The Hon. R. Sampanthan):
I will stick to 50 minutes. The Hon. John Amaratunga agreed to that.
That is the position, Sir. They say that they are going to implement the Thirteenth Amendment fully, that is a national priority that will be done, and in fact they go further and say that they have commenced the implementation of the police powers.
Is that happening? Can you answer me? Was the Minister being very economical with the truth or was the Minister being very uneconomical with the reverse of the truth when he said that this is a national priority four years ago and they are going to implement the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution and it will happen. What does all this show?
I want to also refer at this point of time, it is important that I refer to it, to the statement made by the Indian Ambassador to the UN in Geneva at the last Universal Periodical Review that took place on the 1st November this year. The “Ceylon Today” of 3rd November, 2012 states, I quote:
“We recall the commitments made by Sri Lanka on the implementation of the 13th Amendment and building on it to achieve a meaningful devolution package. We urge expeditious action to take forward the political process for early political settlement.” the Ambassador said.”So, this is the position that India has stated at the Geneva Sessions of the Universal Periodic Review held in November this year. You talked of implementing the Thirteenth Amendment four years ago. You have now made a commitment to India not really to implement the Thirteenth Amendment, but to build upon the Thirteenth Amendment first to bring about a meaningful devolution, and there was a reference to it by the Indian Ambassador at the Universal Periodic Review held in Geneva in November this year.
So, what is your position? Our position is made public. We are for a reasonable, acceptable, workable and durable political solution within a united, undivided Sri Lanka. We are committed to that position. What is your commitment? Are you prepared to put aside your selfish interests and are you prepared to work towards a political solution?
Is there any indication on your part that you are prepared to do it? What does the International Crisis Group say in their Report which has been released just a short time ago? This is what the International Crisis Group says. The Report of the International Crisis Group dated 20th November, 2012, states, I quote
“The Sri Lankan Government’s refusal to negotiate seriously with Tamil leaders or otherwise address legitimate Tamil and Muslim grievances is increasing ethnic tensions and damaging prospects for lasting peace. The administration, led by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party of Mahinda Rajapaksa, has refused to honour agreements with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), broken promises to world leaders and not implemented constitutional provisions for minimal devolution of power to Tamil-speaking areas of the north and east. Militarization and discriminatory economic development in Tamil and Muslim areas are breeding anger and increasing pressure on moderate Tamil leaders.”This is what the International Crisis Group says in regard to your performance. What is your answer? I said a while ago, Mr. Chairman, that the Sri Lankan Government has a particular policy framework within a given mindset, a policy framework that is not merely skewed, it is fatally flawed, a policy framework that has as its foundation, majoritarianism, the entrenchment of majoritarianism and the rejection of the much-honoured principle of unity in diversity.
You will sink more and more
That is your problem. Your problem is that you are obsessed with the idea that any solution must be on the foundation of majoritarianism and that you will not accede to the much-honoured concept of unity in diversity, equality and justice in a country that is essentially pluralistic in character. You have to make the choice.
Until you do make the choice you will sink more and more into the mire until a point where you will be beyond redemption. That is what the future holds for you. There is no purpose in furiously opening missions all over the world.
There is no purpose in giving money to other countries and trying to win them over. You will not succeed in winning them over. The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella referred to some of these matters in the morning today. Do the right thing; address the question of accountability. Carry on proper investigations in regard to the five students killed in Trincomalee and the 17 aid workers killed in Mutur. Bring about a political solution. You do not have to fret so much. You do not have to sink into the mire more and more.
You will be automatically redeemed. The choice is yours. We leave it in your hands. But, I want to assure you on the Floor of this House on behalf of myself and my Party and the Tamil people that if you will take the right steps, you will have our complete and unstinted support.
Thank you, Sir.
- Courtesy DBS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)