Convergence On Over-Centralisation 

Of Power

By Jehan Perera- Monday, June 09, 2014

The issue of over-centralisation of power has grown more prominent in the aftermath of the 18th Amendment, which restored to the President the total powers of appointment to the highest bodies of state, including the judiciary, public service and security forces. The overwhelming power of the Presidency, where the President is for all practical purposes above the law, is increasingly being seen as a major problem.

If the governance framework is altered, all sections of the population will be the beneficiaries and not just the people of the north and east. The present governance framework makes it virtually impossible for it to address the post-war ethnic issue in a manner that accords with principles of good governance.

The prospect of anything significant happening is still improbable because de-concentration of power is not in the interests of the government and the weakness of the opposition in mobilising popular opinion against the government continues.

However, the international pressure on the government with regard to the implementation of a political solution to the conflict also continues unabated. The government’s expectations that the change of government in India would lead to a reduction in Indian pressure on this count suffered a reversal when the new Indian government took the same position as its predecessor. At their first meeting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi informed President Mahinda Rajapaksa that India expects Sri Lanka to implement the existing 13th Amendment to the constitution and to also go beyond it in terms of the devolution of powers.

The Indian request to implement the 13th Amendment and to go beyond it has come at a troublesome time for the government. It is widely anticipated that presidential elections will be called soon, possibly by the end of the year. The government has placed its reliance on winning the Sinhalese majority vote and in the context of likely elections it appears implausible that ethnic minority aspirations will be given priority by the government.

Therefore there is little or no prospect of the government heeding the Indian Prime Minister’s suggestion to go beyond the devolution of powers prescribed by the 13th Amendment. The challenge is to even implement what it already contains.

So far the government, and those that came before, has refused to implement the police and land powers contained in the 13th Amendment.  According to External Affairs Minister Prof G L Peiris, who was reporting to Parliament, the President had informed his Indian counterpart at their meeting about his unwillingness to devolve police powers to the provincial councils.

During the period of war, national security was provided as the justification for not devolving police powers.

However, in a time of peace the government has less justification for not devolving police powers, at least to the community level. In addition the government has even less justification for not implementing the 13th Amendment in the North and East to even the extent that it is implementing it in the rest of the seven Sinhalese-majority provinces. Neither the President nor the External Affairs Minister dealt with this issue in their responses.

COMMON CAUSE

The devolution of powers to the Northern and Eastern Provinces is severely undermined at the present time by two institutional devices. The first is the active role played in these two provinces by the two Governors who have been appointed by the President. Both of them have been keeping a close scrutiny of the decisions taken by their respective Provincial Councils and have utilised the powers vested in them to often over ride the decisions made by their Boards of Ministers.

The second institutional device, which is found only in the Northern Province, is the establishment of a Presidential Task Force that monitors all non-governmental activities there, and stands as a doorkeeper that approves or denies permission for developmental or even humanitarian activities. 

Getting PTF approval can be an onerous process, but one that has to be gone through.

NGOs have been refused permission to hold even welfare events like eye clinics by the military if they did not have prior PTF approval.

This type of centralisation of power which undermines the functioning of the Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils has generated resentment in those areas. It is therefore significant that the centralisation of power in the Presidency is now being seen elsewhere in the country also as a problem.

Two political parties that are coalition allies of the government have now come out publicly in support of the abolition of the Presidency or at least in favour of the reduction of its powers. Leaders from both the Communist Party and the JHU have agreed that the abolition of the Presidency should be a key element of a new constitution if it were to meet the aspirations of all Sri Lankans.

The Ven. Athuraliye Ratana Thera of the JHU called for reducing the powers vested in the executive president and said that a President who was not answerable to Parliament and could not be summoned to court should not be allowed to hold so many ministerial portfolios.

It is significant that this debate is taking place within the government coalition at a time when the government still retains overwhelming strength over the opposition. Although there are sporadic and local level acts of dissent against the government, by student groups and trade unions for the most part, they are left to be isolated events without being unified by a strong opposition party.

The lack of opposition unity continues to be a notable feature in the national polity, with the opposition unable to agree on a common opposition candidate to contest the forthcoming presidential elections. Therefore it seems that the concern of the government allies is not so much the fear of losing forthcoming elections, but rather is with issues of good governance. Instead of being downcast by the apparently unchangeable realities of the present, there is the emerging hope of a growing convergence on the need to tackle the over centralisation of power.

Country needs a benevolent dictator, says SLMC 
BY RUWAN LAKNATH JAYAKODY- June 9, 2014 

The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) yesterday said the Executive Presidency should not be abolished and what the country needed was a benevolent dictator who would control the situation without bias. General Secretary of the SLMC, Hasan Ali highlighted that in a completely 100% democracy, the majority would bulldoze decisions on the minorities. Commenting on the controversial issue of abolishing the Executive Presidency, he said while the democratic institutions of the country should function independently, the Elections Commissioner should be given more powers like in India.

The number of portfolios must be restricted to 20 or 25 he said noting that certain persons crossed over solely based on portfolios.
According to the SLMC, a Parliament Committee comprising all political parties must be set up without consulting only parties with vested interests.

Ali was also of the view that the recently unveiled ideas of the Jathika Hela Urumaya were very good ones.
"We cannot blame the President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, entirely for the powers possessed by the Executive Presidency because it is others working within the paradigm of close personal relationships and friendships who use their influence with the President to do unwanted things and the President also unfortunately gets swayed. It is not only persons in the Sri Lanka Freedom Party who do this. This is why a check and balance method is needed he said, adding that the present government had not achieved a natural two thirds majority but had managed to do so only thanks to Parliamentarians crossing over.

"Even though there are rules to curb crossovers there are loopholes in the judiciary. Although in the ballot paper it is the Party that first receives the vote after which the candidate gets the vote, after elections this process gets reversed. The two thirds should come naturally but the SLMC also crossed over due to a policy decision. We had a clear memorandum of understanding with the United National Party in that we would function individually. These things must be changed in the Constitution and we certainly do not want piecemeal changes," he said.

MEDIA FIGHTS BACK AGAINST RATINGS

Maharaja on the front foot; Derana on the fence; Hiru runs for cover

 

 

SUNDAY, JUNE 8, 2014

A recent meeting held at the Media Ministry on TV ratings was believed by many to be unprecedented in recent history. 

While the Media Minister and the Media Secretary spoke on ways of resolving the issue, senior members of the maharaja organization launched a brutal assault on the rating system that left the Hiru CEO unable to come up with a single word. 

Observers at the meeting wathced as network chiefs including Chevaan Daniel & Nedra Weeerasinghe shared their views powerfully. Daniel called for an immediate suspecnsion of the system while Weerasinge argued that no amount of fixing the existing system would help. Deranas Wikramage said that their ratings were good, but the sample size should be looked at. The Hiru TV CEO however, when asked to comment, could not utter a word and looked defeated maybe after the Maharaja attack. 

The Media Minister Keheliya rambukwella however stern and led the meeting from the front. He stressed the need to ensure that ratings were fair and the system was foolproof. 

Media Secretary Charitha Herath meanwhile was also in a bouyant mood and opined that if there was any question on the trustworthiness of ratings, they would cause huge damage to the industry.

BATTLE ON!

By  The Nation-Sunday, 08 June 2014

Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu | Uvindu Kurukulasuriya | Sanjana Hattotuwa

Accountability vs Pilfering

The Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA), a prominent civil society organization spearheading calls for transparency and justice is embroiled in controversy following allegations of financial misconduct and verbal abuse by one of its Directors SanjanaHattotuwa who is also the Editor of the website Groundviews.

It all began when Colombo Telegraph (CT) published a story alleging that Sanjana Hattotuwa, of Groundviews, a website funded by the CPA, had ‘asked the coordinator of CPA’s Media Unit to put down expenses incurred at Galery Café as “travel expenses”.’  CT charged that Hattotuwa had requested a cash payment on this occasion.  The total cost of the meal, CT claims, stood at Rs 20,865.  

In the same post, CT referred to another incident involving Hattotuwa where he is accused of verbally abusing a female co-worker. In that instance, CPA’s Board of Directors, CT claims, wanted Hattotuwa sacked but that CPA’s Executive Director, Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu had interceded to obtain a lesser punishment, that of removing Hattotuwa from the ‘Senior Management’.

Hattotuwa had responded to questions put to him by CT prior to this story being posted by saying ‘I have no idea what you are referring to. Suggest you directly contact and question CPA’s Executive Director in this regard, CC’d to this email.’  Saranavamauttu responded with a ‘no’ to the question as to whether he was aware of any such transgression.  

After CT published the story on the website, Hattotuwa wrote a response in Groundviews, insinuating that CT’s Uvindu Kurukulasuriya had a long-standing grudge against him (Hattotuwa).  CT, in responding to Hattotuwa, stated that Hattotuwa had not responded to the questions put to him and instead talked about other matters.  CT repeated its questions to Hattotuwa.  

Interestingly, in Hattotuwa’s piece in Groundviews he claims that Kurukulasuriya had brought up the issue of financial misconduct many years ago in an email exchange that Kurukulasuriya had with a unit coordinator and the Executive Director.  Kurukulasuriya claims that Hattotuwa was part of that exchange.  What is pertinent is that Hattotuwa’s claim clearly contradicts Saravanamuttu, who feigned ignorance about any such matter.  In other words, he was aware of what CT was talking about, which of course does not necessarily mean he was guilty of such transgression.

The Nation questioned Hattotuwa and Executive Director of CPA, Dr. PakiasothySaravanamuttu on the issue. Both however were cautious in their responses. In his response to The Nation, Hattotuwa vehemently denied he was guilty of any financial misconduct.

Saravanamuttu, for his part stated that the CPA would probe into the issue of alleged financial misconduct by Hattotuwa if there was hard evidence. He stated that the proof published on Colombo Telegraph was not strong enough as it did not give a date and also sis not indicate that the bills were that of Hattotuwa.  

What is interesting is that the CPA, on an earlier occasion, decided to inquire into allegations of fraud involving another Director, Sunanda Deshapriya with action being taken only when the ‘hard evidence’ was obtained subsequent to questioning several employees including Manjula Wediwardena, Athula Withanage and Chanaka Krishantha.  As of now the CPA does not seem inclined to sanction a similar inquiry against Hattotuwa.  Several members of the Board when questioned by The Nation flatly refused to comment, stating that such questions should be asked from Saravanamuttu.  In Deshapriya’s case, the CPA explained in a media release that he was removed due to ‘lack of clarity in financial transactions’ when in fact there was nothing vague, unclear or oblique in what Deshapriya did – he robbed money and when found out was forced to leave after pocketing out the relevant amount.

“If there is hard evidence, we would not hesitate to probe into the issue and take necessary actions regarding the issue,” he said.  The Nation hopes that the CPA Board of Directors will issue a directive to dig up all the relevant documents, questions all relevant individuals and see if there’s any ‘hard evidence’.  The Nation is confident that Hattotuwa, given his emphatic claim of innocence will demand that such an investigation be conducted.

Saravanamuttu adds that the said allegation was based on an incident that had reportedly occurred several years ago. When questioned whether the CPA would solicit evidence from officials who handle accounts, he stated that they would have to locate the said bills in order to look into the matter.  Fair enough.  The Nation is hopeful that Saravanamuttu will leave no stone unturned to clear Hattotuwa’s name.  

As of now, though, we can’t help wondering whether Saravanamuttu is playing favorites here. Is the CPA’s Board of Directors comfortable about the violation of the principle of equality?  Is the Board of Directors not perturbed by the seriousness of these allegations especially given the fact that CPA, Saravanamuttu and Hattotuwa are wont to lecture everyone on accountability, transparency and if necessary on sexism and sexual harassment in the work place?  If their operative principle with respect to all things, ‘ask Saravanamuttu’?  Are they beholden to the Executive Director in some way? Are they puppets whose strings are at Saravanamuttu’s disposal to pull or relax?

Hattotuwa was earlier embroiled in allegations that he had abused a female colleague in foul language.  Hattotuwa, when questioned about this, states ‘A response reg. this incident has already been given by Dr. Saravanamuttu to the media. I have nothing further to add’ (see Box for his response to relevant questions).  Surely, Hattotuwa knows whether or not he used foul language on a female co-worker?  Has he appointed his own Executive Director as his official spokesperson?  Has Saravanamuttu resolved to protect Hattotuwa at all costs in a way that he did not protect Deshapriya?  We don’t know.

Saravanamuttu’s response is predictable: ‘it is an internal matter and therefore was dealt internally’.  He does not say ‘No, Hattotuwa didn’t abuse the lady’.  He does not say ‘Hattotuwa did abuse the lady but we settled it amicably’.  The cagey nature of his response is telling though!

Govt. was notified about UN team: OHCHR

 Monday, 09 June 2014 

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said the Government of Sri Lanka was notified last week regarding the particulars of the investigation team set up to probe alleged violations of human rights and international humanitarian law during the war in 2002- 2009.

An OHCHR spokesperson told Daily Mirror that a letter was sent last week giving a broad outline of the structure to be put in place for the investigation as well as the role of Sandra Beidas as its Senior Coordinator and team head.

The spokesperson added that they intended to finalise all the mechanisms involved with setting up the team and to have it ‘up and running’ by July.  

The official went on to state that the two external experts who would be working with the OHCHR investigation team on a pro-bono basis had not been decided on yet. However, there have been reports that former Governor-general and Cambodian war crimes tribunal judge Dame Silvia would be one of the two experts heading the team.

It has also been reported that the team would mostly consist of OHCHR staff but would also include three special rapporteurs on extra judicial and arbitrary killing, torture and enforced disappearances -- apart from the two senior experts. If granted access, the investigators are due to travel to Sri Lanka as well as Europe and the Asia Pacific region in order to gather evidence and witness testimony.

However, the GoSL has publicly rejected the investigation, adding that it would not cooperate with the probe. But an OHCHR official said the government had not formally notified them of non-cooperation so far.

The OHCHR led investigation of the alleged human rights and international humanitarian law violations by both sides during the war from 2002 to 2009 was mandated through a US-backed resolution. A total of 23 countries voted in favour of the resolution that was passed at the 25th session of the UNHRC held in Geneva

Independence Of Judiciary, A Mirage In South Asia

( June 9, 2014, Hong Kong – Geneva, Sri Lanka Guardian) The arbitrary dismissal in January 2013 of the former chief justice of Sri Lanka, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, the first female Chief Justice in South Asia, reflects the independence of judiciary in the region. Though conditions prevailing in Sri Lanka are not exactly the same in the other South Asian countries of India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan where the Asian Legal Resource Centre is engaged, the fact is that the judiciary in all these countries is reduced to an institution that is unable to independently deliver upon its mandate.

In Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, the judiciary has been reduced to a subordinate entity of the state, where the concept of separation of powers is at its lowest ebb if not absent. In India, though the judiciary is largely independent of executive control, its daily functioning is subjugated to the government, manifest in lack of adequate resources that have resulted in scandalous delay in adjudication. In Nepal, an acute situation exists, where even the appointment of judges and officers required for the judiciary to function meaningfully has not been done for the past four years. In Pakistan, the trend is on the upswing from abysmal depths, with the judiciary having begun to carve out some contours of fundamental independence, having been freed from six decades of military dictatorship.

The concept of independence of the judiciary is not a silo that depends upon the nature of the judges alone. Independence of the institution is also closely related to the legislative framework within which the judiciary is to act: the support the institution receives from the government; the cooperation that the judiciary seeks and obtains from other executive organs of the state, including the investigating agency; and the extent to which the institution is able to exercise its independent writ upon other institutions of the state, most importantly, in the South Asian context, upon the armed forces of the state.

Over the past decade, concerns of national security have substantially reduced the reach of judicial writ upon the organs of the state. Human rights abuses committed by state agencies, including arbitrary and or incommunicado detention, torture, and extrajudicial execution, are exempted by statute from judicial review in the region.

Furthermore, certain legislations provide for long periods of detention of persons without the possibility of being produced before a judicial officer. Governments pass most of these legislations, including amendments to the constitution, without public consultation. In all these countries such legislations have also contributed substantially to widespread disappearances, a serious issue upon which courts have the least influence.

In Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, amendments have been made to existing legislations that prevent the judiciary from reviewing state actions on the excuse of executive immunity. In India and Pakistan, state security legislations and special laws concerning armed forces of the state exempt judicial intervention in cases involving the armed forces and law enforcement agencies of the state. In Nepal, judicial writ is often ignored by the state, and the government intentionally fails to comply with judicial decisions.

Today, these states are clinically reducing the space for open criticism against state actions. Amongst of the worst affected are human rights defenders speaking on behalf of victims of human rights abuse. 

Draconian legislations, like the national security laws, allow the states to fabricate criminal charges against human rights defenders. And, the judiciary is increasingly finding no space to intervene, due to ouster clauses built into these legislations.

Equally important is the absence of accountability and transparency within the judiciary itself. Appointments, promotions, and transfers of judges are a closed process in all the above countries. It has resulted in genuine accusations of corruption and nepotism, most of which have failed to be investigated or acted upon.

In countries where judicial independence is seriously hampered, the concept of fair trial has no meaning. Constituting an independent judiciary is a political policy that state must evolve and resolve. 

Unfortunately, such a resolution is not anywhere close to fruition in South Asia.

A written submission to the UN Human Rights Council’s Twenty sixth session, Agenda Item 3, General Debates by the Asian Legal Resource Centre based in Hong Kong.

Fishing issue clouds India and Sri Lanka ties

Arrests of fishermen from both countries have become diplomatic headache between two Asian neighbours.

Dinouk Colombage

Last updated: 09 Jun 2014

Colombo, Sri Lanka - Relations between the Asian powerhouse, India, and its southern neighbour Sri Lanka are facing growing pressure due to the ongoing issue of fishermen from each country straying into the other’s waters.

Nearly every month, dozens of fishermen from the two countries are arrested by authorities for illegally poaching in the waters that do not belong to their country.

On Saturday, 71 Indian fishermen were arrested by the Sri Lankan navy. This followed detention of 12 Sri Lankan fishermen by the Indian authorities a day earlier for having strayed into Indian waters.

Last week, Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapaksa ordered the release of 29 Indian fishermen that came barely a week after he ordered the release of all Indian fishermen as a "goodwill gesture" before he attended the inauguration of the new Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi.

The fact that the issue of fishermen came up in the talks between Modi and Rajapaksa in New Delhi means that the two countries are concerned about the matter.

In the past year alone, an estimated 200 Indian fishermen have been arrested by the Sri Lankan authorities.

According to the Sri Lankan navy spokesperson, Commander Kosala Warnakulasuriya, on an average Indian fishermen enter these waters illegally thrice a week (Saturday, Monday and Wednesday).

"At this point in time, all Indian fishermen who had been detained, have been released, however we are maintaining a close watch," he told Al Jazeera.

The controversy surrounding the arrest of fishermen has resulted from the unclear nature of the sovereignty over the Palk Strait, a narrow strip of sea between the two countries.

'Unnerving sight'

According to fishermen living in the northern Mannar district in Sri Lanka, Indian fishing trawlers often come within 500 metres of the shoreline.

"They enter our waters in the hundreds, it is an unnerving sight and we refrain from going out ourselves," said Mannan Vaidhan a fisherman from Mannar who was released from a prison in India’s southern Tamil Nadu state in December last year after having spent eight months in jail for fishing illegally in Indian waters.

“It is difficult for us to fish because we do not know where Sri Lankan waters end and the Indian waters begin. With the large number of Indian fishermen entering our areas, we are forced to find new empty stretches of ocean to fish in. Without any GPS in our boats or markings in the ocean it is not difficult to stray in to India’s side," he told Al Jazeera.

"They threatened to shoot us if we tried to flee…. They yelled at us…, some of them accused us of being smugglers and one joked about sinking the boat and leaving us on it," he said.

Vaidhan along with 15 others were transported by the Indian navy back to Tamil Nadu where they were handed over to the police.

"They took our details down and transported us to a prison, we were all crammed in to one cell which was already occupied by several others," he said.

It was several weeks before Vaidhan or any of his compatriots were produced before a court, during that period they had limited contact with either the Sri Lankan authorities or their families.

"I spoke to my family only twice in that period. A representative from the Sri Lankan high commission visited us a couple of times and promised us they would have us released."

Fishermen like Vaidhan continue to risk the possibility of arrest and detention to earn a livelihood.

"I now mainly work on shore assisting fishermen who return from their trips, I have a young family to look after and if I was to be arrested and detained there would be no one to provide for them. We do not secure large enough catches to justify the risk, the waters are crowded with Indian fishermen," Vinod Balaatharun, another fisherman, said.

Balaatharun said that the number of Indian fishermen who are entering Sri Lankan waters is so high that the local fishermen are scared to venture out.

"I have gone out and been forced to turn back by Indian fishermen who have larger boats. There are too many of them and our navy is not always around to protect us."

Ever since Balaatharun gave up fishing, his monthly earnings have reduced, leaving him and his family struggling.

"I cannot return to fishing until there is greater protection afforded to the fishermen. It is a risky business and we do not need the added risk of being arrested. If the government secures our waters for us to fish then I will return to work, until then I am forced to find a new source of income," he said.

Media Secretary at the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Development, Narendra Rajapaksa, said that Sri Lanka and India are currently in the process of ministerial level discussions regarding the issue.

According to Rajapaksa, the Indian authorities are currently holding over 100 Sri Lankan fishermen and 20 vessels.

"Discussions are under way to secure the release of all Sri Lankan fishermen who are in Indian custody. The discussions will also focus on solving the ongoing crisis and ensure that the waters are safe for our fishermen," he said.

Fishing communities in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka are being educated on the safety of fishing to ensure they do not stray into Indian waters, the secretary said.

Joint Director of Fisheries in Tamil Nadu, G Arumugam, said that the fishermen in Tamil Nadu have been fishing in the Palk Strait for generations and would continue to do so.

"The size of the fishing community is increasing, and there is only a small area they can fish in. It is very easy for them to stray in to Sri Lankan waters because they have been fishing in those waters for years," he told Al Jazeera.

Arumugam said that only a clear demarcation of where Indian waters would ensure the arrests would cease, "as long as Sri Lankan fishermen stray in to our waters we will continue to arrest them".

The ongoing discussions between the two countries are expected to restart by the end of the month in the southern Indian city of Chennai.

Follow Dinouk Colombage: @dinoukc

India raises fishermen issue with Lanka

 08 Jun 2014

New Delhi: India today raised with Sri Lanka the arrest of 73 Indian fishermen by Lankan forces for allegedly poaching in its waters.

The Indian High Commissioner in Colombo has been instructed by External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to take up the issue of arrest with Sri Lankan authorities, the Spokesperson in the External Affairs Ministry said.  “And our High Commissioner has taken up the issue with Sri Lankan authorities,” he said.

73 Indian fishermen have been arrested in Sri Lanka, days after it released 33 fishermen from the country.  Sri Lankan Navy spokesman Kosala Waranakulasuriya said in Colombo that 41 Indian fishermen were arrested off the coast of Talaimannar in the north while another 32 fishermen were arrested off the Delft Islands yesterday. 

Fifteen fishing vessels have also been confiscated.  The fishermen arrested in Delft were being brought to the Kankesanturai port while others would be handed over to the fisheries inspection office at Talaimannar.  

Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking laying down of a time-bound action plan to achieve a “long-term, permanent solution to the problem and also to put in place a strong and robust diplomatic response” to the issue arrest of the Indian fishermen by Sri Lanka.

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa last month had ordered the release of Indian fishermen as a goodwill gesture.  He had attended the swearing in ceremony of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 26 in Delhi.

Talks between India and Sri Lanka on the fishermen issue had ended in a deadlock early last month and negotiators are scheduled to meet again this month.

Sri Lanka had shot down a request from Tamil Nadu fishermen to allow fishing in Lankan waters for 70 days a year and to allow bottom trawling.

Decriminalize! 

By Dilrukshi Handunnetti- June 9, 2014
 
 
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants has called for sweeping reforms in Sri Lanka to protect the rights and safety of the island's migrant worker population, including the introduction of a legal framework on par with international instruments, ratification of specific ILO Conventions and the decriminalization of irregular migration.
 
Following his week-long visit to Sri Lanka in May, François Crépeau, the Special Rapporteur, has made a range of recommendations in his mission report, highlighting serious anomalies affecting the rights and welfare of the migrant population.
Crepeau has recommended that Government programmes should not encourage migrants to go to countries where the legal and institutional framework necessary to guarantee... ...the protection of their rights is not in place.
 
Highlighting a special concern, he has urged the island to conduct independent autopsies of all Sri Lankan workers who die abroad and to allow family members access to autopsy results.
Crepeau has also called for the inclusion of enhanced efforts to prevent exploitation and abuse of migrants, during the recruitment stage, while in service in the destination country and upon their return to Sri Lanka.
 
The recommendations include full implementation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for private employment agencies and the island's National Labour Migration Policy.
With regard to recruitment agencies, the Special Rapporteur has called for a comprehensive policy that would improve services, enable agencies to be held accountable for the non-execution of their duties and regulate irregular sub-agents.
 
Referring to the issue of weak contracts that render workers vulnerable, the Special Rapporteur has urged Sri Lanka to negotiate with all destination States to reach binding bilateral agreements. Further, the adoption of a uniform model contract, which would reflect international human rights and labour standards, too has been recommended.
Making further recommendations, it had been proposed to urgently strengthen welfare services and consular assistance provided to Sri Lankan migrants in destination States, also calling for programmes to facilitate reintegration of migrants, including psycho-social services and livelihood opportunities.
 
Referring to the rights of women migrants, the Rapporteur has called for the repeal the Ministry of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare circular from January 2014 and to respect women's freedom of movement.
It has also been recommended that irregular migration be decriminalized and the detention of migrants in an irregular situation to be considered only as a last resort.
Sri Lanka has a migrant worker population exceeding 1.8 million.

Horns and hoons

Editorial-June 8, 2014,

The police have begun to look for private buses fitted with air horns, we are told. Why should they expend time and energy conducting checks? All those contraptions which pass for buses have such pneumatic devices loud enough to make even wild jumbos flee as fast as their legs can carry them. It is no exaggeration that driving small vehicles on Sri Lankan roads full of such monstrous juggernauts, roaring and bearing down on them, is so scary as to make one’s ticker go haywire.

The noise pollution, however, is the least of all problems private buses cause though it has to be tackled and the on-going efforts to achieve that end are to be appreciated. It looks as if bus drivers believed that all other vehicles have to make way for them all the time and move at a pace determined by them. They hog roads much to the consternation of other motorists or race at breakneck speed with one another with absolutely no regard for other vehicles and pedestrians. They zip on the wrong side of the road, dangerously overtake all others moving ahead of them and make sharp turns to drop or pick up passengers. The police look the other way!

Time was when the raison d’etre of the traffic police was to manage traffic and ensure road safety. But, today, they have apparently become one of the government’s revenue generating arms. They are preoccupied with iri sellama or ‘lines game’; they wait, hiding behind lamp-posts or wayside trees, to book motorists who happen to cross the continuous centre line on narrow roads. They don’t seem to care two hoots about the private buses that flout all the rules in the Highway Code. For, among the private bus owners are powerful government politicians, high ranking police officers and other influential persons. If private bus drivers are booked for the various offences they commit and made to pay fines the way they should, the revenue so generated may be sufficient to maintain the entire Police Department.

It is doubtful whether most private buses are roadworthy. This is perhaps the only country where buses and other big vehicles such as articulated trucks carrying forty-foot containers are allowed to use, for front wheels, rebuilt tyres which in most cases are worn below the legal limit of tread. Most buses have tiny side mirrors and their drivers have to back up blindly as they are without electronic reverse motion advisors to guide them. No wonder they run over so many people and ram other vehicles in the process. In the UK, steps have been taken to fit all heavy vehicles with sensors to prevent them from knocking down pedestrians and cyclists. The government should seriously consider adopting the British system to minimise road accidents which snuff out as many as six lives a day.

Worse, some private bus drivers are not sober at the wheel. They are hooked on narcotics. The Lanka Private Bus Operators Association itself has revealed that more than 30 percent of bus workers in the Western Province are addicted to drugs. It boggles the mind why the police and the transport authorities have not so far taken any action to nab bus drivers high on drugs. The police are capable of nabbing only drunk drivers with the help of breathalyzer tests etc. So long as druggies are allowed to wreak havoc making roads safe for one and all will remain a distant dream.

Cracking down on errant private bus drivers who have become a law unto themselves as well as making them fall in line is half the battle in ensuring road safety. Now that action has been taken to tackle the horn menace, let the police go the whole hog, if they dare, and deal with hoons as well.

Report alleges “political interference” in migrant detentions

Foreign nationals are more likely to remain in detention in Canada for immigration violations as their release rates continue to fall since 2008.

Victor Vinnetou has been in immigration detention for 10 years. The South African man is believed to be the missing apartheid icon, Mbuyisa Makhubu. He has been detained because officials cannot confirm his identity.

By: Nicholas Keung Immigration reporter, Published on Mon Jun 09 2014

A groundbreaking study accuses Ottawa of “political interference” in the detention reviews of foreign nationals held for immigration violations, citing the decline of release rates under the Conservative government.

Based on government-provided data, the End Immigration Detention Network, an umbrella group advocating for migrants, found that detention adjudicators released 15 per cent of the migrants on immigration hold at their detention reviews in 2013.

However, in the Central Region that covers Ontario where most of the migrants are held, the release rate was less than 10 per cent, compared to 27 per cent in Western Region in B.C. and 24 per cent in Eastern Region in Quebec, said the report, released at a news conference Monday morning.

By examining the decisions of adjudicators, who are all federal government appointees, researchers also found the same decision makers who sat on the tribunal from 2008 through 2013 appeared to have become less likely to release immigration detainees.

In 2008, the average release rate of the same 13 members was 21 per cent, which fell to 11.5 per cent in 2012 and 9.3 per cent in 2013, according to the 40-page report, titled “Indefinite, Arbitrary and Unfair: The Truth about Immigration Detention in Canada.”

“Seen together, this data shows that the immigration detention review process, the fundamental structure that upholds the integrity of the entire immigration detention process is unjust,” it said.

“The detention review process that is supposed to guarantee the fairness of all detentions appears to be entirely at the whims of an appointed board member, with devastating consequences on migrants and their families.”

In 2013 alone, the report said between 7,373 and 9,932 migrants – often failed refugee claimants, undocumented migrants and people having had their permanent resident status stripped – spent a total of 183,928 days in immigration hold. Detained children ranged from 807 in 2008 to 205 in 2013.

There are more than 145 migrants who have been detained for more than six months.

Researchers said the consistent decline in the release rate “defies” belief that such a systemic reduction took place without a policy directive or a political decision.

“Any policy or decision to systemically reduce release rates would be political interference in the detention review process, throwing the entire detention system’s fairness and integrity into doubt,” wrote the report, authored by Syed Hussan and Macdonald Scott with Toronto’s No One Is Illegal, a member of the End Immigration Detention Network.

Individual release rates by adjudicators varied during the studied period. Member Valerie Currie, for example, ruled on 443 detention reviews but only released 21 detainees (5 per cent). Maria-Louise Cote oversaw 303 reviews and released 100 detainees (33 per cent).

The End Immigration Detention Network urges Ottawa to end what it calls “indefinite detention” by releasing all migrant detainees who have been held for longer than 90 days.

In cases where the detainee cannot be deported within 90 days, it says, the person must be released while waiting for the removal.