Thailand: Buddhist abbots expelled from monkhood after drinking binge

By Kyle Lawrence Mullin Mar 23, 2015

Buddhist monks may have a reputation for being meek, mild mannered, and nothing less than well behaved. But two abbots defied that stereotype in Sikhiu district in Thailand on Sunday, after a bout of drunk driving led to a car accident and the pair’s subsequent expulsion from their monasteries.

The Bangkok Post reported that police arrived at the scene of the accident at 7am and found 60-year-old Phra Thewet Sadhammo, a monk of Wat Nong Jok, behind the wheel of a car stuck in a ditch that was being towed with a rope by another car. The second vehicle’s driver was identified as 48-year-old Phra Somchai Engchantuak of the nearby Wat Thoongpanomwang temple.

The article added that Pol Lt Col Samart Rattanawichai said both monks were so intoxicated that they could hardly stand straight, and that their blood alcohol levels were four times over the legal limit of 0.05 percent. He added that they were wearing layman’s clothing, instead of their traditional robs.

The monks admitted to meeting at a restaurant earlier that night, where they had drank until 5am before attempting to drive back to their monasteries. Phra Thewet also conceded to losing control of his vehicle.

Supachai Luangchantuak, chairman of the Mittraparb Tambon Administration Organisation, said both monks were notorious for their drinking, noting that whiskey bottles had been found at their temples, and that they had seemed inebriated at several religious ceremonies, where they flubbed the lines of their prayers. He told the Post  that”villagers were fed up with (the) behaviour” of these infamous “drinking buddies.”

This is far from the first incidence of misbehaving monks in Thailand. This past November the same newspaper reported that the abbot of Surat Thani temple ran his pickup truck off the road, and he was charged with driving while under the influence.

More recently, on March 2, ThaiVisa News reported that  an abbot at Kamphaeng Phet was defrocked for not only drinking but also attempting to rape a nun.

World Religion News ran a March 5 article entitled ‘Thai Buddhists Fed Up with Disobedient Monks’. The piece went on to describe an abbot that had been caught with 100,000 methamphetamine pills, another that had been arrested for wildlife trafficking and attempted to flee the scene while driving drunk, and a senior monk at Wat Sa Ket monastery for embezzling the temple’s funds. The article ended on a dire note: “Many devout Buddhists have become so frustrated that they have stopped considering themselves practicing Buddhists.”

FAKE Olive Oil is Literally Everywhere! How To Know Whether It Is Fake Or Original Olive Oil? 

March 19  2015

What are the health benefits of olive oil?

Olive oil, being a part of the Mediterranean diet, and used a thousand years ago by Hippocrates, the father of medicine, is trusted a lot for its health benefits. Monosaturated fatty acids as its most important ingredient provide incomparable benefits to the heart and to other parts of the body when consumed on regular basis.

 

A study proved that having regular Mediterranean diet rich in olive oil reduces the risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared with having other low fat diets. Olive oil is also said to be good for bone health, weight loss and brain health. It also relieves constipation and reduces oxidative stress.

What is good about its composition?

Olive oil is rich in mono saturated fatty acids which give less fat load to the body. It is also rich in phenolics, the acidic constituent which gives the oil its acidic and bitter taste. It has ZERO CARBOHYDRATE and ZERO PROTEINwith only traces of saturated fat in it. It also has vitamin E and vitamin K which are good for the skin. The phenolic acids are very good for the heart too.

What is extra virgin olive oil? Is there anything really extra virgin about it?

The term ‘virgin olive oil’ doesn’t describe its quality, and extra virgin olive oil doesn’t mean it is extra pure. The difference is in the process of manufacturing. There are 4 grades of virgin olive oil. The lowest grade of virgin olive oil is used in soap making, and is not fit for consumption. The extra virgin olive oil is the highest grade of olive oil which is cold pressed, and is superior in taste and aroma. This is not heated beyond 86 degree Fahrenheit.

A lot of fake oil is being circulated, especially when it comes to extra virgin olive oil. The University of California conducted tests among many brands in the US that have a tag of extra virgin olive oil to them.The study came up with this devastating fact: High 69% of extra virgin olive oil sold in the US stores is FAKE!!!

Next time you see the tag ‘extra virgin olive oil’, it should truly remind you to be extra cautious!

So, how do you actually know if it is fake olive oil or original olive oil you are buying? The tastes of the fake and original oils being similar, you need to find another way to differentiate between the fake and original olive oil.

What is FAKE olive oil and how prevalent is its circulation?

Fake olive oil can be simply a mixture of two oils, a maximal portion of sunflower oil added to a portion of pure olive oil, and can be tagged as extra virgin olive oil. It can be a substandard, a mixture of various olive oils from different countries. It can be non-Italian oil,simply a mixture of sunflower oil and soybean oil with the additives of beta carotene, and chlorophyll, labelled finally as extra virgin olive oil. Be cautious when you see the tags of extra virgin and extra pure.

 

The circulation of fake olive oil is so common that you find many famous brands advertizing themselves to supply THE HEALTHIEST OLIVE OIL,but actually it is FAKE one.  A study reported that many famous brands including Mazzola, Newman’s own, Filippo Berio, Safe way, Whole foods, Bertolli, Colavita, Mezzetta, and Star are selling fake olive oil.

How to know if it is FAKE olive oil? What are the tests to help you differentiate fake olive oil from original olive oil?

Yes, after all this discussion, we have come to the most important question: How to tell if it is FAKE olive oil? Is it worth taking it if it isn’t? For the first question we’ll try to help you with some tips. As for the second, make up your mind yourself!

A simple test that can be done at home is to refrigerate the extra virgin olive oil. When it gets solidified, it means it has more mono saturated fats in it, but this still doesn’t rule out the presence of other oils like safflower oil or canola oil or any other adulterations in it.On the other hand, if it does not solidify, then it means it is not extra virgin olive oil at all!

Extra virgin olive oil is supposed to keep the oil lamp flammable. Again, it is not a very precise test. If the oil doesn’t light the oil lamp for a long time, it definitely is not extra virgin olive oil.

Taste, refrigerator test or lamp test are not very reliable ways to find out the truth about your olive oil. The best alternative is to buy olive oil from local farmers.You should know that the olive oil from Italy is considered standard compared with the olive oil from other countries.

The brands that failed to meet the extra virgin olive oil standards are: Bertolli, Carapelli, Colavita, Star, Pompeian. Eat Grown Local also reports: Filippo Berio, Mazzola, Mezzetta, Newman’s Own, Safeway, and Whole Foods in this list; the data may be from the earlier 2010 study when more brands were evaluated.

The real deal: California Olive Ranch, Cobram Estate, Lucini. Kirkland Organic, Lucero (Ascolano), McEvoy Ranch Organic are also noted by Eat Grown Local

Look for Certification

Your best guarantee that you are actually getting a high quality olive oil is to look for third party certification. The California Olive Oil Council and the Australian Olive Association both have stringent certification programs that make their seals trustworthy.

When buying olive oil produced or packaged in Italy, look for PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) or PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) seals.

 

Finally, the ‘TAKE HOME’ message we give you is to be extra cautious and choosy next time you buy olive oil, especially the extra virgin one!

- See more at: http://www.dietoflife.com/fake-olive-oil-is-everywhere/#sthash.3nBEstrD.dpuf

Can a country destroy a race and give a Field Marshall post?

 

War Crimes in Sri Lanka

Sunday, 22 March 2015

We should admire that Sri Lanka is a country always create new concepts. In spite of creating new methodologies it is important if we can focus our attention on long term factors. Though we don’t have world standards for many things we have world standards for values and virtues. If we campaign against such standards as a country we would become a buffoon. If it is so it is our duty to save our country from such remarks.

In any country an army is created according to a tradition. Recently in order to gain selfish aspirations those traditions were thrown out from the rear entrance. Those unfortunate incidents are now gaining momentum. Without any analysis and evaluation never happened in the world history before an effort is exerted to create a new position in the army in order to obtain selfish gains and political advantage.

How can we approve a supreme Field Marshall position to a person who has left the army, got a retirement, later actively participated in politics and became a political party leader there by becoming a member of a party trying to come to power demanding a position through a political promise?

Following the war victory, behalf of fighting against whom can he demand this position? No one in the country called these separatists as our enemies. According to the traditions of the war enemies are defined only when there is a war between two countries. When the citizen’s of a country takes arms against the government they are
called as a rebel or a combatant. On this is it due to the destruction of a community that this position is demanded? Is that because to prove the world that we violated all humanitarian laws and ended a war?

In India when Maniksho was appointed as the Field Marshall position and following his statement given that it is due to him the war was won, the government appointed Kariappar as the Field Marshall and said that it was not only you but with the commitments of other generals. Therefore there are possibilities to nullify these positions gained in view of selfish. There is no rest or respect for the positions gained by greediness, selfish and power hungry.

However whatever materials gained there is no limit for the human desire. That was proved in the 2009 election. Therefore if the government gives such a position it can cause retribution in the future. If so it would be the country which would be perished.

There are world renowned Army Commanders. One such person is General Dwight D. Eisonhower. He removed all his positions to the American Senate when coming in to politics. He contested the American president
election and became the 34th president of the United States. Isn’t this a good precedence? Can we expect such a model in our country?

Sri Lanka’s Alleged War Criminal & Human Rights Violator Elevated To Field Marshal

March 23, 2015

General Gardihewa Sarath Chandralal Fonseka ( known as Sarath Fonseka) was elevated to the rank of Field Marshal by the President Maithripala Sirisena yesterday. He is the first Sri Lankan to be honoured with the highest rank in the Army.

Fonseka

“he was the Army Commander during the war and particularly during the last days and weeks of the war which ended in May 2009. Several independent reports, witnesses and evidences including the report by the UN Panel of Experts have alleged that international human rights and international humanitarian laws were breached during the war and in particular at the end of the war. It is alleged war crimes were committed. The man in charge of the army that’s accused of all these was General Fonseka.” Suren Surendiran, the spokesperson of the Global Tamil Forum told Colombo Telegraph.

Fonseka joined the Sri Lanka Army in 1970 and served as the Commander of the Army from 6 December 2005 – 15 July 2009. As commander, he oversaw the final phase of the Sri Lankan Civil War, which resulted in the total defeat of the militant Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam organisation. He also survived an assassination attempt when an LTTE suicide bomber attacked his motorcade in April 2006. Following the end of the war Fonseka was promoted to a four star rank in the Sri Lanka Army, becoming the first serving officer to hold a four star rank.

In November 2009, Fonseka formally announced his candidature in the 2010 Sri Lankan Presidential Election. Following his election defeat, Fonseka was arrested on 8 February 2010, and the government announced he will be court-martialed for committing “military offences.” He was found guilty of corrupt military supply deals and sentenced to three years in prison. After serving more than 2 years in prison, Fonseka was released on 21 May 2012. As per the pre-election statement, President Maithripala Sirisena, gave him the Complete Presidential Pardon and acquitted him of all the charges against him on the 22nd of January 2015, restoring his Civic Rights.

According to a leaked US diplomatic cable, the US government had once cancelled Fonseka’s invitation to attend a Chief of Defense conference in Hawaii due to U.S. concerns about his involvement in human-rights violations during the conflict with the LTTE.

He was also accused of attacking and killing many journalists during his tenure as the Commander.

We publish below the cable in full;

Sri Lanka: Dark Side of PTA

Change but No Change in Sri Lanka

Mar 22, 2015 7:39:12 PM

Statement to mark one year since the issuing of the gag order, travel restrictions and TID investigation against Sri Lankan human rights defender Ruki Fernando

( March 22, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The 21st March 2015 will mark one year since a court order restricting the freedom of expression on leading Sri Lankan human rights defender and writer, Ruki Fernando was obtained by the Terrorist Investigation Department (TID). Such restriction on freedom of expression of a prolific writer and commentator on human rights issues such as Ruki, is unprecedented in recent Sri Lankan history.

Sri Lanka Dark Side of PTA by Thavam Ratna

Constitutional conspiracies & the 19th Amendment 

March 21, 2015, 8:02 pm

The proposed 19th Amendment to the constitution is a far cry from what the public was made to expect in terms of constitutional reform before the presidential election. Before the election, what we saw was an opposition platform that fulminated against the executive presidential system and promised its abolition. At his first appearance at Sirikotha, the common opposition candidate Maithripala Sirisena in order to highlight how he will dismantle the presidential system said that even after becoming president, he will continue to address Ranil Wickremesinghe as ‘Sir’ and that he will never step into any of the presidential residences in Colombo or the outstations. The entire election was fought on the premise that if Maithripala becomes president, all executive power will be transferred to the prime minister and the president will become a ceremonial president. In fact UPFA speakers at that time were asking derisively from the stage, if Maithripala was contesting for the position of president only to transfer all his powers to someone else, what is the point in voting for him? There is no doubt about the fact that when people voted for Maithripala, given the rhetoric they heard from the stage, everybody actually expected power to be transferred from the president to the prime minister (and the cabinet).

 But 19A does not reflect that expectation. In fact it seeks to retain the executive presidential system virtually untouched. The constitutional amendment seeks to ‘repeal’ the existing Article 30 of the constitution which deals with the presidency and replace it with another Article. The repeal of an entire article and substitution of another in its place would give one the impression that sweeping changes would be made in that Article. The existing Article 30 of the constitution says that ‘There shall be a President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, who is the Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and of the Government and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces’ and that ‘The President of the Republic shall be elected by the People and shall hold office for a term of six years.’ As such this is the Article in the constitution which establishes the basic contours of the presidency. Believe it or not, in the proposed 19th Amendment, this vital article remains completely unchanged except in substituting the word ‘five’ instead of the present ‘six’ with regard to the number of years a president will hold office! Even after the amendment is passed the president will continue to have full executive powers and be not just the head of state but the head of the executive and of the government as well.

 The same kind of perfidy has been practiced with regard to the repeal of Article 33 which deals with the powers of the president. The 19th Amendment seeks to ‘repeal’ the exiting Article 33 but what have they replaced it with? As in the previous instance, they have included a few NGO type words about the president being responsible for ‘religious and ethnic harmony’ and ‘national reconciliation and integration’ and then they go on to adopt word for word everything that the existing Article 33 has in terms of presidential powers! So nothing has basically changed except the cosmetic addition of Article 33A which seeks to make the president ‘responsible to parliament’ in the exercise of his functions.

This Article 33 A is a sham because even under the present provisions of the constitution, the president is in fact responsible to parliament. Article 42 of the present constitution goes as follows: "The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law, including the law for the time being relating to public security." So this Article 33A in 19A is only designed to hoodwink the public by giving people the impression that it seeks to make the president responsible to parliament. The fact is that the president always was responsible to parliament from the day that the 1978 constitution was promulgated.

 So if 19A is touted as a case of reducing the powers of the executive president, it’s a completely dishonest scam. As far as presidential powers go, virtually nothing has been changed except the reintroduction of the so called independent commissions which would restrict some of the president’s powers in making appointments to important positions. This leaves the executive presidency as it was in 2005 when Mahinda was first elected president. 19A also seeks to reintroduce the two term limit that existed before the passage of 18A in 2010.

 While retaining the powers of the executive president virtually intact, 19A also seeks to bring about a situation of dual control with the prime minister being given certain powers that he does not have at present. While the president would be the head of the executive, the 19th Amendment makes the prime minister the head of the cabinet and it will be the PM not the president who will appoint the cabinet and assign subjects to them. It is obviously because such powers are assigned to the prime minister that the UNP agreed to 19A even under protest probably on the understanding that something is better than nothing. The power of the president to dissolve parliament after one year has been taken away and he is unable to dissolve parliament before the expiration of at least four and a half years of its term.

 But when you designate the president as the head of the executive and the prime minister as the head of the cabinet, that creates an overlap of designations. What really is the ‘executive’ other than the cabinet? Designating one as the head of the executive and another as the head of the cabinet, will lead to endless turf wars between the president and the prime minister.

 Even though the position of prime minister has in fact been imbued with certain constitutional powers under 19A, the reason why even the person who drafted it - Dr Jayampathy Wickremeratne - is unhappy with the end product is clear. Addressing a seminar last week at the OPA auditorium, Dr Wickremeratne said that according to the 19A, executive power still remains with the president. He said that the crux of the matter is that even under the 19th Amendment, the president still remains the head of the government which should have shifted to the prime minister. He said that this idea that is being propagated that what was promised was only the removal of certain ‘arbitrary powers’ of the presidency was a canard and that the word arbitrary was an adjective used to describe the whole presidential system and not to identify the powers that should be removed.

Reading out the relevant passages in Maithripala’s election manifesto, he said that the whole arbitrary presidential system was to be scrapped and that that this was the idea that was conveyed to the public on the election platform. He called on those now opposing the abolition of executive powers, not to destroy Maithripala Sirisena as it is he who will be blamed for the continuation of the executive presidential system. Speaking at the same occasion, Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri said that Champika Ranawaka was playing a major role in blocking the abolition of the executive presidency and that he is working with the long term plan of becoming president himself. Devasiri said further that if Champika becomes president he will become a dictator worse than Rajapaksa.

Waiting for the next demon…

SUNDAY, 22 MARCH 2015

Speaking to a weekend newspaper the Member of the committee to draft the 19th amendment to the Constitution President’s Counsel Jayampathy Wickremeratna has said abolishing powers of executive presidency and making changes to the electoral system are not bound to each other. He said carrying out both moves together would be ideal but would not be possible, it was not necessary to wait for both to be implemented at once and postponing one until the other is ready would bring in a disastrous situation to the country.

He further states, ‘Already, many have forgotten how monstrous executive presidency was, how the CID was behind many of them, the ‘white van’ culture was pursuing the masses, how the telephones were tapped and the media was suppressed. Certain quarters are obstructing the move to adopt the 19th amendment as nothing of such vile moves is being carried out at present.

Mr. Wickremeratna emphasized that Sri Lanka would never receive a conducive opportunity that she has got at present to move her along the democratic path and warned evading such a golden opportunity would bring another demon.

Mr. Wickremeratna says the election manifesto put out by President Maithripala Sirisena as the Common Candidate states abolishing executive powers of the President and changes to the electoral system as two different items and added that they need not be changed at once though it would be ideal if it could be done so.

He states postponing reducing powers of the executive on the pretext of taking time to get views of political parties would be disastrous to the country. For, it would never happen if this golden opportunity is evaded warned the President’s Counsel.

The tale of two’yahapalanaya’ speeches

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Democracy is messy. Fundamentally, the business of democratic government involves criticism of politicians, rightly stinging sometimes and less deservedly so on other occasions. The shoulders of government are broad enough to take even unjustified public rebuke, far more than when the rights of a private citizen are infringed.

This is the rationale on which the law operates when balancing the right to freedom of speech with competing rights. Undeniably moreover, the manner in which a government stands up to criticism is the true measure of its commitment to just governance.

Future trends of the ‘yahapalanaya’ government?
This week, two speeches were delivered respectively by President Maithripala Sirisena (to members of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance) and by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (in Parliament). One was addressed to recalcitrant party members alleged to be rebelling against President Sirisena and pulling for his defeated predecessor, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The other was a parliamentary address by the Prime Minister aimed at the opposition critical of the infamous Central Bank bond issue.

What was said on both occasions merit attention as the wider audience was the general Sri Lankan public. The tone and tenor of the speeches, with some commonalities but more divergences, indicate warnings as well as future trends of the ‘yahapalanaya’ government.

First, let us go to the common positives. Both speakers emphasized home truths, pointing out that credit must be given for enabling dissent and criticism without fear of consequences. That said, this obvious fact need not be unduly repeated. This was precisely the reason why the Rajapaksa regime was rejected by an electorate tired of gross corruption, rampant communalism and delusions of grandeur. Measuring itself by the standard of Rajapaksa evils and patting itself on the back therein is self-delusionary. This is not why a new government was voted in.

‘Crabs dancing in a boiling pot of water’
From that point onwards however, the divergence between the two speeches is marked. The President’s speech, undoubtedly one of his most forceful to date post-election, was measured and stern, yet with a hint of poignancy to it. Unfortunately it was caught by viewers on state television mostly by chance with the private print and electronic media giving it sparing attention.

At one level, its tone was personal as President Sirisena remarked that he regards criticisms in the most benign light much as, one would venture to say, a parent reacts to quarrelsome children. He reiterated that he had taken certain decisions last year in full knowledge of the consequences that may ensue and forsaking positions and privilege. On a deeper and more intense level, what was said also projected a warning, for the health of the party, the people and the country.

Party men and women squirmed in their seats as he resorted to the earthy idiom that ‘despite what we say or do, at the end of the day we are all like crabs dancing in a boiling pot of water.’ His audience was asked to distance itself from political slogans that are primitive and counter-productive and instead remember that the country cannot advance without its people moving forward like one, Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim and others. As he said, the founder of the party, the late SWRD Bandaranaike had been well aware of this need to preserve balance and had taken care to observe this principle in the nomination of his deputies.

Defensiveness on the part of government
In contrast however, the Prime Minister’s speech on the Central Bank bond issue in Parliament was distinctly angrier in tone. His interjection that he has been abused enough and that his abusers are free to continue without hindrance evokes some sympathy.

But the front and centre focus by the Prime Minister on selected private electronic and print media institutions perceived to be critical of him is unsettling. His reminder that a Broadcasting Authority must be enacted is well and good. Yet the vital issue here is that such a body must be independent from government as the Supreme Court once strongly cautioned in better times, (Athukorale and others v. AG and others, 1997).

Politically, that such defensiveness should be exhibited just a short while after winning a stunning electoral mandate in January is ironic. Perhaps we may recall what befell the Chandrika Kumaratunga administration after its equally spectacular 1994 win when, unable to withstand critical democratic pressure after the flush of victory faded, the leadership commenced targeting the media and the judiciary by repeatedly filing criminal defamation indictments against editors and by ministers using privilege to slander highly honourable judges such as the late Supreme Court Justice Mark Fernando in Parliament.

Further, the Prime Minister thought it fit to indulge in a long litany of Rajapaksa malpractices. The Rajapaksa government abused every conceivable law and stood parliamentary procedure on its head not only in regard to finance but also in relation to every aspect of governance. As said before, this was why, among other reasons, the former President was defeated. Consequently the people look to the new government to properly operate the law against those responsible rather than continue complaining about the past or rush to ‘name and shame’ individuals under cover of parliamentary privilege when challenged on a serious issue of apparent breach of integrity if not the law, committed by their appointees to high finance.

Need for commendable restraint
True enough, one cringes at the sight of former Presidential first son Namal Rajapaksa demonstrating with vim and vigour outside the Central Bank as much as the sight of erstwhile professor of law, GP Peiris drily expounding on constitutionalism from the ranks of the opposition remains exceedingly distasteful. These are, of course, political games played also by others desperate for a place in the ‘yahapalanaya’ sun. But that should not detract from the fact that the people demand a higher standard of care from this government.

For all its talk of a national government, there is a measure of commendable restraint that the Wickremesinghe government can learn from the Sirisena Presidency. Perhaps we may see this at least now, in the remaining few days of this administration.

Resetting Indo-Lanka Relationsax

Undoing the wonton damage of the Rajapaksa period

NASA photo of Adam’s Bridge (An umbilical cord?)
Passable by foot at low tide till historical times

by Kumar David-March 21, 2015, 7:02 pm 

Indo-Lanka relations were in the doldrums all through the MR years; they have never been worse, not even during the JR period. The factor that bedevilled the relationship in both periods was the Tamil question; furthermore one other issue each gave rise to disquiet during each of these two ‘regencies’. During the first term of JR’s presidency, Lanka’s foreign policy swung alarmingly in a pro-US direction at a time when Indira Gandhi’s Delhi was aligned with Moscow. More recently, MR light-fingered with Chinese project funds, treated Lanka as a grotto of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves legerdemain. The former story is well known; the foreign policy implication of the latter is central to this essay. But I will devote a few paragraphs to a relevant background summary first.

Resetting Indo-Lanka Relationsax by Thavam Ratna

From bomb disaster to bond disaster: How to restore the lost reputation of the Central Bank

The Central Bank was left severely damaged after being struck by the deadly terrorist bombing of 1996

March 23, 2015 

Central Bank being hit by two disasters
In a recent conversation, a top central bank officer mentioned to this writer, partly in jest and partly with seriousness, that the Central Bank had to face two disasters in the recent past. One was the ‘bomb explosion’ in front of the Central Bank building in early 1996. The other was the ‘bond explosion’ within the Central Bank building in early 2015.
The bomb explosion had brought the bank’s operations to a complete halt, posing a serious threat to its reputation. The bond explosion had damaged the bank in the reverse order: first it had dented the bank’s reputation and then made it legally non-functional by converting it into a headless institution. This is because the law does not provide for an acting arrangement for the Governor when he is in Sri Lanka. As such, the forced leave of Governor’s absence is not recognised by law and all decisions made in the bank without him being present are subject to be challenged in courts of law.

From Bomb Disaster to Bond Disaster How to Restore the Lost Reputation of the Central Bank by Thavam Ratna

Sri Lanka probes ex-envoy over alleged Ukraine arms deals

By AFP- 22 March 2015

Sri Lanka is investigating its former ambassador to Russia following a media report that he helped arm pro-Moscow separatists in Ukraine, the foreign minister said Sunday.

The Colombo-based Sunday Times said the Ukraine government has lodged a formal complaint with Colombo detailing former ambassador Udayanga Weeratunga’s alleged arms dealings with the rebels.

"We will conduct a full investigation into this matter," Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera told the newspaper.

Pro-Russian militants test fire their weapons in an open field in the eastern Ukrainian town of Ilovaisk ©Menahem Kahana (AFP/File)

Samaraweera confirmed his comments in a text message to AFP but did not give details. The government recalled Weeratunga soon after President Maithripala Sirisena came to power in January elections.

Weeratunga, a close relative of defeated former long-time president Mahinda Rajapakse, operated a restaurant in the Ukrainian capital Kiev before he was appointed Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Moscow nine years ago, the paper added.

Weeratunga has not spoken about the allegations and could not be contacted on Sunday for comment.

The Sunday Times did not give details of Weeratunga’s alleged involvement in weapons sales.

A shaky truce is in force in the conflict in Ukraine’s rebel-held east which has claimed more than 6,000 lives in 11 months.

Kiev and the West accuse Russian President Vladimir Putin of supporting the insurgency with troops, tanks and heavy weapons — accusations he denies.

Sri Lanka's ambassador to Moscow Udayanga Weeratunga (2ndL) meets Russian President Vladimir Putin (2nR) at the Kremlin in Moscow in 2006 ©Denis Sinyakov (AFP/File)

Sirisena, Mahinda, Or Puran Appu?

By Jagath Asoka -March 22, 2015

Dr. Jagath Asoka

Who is worthy of admiration and accolades, soft-spoken Sirisena or iron-pumping Percy Mahinda? It seems like that most of us have a distorted notion of heroes; for example, recently, someone compared Palitha Kohonato Puran Appu. Is Palitha the latest incarnation of Puran Appu? If he is, from now on, he should be known as Palitha Puran Appu. The Puran Appus that I revere are buried, not basking in braggadocio of some bootlicking braggarts. Of course, the stories of heroes are worth writing about, because a hero or heroine is a person who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself, or who has found or done something beyond the ordinary range of achievement. A hero’s sphere of action is here and now. There are two kinds of heroic deeds: physical or spiritual. Had it consciously undertaken, everyone would be considered as a hero because everyone has to undergo a tremendous physical and psychological transformation when one enters this world from the condition of being a little water-creature to air-breathing mammal. What action has Sirisena or Mahinda taken consciously in order for you to think of them as heroes?

I know that nature is very aristocratic because one person of value outweighs a thousand lesser ones. Who is the carrier of culture, politics, virtue, or the blackest villainies, individual or the inert mass? If joys of personality are the highest bliss on earth, who is your hero, the Iron-pumping Percy or the Soft-spoken Sirisena?

Even our pseudo political pundits bragged openly with gusto that Sri Lanka should be governed by a tough guy, a macho guy, someone who pumps iron, and a braggart: Percy Mahinda.

Instead, a mild mannered, soft-spoken, yet firm and confident, visionary emerged and won, leaving iron-pumping Percy and his pompous pundits totally disillusioned, still trying to figure out what really went wrong. How can we explain this totally unexpected result? In a nutshell, here is what we know about Sirisena and Mahinda.

Sirisena was willing to sacrifice not only his own life but the lives of his wife and children because he made it his life’s goal to challenge Percy Mahinda, because Sirisena firmly believed that Mahinda was a dictator-thug who ruined our country, committed and abetted crimes with impunity, and squandered our national wealth. Sirisena modelled himself on the examples of real heroes because he showed that virtue was better revealed in heroic actions than in empty words. He used his modest lifestyle and exemplary behavior to criticize not only Percy’s distorted vision and belligerent braggadocio but also the corrupt masses of our confused, bigoted nation. Sirisena’s message was very simple: Mahinda, you cannot bully me anymore! The truth is, had Sirisena lost, Mahinda would have impaled, crucified, and buried Sirisena alive, while celebrating Sirisena’s demise having kiribath over his grave. Where Mahinda would have found abomination and enmity, Sirisena found amity and equanimity. Mahinda is the living poster child for the anti-Tamil and Muslim movement in Sri Lanka, who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices and use divisive rhetoric rather than by using rational argument and promoting harmonious existence.

Why are we interested in Sirisena? We are social animals, and most of us are content to live in accordance with the social conventions of our time. But Sirisena is one of those exceptional individuals whose own nature compelled him to reject conventional ways and discover his own path, a dangerous path indeed, like the edge of a razor which he had to cross with his bare hands and feet. This path had only two outcomes: to die or to serve. The end of the real hero’s path is not aggrandizement or ecstasy for oneself, but gaining the wisdom and power to serve others. Instead of controlling and overcoming his irrational savage within him, Percy Mahinda nourished his carnivorous, lecherous, and vindictive desires and ended up being a neurotic: a journey from narcissism to neuroticism. On the other hand, Sirisena gave up his job which would have protected him and had the nerve to face Mahinda courageously and decently—not in the way of personal rancor and revenge—and brought a whole new era of possibilities for Sri Lankans. One of the many distinctions between Mahinda and Sirisena is that Mahinda lives only for aggrandizement and ecstasy, while Sirisena acts to redeem and transform our morally corrupt and beleaguered nation. Sri Lanka seemed like a wasteland under Mahinda: a land where people were living morally corrupt lives, without courage. In a wasteland, outward appearances do not represent actuality. Just as the influence of a corrupt leader corrupts the entire nation, the influence of a vital person vitalizes, and there is no doubt about it. Sirisena epitomizes what Sri Lankans are craving for: authentic leaders, not divisive demagogues and bigots. As one of my colleagues put it, “the latest incarnations of the Three Stooges—Buruwansa, Gonmanpila, and Pissudeva—are roaming all over the island trying to resurrect the castrated-pseudo-Castro of Sri Lanka. These Three Stooges are the pawns of Machiavellian Mahinda. Recently, Mangala Samaraweera said, “We have located a few billion already but it’s not as easy to get to those through an internal mechanism.” This is the quintessential problem in Sri Lanka: a teenage girl was taken to police custody for stealing a few coconuts in order to pay for her school whereas Percy Mahinda and his family keep mocking the new government: “Catch us if you Can.” I would say to Mangala Samaraweera, if you cannot take any action, just shut up. People are getting tired of empty rhetoric. Forget about locating billions, just find some coconuts stolen by them and then prosecute them.

By the way, Puran Appu was captured by the British after the failure of Matale Rebellion and was executed by a firing squad on 08 August 1848. Here are the last words of Puran Appu: “if there had been just half a dozen of men like me to lead this nation, there would not be a single white man living in the Kandyan Province.”

I wonder what would have happened to Sri Lanka if there had been another man like Sirisena. We all know that people like Mahinda are a dime a dozen in Sri Lanka.

Most people judge others by their outward appearances, but only our actions reveal our true inner nature and strength. Be careful, the one who looks meek and weak can be mighty and magnificent!