Ravi Karunanayake stepped down as FM Making a special statement in Parliament, Foreign Affairs Minister Ravi Karunanayake resigned from his ministerial position a short while ago. Ravi Karunanayake stepped down as FM Making a special statement in Parliament, Foreign Affairs Minister Ravi Karunanayake resigned from his ministerial position a short while ago.
Former Law and Order Minister Tilak Marapana who resigned from his ministerial portfolio amidst calls to step down over the controversy surrounding the Avant Garde issue some months back will be sworn in as Foreign Minister. Marapana defended the Avant Garde security firm brushing aside allegations that there is anything illegal about the firm’s activities. Marapana who has had a poor record as a Minister. He is a man who messed up the Defense Ministry and the Transport Ministry 2001-2004. UNP Ministers are unhappy that Marapana who has done nothing for the party and tainted with scandals is being appointed the Foreign Minister.
Declares his innocence, says decision to step down taken to protect party and Govt.
Will continue to serve the public and UNP, conspiracy to destabilise Govt.
Roasts previous regime for “swollen heads” and failing to investigate crimes
Insists no allegations against him, blames media, says Jesus and Buddha were also wrongfully accused
Hopes AG has same focus on 87 files on corruption as bond investigations
Proud to step down, says history will judge his “sacrifice”
By Ashwin Hemmathagama – Our Lobby Correspondent- Friday, 11 August 2017
Delivering a climactic twist to the controversial bond saga, former Foreign Affairs Minister Ravi Karunanayake yesterday tendered his resignation in a hard-hitting parliamentary statement and sat with party backbenchers after insisting he was proud to be part of a Government which has delivered good governance.
Addressing the House yesterday on a personal privilege issue, Minister Karunanayake stated that despite his innocence, he was compelled to take the bold decision to step down from his ministerial post to protect the Yahapalana Government, the United National Party (UNP) and the country.
“We will not let these power-hungry elements attack the United National Party. We will not let these power-hungry elements dismantle the Yahapalana Government. We cannot let them make use of the allegations against me to attack my party, my Government and our work for democracy. Therefore, I decided to resign from my post, setting an example. History will decide my place,” said Karunanayake.Karunanayake met with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe over the weekend and again on Tuesday before meeting with both the Prime Minister and President Maithripala Sirisena on Wednesday.
“During my career, I never earned anything through illegal means. I only lost my money because of politics. I didn’t earn from politics but spent my private money,” he told Parliament.
Karunanayake charged that individuals who had even the slightest connection to a Minister were not summoned before a commission previously. He alleged that key ministers and the President acted with “swollen heads” in the previous administration.
However, he said he would respect the law and bow before it. Karunanayake pointed out that the task of the presidential commission was to investigate the alleged bond scam but instead it had made “renting a house” the talk of the town. Nonetheless, he expressed confidence the commission would complete its task competently and assured he would continue to keep a close eye on the proceedings.
“We hope the Attorney General’s department will show the same efficiency with regard to the 87 files submitted to the department by the Financial Crimes Investigations Division against the members of the former government.”
Karunanayake dwelt extensively on his services to the party and efforts to win the presidential and parliamentary elections in 2015 for his party and ‘yahapalanaya’.
Karunanayake also went on to say he was unfairly targeted through the baseless allegations directed at him and the media acting as judge and jury. He also recalled that even though there had been previous allegations against him nothing had ever been proved.
“The media in this country acted in a unique manner during the last 10-12 days. It is their opinion that I should be led to the cross and crucified. I will not be afraid of this. Jesus Christ was accused wrongly. The Buddha was accused wrongly. According to the eight worldly conditions in Buddhism everyone will have to face challenges and situations similar to this.
Karunanayake remained defiant even when announcing his resignation, emphasising the fact that he was proud to step down as it was a symbol of the new political change achieved by this Government. He stressed that he would continue to serve his “people, party and country” and “stand for the truth.”
“I will continue my struggle to eliminate crime and corruption from my country. I will remain dedicated to the causes of the 8 January revolution. I did not take the decision to resign with regret. I am proud to set this example.
“I sacrificed my position for the honour of this august assembly. I sacrifice my post for the benefit of our party and all those who love this party. I sacrifice this post for the benefit of all those people in my electorate. I sacrifice this post for the benefit of the new political culture we introduced. I sacrifice this post for the democracy of this country. I sacrifice this post for the continuance of our Government. Therefore, I am proud of my decision.”
PM hails RK move
Says no similar example in Sri Lanka’s political history
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the resignation of Minister Ravi Karunanayake was a significant move which would help to create a new political culture in the country.
Commending Karunanayake for his selfless move, the Prime Minister said: “The Assistant Leader of my party told me that he needed to resign from the ministerial portfolio. I told him to make that decision after discussing it with the President.
He met with the President on Wednesday. Later he went to meet the President with me and Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne and handed over his resignation.”
According to the Prime Minister, the resignation indicates that the Government will not interfere with the probe conducted by the presidential commission investigating the bond issue.
“There is no similar example in political history. This is an unprecedented instance. The incumbent Government has realised its good governance goals. When in this country has a minister been summoned before a commission? When has a Minister resigned to making a speech or two? We are introducing a new political culture. If anyone in the UNP is accused of stealing we will remove him or her. We will not harbour thieves,” added the PM.
“I did not accuse anybody. I just explained the party’s position on thieves. Why are you shouting? You are reacting just because you are upset? The reaction indicates there are thieves. You have sand thieves there. You have sil-redi thieves there. You have drug dealers there. There are tsunami thieves, carom board thieves and cement thieves. That is why they got so upset. You were unable to investigate any theft for 10 years. You killed Lasantha Wickrematunge, you abducted and killed Eknaligoda.
“Minister Karunanayake did not go before the Supreme Court to obtain a stay order to avoid the commission. He went before the commission, made his statement, came here and resigned to take a back seat. We saw what happened to Priyasath Dep under the previous government. When Dep was acting independently he was transferred to the Supreme Court to prevent him becoming the Attorney General. But Dep was lucky and became Chief justice. Today the media has freedom. I remember there was a time when the media called us traitors. They even called for my resignation. Today everyone is called a thief. The person who writes that we are thieves is also a thief. Today the media has the freedom to write anything,” said the Prime Minister. (AH)
Who is the next FM?
Speculation was rife over the next possible Foreign Minister after the resignation of Ravi Karunanayake with political circles narrowing on four possible shortlists.
One is the current Minister of Development Assignments Tilak Marapana but it was alleged that two powerful Ministers have opposed this move since Marapana had to resign as Minister of Law and Order and Prison Reforms in 2015 over the Avant Garde case.
Another candidate is Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera being asked to revert to his former portfolio.
The third name is Plantation Industries Minister Navin Dissnayake whilst some also pointed to Ports and Shipping Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe.
The final decision on the new Foreign Minister will be announced following consensus between President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.
Analysts said the new appointment likely to be temporary with indications that Karunanayake, will make a comeback after the conclusion of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry on the Treasury Bond scam.
(Lanka-e-News - 10.Aug.2017, 6.45PM) Following the appointment of Maithripala Sirisena as the president of the country , a special presidential commission was appointed to investigate the massive frauds and corruption that raged during the nefarious decade of Rajapakses, and that Commission received 400 complaints. Investigations into 19 complaints have been completed ,and out of those , reports on five investigations have been forwarded to president, and 14 more are to be handed over.
“As good customs have need of laws for maintaining themselves, so the laws, to be observed, have need of good customs. In addition to this, the institutions and laws made in a Republic at its origin when men were good, are not afterward more suitable, when they [men] have become evil. And if laws vary according to circumstances and events in a City, its institutions rarely or never vary: which results in the fact that new laws are not enough, for the institutions that remain firm will corrupt it.” ~ Nicolo Machiavelli
This compilation is to explore and focus attention on the issues of political forthrightness and the fight against corruption as essential components of the process of strengthening democratic institutions. It aims at contributing a set of initial contemplations on crucial topics related to political integrity, such as the blueprint of conflicts of interest, the role of the press in monitoring the abuse of political office and, most of all, the control of the role of money in democratic elections. All these issues are built-in in democratic governance. As such, this compilation is both an attempt to identify some good and bad international practices to deal with these issues; a discussion that is domestic as much as it is international.
There is a justifiable desire to ascertain political corruption. The discussion is not about what corruption is, so much as about how one can arrive at a standard formula for analyzing the naturally flawless condition from which corrupt politicians veer. Political corruption echoes the political system in which it is based. As such, the different natures of the political ideology would modify the forms and range that political corruption takes. Thus, political corruption in a democratic body politic might take a very different form to that in a non-democracy.
The perspective on politics from which the interpretation of corruption gives birth will play a major role in defining the political corruption.
Definitions of political corruption within restrictive boundaries fail to take into account everlasting factors, most importantly those dealing with standards of observable factors. Thus, without knowing what norms or standards of politics one should accept, it is not possible to solve problems in defining and analyzing political corruption. Another path uses the concept of ‘public interest’ to illustrate the crux of corruption.
While this definition focuses our attention on any act or set of acts that threaten to destroy a political system, one should determine what the public or common interest is before assessing whether a particular act is corrupt. Furthermore, this definition enables a person to justify almost any act by claiming that it is in the public interest. Then, if we agree that political corruption is what the public in any given society perceives as violations of the common interest, we will face even more difficulties with such an approach for two reasons. First, public opinion cannot be freely expressed on any given issue and it is debatable to use a term ‘common interest’. Moreover, studies of public opinion have depicted that in many cases public opinion about ‘common interest’ is either inconclusive or divided. Second, the reliance on a ‘common interest’ makes any equivalent analysis very difficult, since the definition of common interest would be culture-specific. What is corrupt in one country may not be corrupt in another. This leads to situations in which similar acts can be defined as infringements or not according to where they take place.
Another group of academics have developed market-centered definitions, primarily related to demand, supply, and exchange concepts derived from, in his article ‘The Concept of Corruption’, states that economic in theory, political corruption is viewed as a particular model of agency relationship. Jacob Van Klaveren states:-
“A corrupt government official regards his public office as a business, the income of which he will, seek to maximize. The size of his income then does not depend on an ethical evaluation of his usefulness for the common good but precisely upon the market situation finding the point of maximal gain”
Each government servant determines the reward for his services in every case, according to the well-known principle of the railways’ rate policy, “charge what the traffic can bear.” The civil servant will regard his public office as a business particularly if he does not obtain a salary or obtains symbolic payment.
The market-centered approach, when compared to other approaches, to a greater extent emphasizes the mechanics of political corruption and circumstances under which it becomes possible. Moreover, the market-centered approach might be too simplistic to capture all aspects of the corruption phenomenon. Neither the politicians’ decisions nor the corrupt bureaucrats can be treated as private entrepreneurs and thus the simplistic application of market analysis is not sufficient. To make progress, one must combine an economist’s concern of modeling self-interested behavior with a political scientist’s recognition that political and bureaucratic institutions provide incentive structures far different from those presupposed by the competitive market paradigm.
As illustrated above, multiple definitions of political corruption introduced by diverse groups of academics have been proposed. However, the complexity of the phenomenon and questions about how and why it occurs makes it difficult to find a single general, satisfactory definition. The number of different types of political corruption makes this challenging
Two suspects including Captain Tissa Wimalasena, the driver and security officer of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa arrested for allegedly operating an illegal quarry on a government owned land in the Koratota area causing a loss of Rs.29 million to the government were today ordered to be further remanded till August 24 by the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court.
Two suspects Tissa Wimalasena and Lal Priyantha Peiris, a former member of Puttalam Pradeshiya Sabha, were arrested by FCID under the provisions of the Public Property Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The suspects were charged with having operated a rock quarry, situated at the Land Reclamation Commission, claiming that it belonged to the Maga Neguma project.
Additional Magistrate Chanima Wijebandara had earlier refused to grant bail on the suspects citing that there are no exceptional circumstances to release them on bail.
The FCID is conducting further investigations into the incident.
Hambantota has been the cynosure of all big powers, ever since the West woke up to the reality of a rising China a decade and a half ago. China’s rise as a maritime power has unnerved the United States and India.
by Ameen Izzadeen-
( August 10, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Hambantota port has seen a sea a criticism ever since the then Mahinda Rajapaksa government laid the foundation for it in 2010. In comparison, any opposition to last Saturday’s agreement between the Sri Lanka government and China Merchants Port Holdings seems like a drizzle in the middle of an ocean.
Given the international attention the port deal has been receiving, one cannot rule out the possibility of a foreign hand behind the protests. The danger of Sri Lanka becoming an unwitting victim of international power rivalries is apparent.
Caveats apart, last Saturday’s deal was the best of the worst options before the Government to overcome the debt crisis – a legacy it had inherited from the Rajapaksa regime.
The deal was a welcome relief in adverse circumstances – an “any port in a storm” situation.
The port deal is a gamble that is worth the risk. The final outcome and the benefits could far outweigh negative consequences the protesters and pessimists portray. They fear, rightly or otherwise, that Sri Lanka may be dragged into a regional or even global conflict.
To say that the Hambantota port has become the fulcrum of the Indian Ocean security debate is an understatement.
Situated at the southern tip of Sri Lanka, the harbour is a vantage point. The sea southward from Hambantota extends, without being claimed by any country, all the way to Antarctica. Whoever controls Hambantota, therefore, will control a large part of the southern hemisphere and the Indian Ocean, through which transit more than 80 percent of the world’s seaborne trade in oil.
Hambantota has been the cynosure of all big powers, ever since the West woke up to the reality of a rising China a decade and a half ago. China’s rise as a maritime power has unnerved the United States and India. They see China’s Road-and-Belt Initiative is not only about trade but also about a strategy aimed at enhancing its military power and undermining the traditional security role of the US and India in the Indian Ocean region.
Critics say most ports China builds across the world are dual purpose facilities, meaning they can be used for commercial and military activities. Hambantota, a key port in China’s Road-and-Belt initiative, is one such facility, they say. To support their argument, they point to the 2014 visit of a Chinese submarine and a warship to the Chinese built terminal at the Colombo port. In case of a war between China and the US or between India and China, Sri Lanka’s Chinese controlled ports could become China’s naval bases, they say.
Have no such fears. With certainty, it can be said that nuclear powers will not go to war. Take heart from Wednesday’s US statement offering peace talks with North Korea. It came days after the maverick regime carried out a successful test of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of hitting the US mainland.
The deterrent value of nuclear weapons is one of the key factors why the Third World War has still not happened. For nearly two months, China and India have been bogged down in a face-off in the Himalayas. But neither wants to start a major war. Nuclear powers may find themselves in warlike situations, but will not go to war, unless insane leaders take control of affairs. This is why China and the US have not gone to war over the South China Sea disputes.
With war between ‘responsible’ nuclear powers being only a distant possibility, fears about Hambantota port being used as a naval base against Sri Lanka’s will, despite security-related provisions in the agreement, have little validity. However, the possibility of the installation being used as listening post cannot be ruled out.
Security is a crucial aspect in port deals with foreign companies. In 2006, the United States stopped a move to hand over the management of six key ports to Dubai Ports World which won the tender. This was after protests from those who harboured fears that terrorists could easily infiltrate into the US if its ports were managed by Arabs.
In view of these concerns, the best approach is to bring in more safeguards into the agreement with regard to security matters and remain friends with all big powers. Sri Lanka can take lessons from Greece, Turkey, Australia and Djibouti. Nato member Greece, in a debt crisis much worse than that of Sri Lanka, has sold its Piraeus port to China and allows People Liberation Army vessels to call over. Piraeus is one of Europe’s largest ports.
Turkey, another Nato member, has entered into a joint venture with two Chinese port companies, one of them being China Merchants Port Holdings, to develop container terminals in two strategic ports.
In Australia, another key US ally, the regional government in Northern Territory, has handed over a commercial port in Darwin to a Chinese company on a 99-year lease. The US, which has a military base in Darwin, raised security concerns, but the regional government stood by its decision despite Canberra’s reservations.
Djibouti, on the other hand, has gone to another extreme. It makes the most of its strategic value on Africa’s Indian Ocean coast by allowing any big power to set up bases. It sells its strategic value to strengthen its economy. The US, France, China and now Saudi Arabia have a military presence in this small Horn-of-Africa nation.
In Pakistan, China has gained the controlling stakes in the strategic port of Gwadar, which is, like Hambantota, a key link in China’s One-Belt-One-Road Initiative, though it has made India feel insecure. Indian analysts have described China’s presence in ports in countries around India as a “string of pearls’ that undermines India’s dominance in the South Asian part of the Indian Ocean.
If security issues can be handled diligently, Hambantota can even emerge as another Shanghai. A sluggish fishing port city until the Western colonial powers, including Britain, wrested it from China after the First Opium War in 1842, Shanghai soon emerged as a port city and the place to be – the Paris of the East, with the best art, the greatest architecture, and the strongest business in Asia, not to mention its elegant restaurants, race course, and places for vice and indulgence. Industries boomed, financial institutions flourished and the people prospered. The city’s economy survived the World War and the Communist-era hardships. When China began to open up in the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping, the father of China’s socialist-led market economy, made Shanghai the engine of the country’s commercial renaissance. If China is a dragon, he said, Shanghai is its head. Today Shanghai makes up one fifth of China’s GDP.
Perhaps, Hambantota can be a Shanghai in the near future. But Sri Lanka has to be eternally vigilant, especially in view of security concerns and criticism that in the Road-and-Belt initiative, there are benefits for China and only crumbs for others.
(This article first appeared in the Daily Mirror, Sri Lanka)
To support this case, please click here: SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear ________, SRI LANKA: Innocent young man extra-judicially killed by Special Task Force Name of Victim: Mr. Sathasivam Madisam of Karadiyanaru in the Batticaloa District. Alleged perpetrators: Officers attached to the STF Camp of Maduru Oya Date of incident: 24 July 2017 Place of incident: Karadiyanaru Police Division
According to the information I have received, Mr. Mr. Sathasivam Madisam of Karadiyanaru in the Batticaloa District. On 24 July, Sathasivam along with his brother and several other friends went to the Mundeniyaru Lagoon to swim. While they were in the water, they observed large numbers of STF officers with weapons approaching the area. All the boys were frightened. The officers then started shooting into the air. The boys ran away as fast as they could. Sathasivam and his brother ran along the bank of the lagoon and both fell into the water. Though several boys tried to rescue Sathasivam, the officers prevented them.
Several minutes later, the bodies of Sathasivam and his brother started floating on top of the water. The officers took both victims to the Chenkaladi Government Hospital. Sathasivam was pronounced dead on arrival. His brother, in a life-threatening situation, was admitted to the hospital for treatment, on an emergency basis.
I therefore request your intervention to ensure that an immediate investigation is undertaken into the death of Sathasivam Madisam Karadiyanaru. The officers involved must also be subjected to an internal investigation for breach of Departmental Orders.
Yours Sincerely, --------------------- PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Mr. Pujith Jayasundara Inspector General of Police New Secretariat Colombo 1 SRI LANKA Fax: +94 11 2 440440 / 327877 E-mail: igp@police.lk
2. Mr. Jayantha Jayasooriya PC Attorney General Attorney General's Department Colombo 12 SRI LANKA Fax: +94 11 2 436421 E-mail: ag@attorneygeneral.gov.lk
3. Mr. N. Ariyadasa Cooray Secretary National Police Commission 3rd Floor, Rotunda Towers 109 Galle Road Colombo 03 SRI LANKA Tel: +94 11 2 395310 Fax: +94 11 2 395867 E-mail: npcgen@sltnet.lk or polcom@sltnet.lk
4. Secretary Human Rights Commission No. 36, Kynsey Road Colombo 8 SRI LANKA Tel: +94 11 2 694 925 / 673 806 Fax: +94 11 2 694 924 / 696 470 E-mail: sechrc@sltnet.lk
Thank you.
Aug 10, Colombo: The ruling United National Party has reportedly considered to submit a No-Confidence motion against Minister of Justice Wijeydasa Rajapakshe for blocking investigations on fraud and corruption occurred during the previous regime.
Political sources say there is a plan to bring in a no-confidence motion against Minister Rajapakshe and several UNP members met with the Prime Minister in this regard.
According to sources, government ministers as well as opposition MPs have already signed the no confidence motion and it is said to be handed over to the Speaker on Friday or early next week.
Allegations have surfaced that the Justice Minister and the Attorney General's office are impeding the proceedings of fraud and corruption probes against the politicians and the top officials of the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime.
The Cabinet Spokesperson Minister Rajitha Senaratne today questioned the lack of progress by the Attorney General�s Department on cases investigated and filed by the FCID against former regime's politicians and officials while taking quick measures to file charges against Yahapalana politicians.
He said the government and the people expect the same efficiency from the AG's department on the former regime's fraud and corruption cases and a probe on the Attorney General's Department is also needed.
Speaking about Minister Rajapakshe's statement that the Hambantota Port will be taken over by the Government, Minister Senaratne said the Justice Minister is breaching the collective responsibility of the cabinet.
Minister Senaratne said Minister Rajapakshe's statement will be taken into discussion at the next cabinet meeting and a decision would be made.
Minister Rajapakshe has reportedly said that the sale of Hambantota Harbor to the Chinese was wrong and he would not rest until he regains its ownership on behalf of the people.
Some 43 files on which investigations had been completed by the FCID, the Bribery Commission and the CID on various crimes have been forwarded to the AG’s Department some two years ago and they are gathering dust.,Cabinet spokesman and Minister Rajitha Senaratne said today.
Dr. Senaratne expressed his disappointment and disapproval on what he called a ‘go slow’ policy by the Attorney General’s Department on cases against politicians and top officials of the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime and a quick and no hold barred attitude to file involving charges against Yahapalana politicians.
Minister Senaratne told the weekly cabinet news briefing held in Parliament today that the entire country and the government expected the AG’s department to show the same efficiency, haste and speed to file charges against ministers and officials who robbed the country and committed various crimes including murders and embezzlement of billions of rupees of public money and added sadly this was not happening.
“I think a probe on the performance of the AG’s Department is also a necessity. I am aware that the some 83 files on which investigations have been completed on various crimes by the FCID, the Bribery Commission and the CID have been forwarded to the AG’d Department some two years ago and gathering dust. No charges have been filed against any of these crimes. Don’t forget that this is the department that took months if not years to identify the signature of former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa,” Minister Senaratne said sarcastically.
He said the AG’s Department took only a few days to inquire the alleged abduction case against Colombo District UNP Parliamentarian Hirunika Premachandra and a complaint against his son Gampaha District Parliamentarian Chatura Senaratne and added the AG’s Department probed these two complaints in an unusual swiftness.
Minister Senaratne accused that a lady state counsel even allegedly instructed to expedite the inquiry against Mr. Senaratne.
Minister Senaratne also expressed reservations on the ongoing probes by the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) on the bond scam and said it was appointed by President Maithripala Sirisena for a specific investigation but now it has ventured into probing non relevant or unnecessary matters such as leasing out of apartments to Ministers that has made the main issue complex and confused.
“Have you ever heard cabinet Ministers are brought before commissions of inquiry and questioned by state counsel before in the same way how Minister Karunanayaka was cross examined by the Additional Solicitor General very aggressively before the PCoI? Under the Rajapaksa regime a state counsel was not permitted even to open a file against a government minister of official. This is the difference the Yahapalana government has introduced,” he added.
Minister Senaratne said the PCoI has made a request to extend its term of inquiry by another 3 months and questioned as to whether it was to probe the bond issue or any other matters and added the task of the PCoI was not to provide sensational news to the media.(Sandun A Jayasekera)
About a year before the Rajapaksa government was ousted from power, moves were made to build a memorial at the location where the late D. A. Rajapaksa was interred in Medamulana. The spot stands not far away from the home he lived in, which is now occupied by the eldest in the family, parliamentarian and former Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa. On 26 February 2014, a decision was taken at the Board meeting of the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation (SLLRDC) giving covering sanction for the release of Rs. 10 million as an advance payment to begin the work on the memorial. The board also approved the release of the balance installments as and when requested with the total estimate being Rs. 33.9 million. It was also specifically stated in the minutes of this board meeting that the funds for this project will be received from various sources, and that collection of the same would be done by a committee.
Earlier on 27 January 2014, the Director General Civil Engineering of the Navy had written to the SLLRDC giving the total estimate for the civil works of the monument as Rs. 33.9 million according to the design that had been provided to them. They had also asked for an advance of Rs. 10 million to begin the work. The memorial was opened on 6 November 2014, but had not been formally handed over by the Navy to the D. A. Rajapaksa Foundation, due to a leak in the ornamental pond which resulted in water seeping into the exhibition area of the memorial which had to be attended to. In the meantime, the government changed. On 4 August 2015, the Rajapaksa Foundation wrote to the General Manager of the SLLRDC requesting that the memorial be handed over to the Foundation along with the final bill for reimbursement.
On 21 August 2015, the General Manager of the SLLRDC wrote back to the Rajapaksa Foundation stating that they were in the process of preparing the final bill which will be sent to them shortly, and asking for an advance payment of Rs. 25 million. On 31 August 2015, The Rajapaksa Foundation notified the GM of the SLLRDC that Rs. 25 million had been paid into the bank account of the SLLRDC and once again requested that the completed project be handed over to the Foundation. Shortly thereafter, the GM of the SLLRDC wrote to the Rajapaksa Foundation enclosing the final bill for a whopping Rs. 81 million - well over twice the originally estimated cost. This letter was dated 28 August 2015, but was obviously sent after the advance payment of Rs. 25 million had already been paid to the SLLRDC by the Rajapaksa Foundation.
The Rajapaksa Foundation wrote back to the GM of the SLLRDC on 14 September 2015 reminding them that the SLLRDC had (just an year earlier in 2014) conveyed to them that the total cost of the memorial would be Rs. 27 million (which becomes Rs.33.9 million with the addition of the contingencies fund and government taxes.) The Rajapaksa Foundation has asked for a detailed final bill and final BOQ in order to ascertain the actual cost incurred on this project. Where things have ended up now is that the SLLRDC has sent a letter of demand through the legal firm of Jayaratne Associates to Chamal Rajapaksa the Chairman of the D. A. Rajapaksa Foundation with copies to the other board members of the Foundation, asking for the remaining Rs. 56 million (Rs.81 million minus the Rs. 25 million already paid).
We learn that the final bill had ballooned to an estimate of Rs. 81 million is because the construction of the D. A. Rajapaksa memorial had been lumped together with some other minor projects being carried out by the LLRDC in that area including the building of a police station and referred to collectively the ‘Weeraketiya Project’. The costs of the other projects too had been included under the D. A. Rajapaksa memorial project and charged to the Foundation. There may have been some genuine overlap such as when people or material is transported to be distributed to all the Weeraketiya projects. But whether such costs should be charged on the Foundation is questionable.
Even though the memorial is not government property as such, it’s a public monument to an important leader in the South. No private person can make any personal use of this memorial and it is for all practical purposes a public property. Its cost was met with private donations from many sources. For example the stone ‘punkalas’ that can be seen in the picture were donated by two parties – the labour to carve them out was donated by a skilled stone mason and the material for him to work on by a private company. The glass structures that one sees in the photo were fabricated and installed under the sponsorship of yet another private company.
The glass panels inside the monument were all donated by a well known glass company. The air conditioner in the display room was donated by a company that sells air conditioners. The wax figures too were donated by an artiste donating his labour with a private company providing him with the material. Other donations were in monetary terms to reimburse the cost of building the memorial. All the present complications could have been avoided if the D. A. Rajapaksa Foundation had asked any one of the large construction companies in this country to build this memorial – they would have done the entire project free and then there would have been no excessive estimates or letters of demand to contend with. That however is never the best way to proceed in matters like this to which many people would like to contribute, and make their contribution known. A memorial Foundation seeks to keep alive in the memories of the living, people who once bestrode the scene as colossi and that can only be achieved by getting as many people as possible to participate.
The best way for the government to resolve this dispute may be to get valuations of all other works done in the Weeraketiya-Medamulana area during the relevant period by the SLLRDC and to apportion costs according to a reasonable formula. We learn that a valuation of the memorial was in fact carried out in January 2017 and it has been valued at the cost of building it – the same Rs. 33.9 million that it was originally estimated to cost - which stands to reason because this is not a property which has any commercial or residential value. The Rajapaksa Foundation had since paid a further Rs.9 million thus meeting the full cost of the project as originally estimated.
The most important thing to note is that a project that was estimated to cost Rs.33.9 million in 2014, can’t possibly increase to Rs. 81 million by 2015 especially when all the work had been completed by November 2014 and all that needed to be done in 2015 were just some repairs to one malfunctioning feature. The cost of the project could have increased only if the design and structure had been changed after construction had begun. But there was no such change in the design either. So, clearly, there has been some lumping together of other work done by the SLLRDC in the Weeraketiya area with that of the D. A. Rajapaksa memorial. Harshana de Silva the then Chairman of the SLLRDC told the present writer that when the civil works of the memorial was nearing completion, one of his senior officers had informed him that they were coming close to the estimated cost. De Silva had thereupon instructed the officer to obtain any further money needed from private contributors without overshooting the budget for the project.
De Silva says that until the moment he relinquished his position as Chairman of the SLLRDC in January 2015, he is certain that the budget of Rs. 33.9 million was never exceeded because if it had been, he would definitely have been informed about it. He says that the complication has arisen because of the lumping together of all work done in the Weeraketiya area during that period under the common rubric of ‘Weeraketiya project’ instead of accounting for the costs of each project separately. Be that as it may, this must be the first time ever, that a government agency is having a dispute with a statutory charitable foundation over the cost of a memorial for a political colossus of the past.
The irony of it is that when it comes to memorials for other political notables for the past, it is the government that has to provide the land on which it stands and it’s often in a prime urban location. In this case however, the government has not had to provide anything - neither the cost of building the memorial nor the land on which its stands because it was built in the actual spot where D.A.Rajapaksa was interred. The government’s role had been in the implementation of the project through the SLLRDC and its construction by the Navy with the cost being borne by private contributors. Yet there is a dispute with regard to exactly how much has to be paid to the SLLRDC. Even a layman unfamiliar with construction matters will however find it hard to believe that a building estimate could change from Rs. 33.9 million in 2014 to Rs.81 million in 2015 without any change in the design or proportions of the building especially when it had been completed by November 2014 with only minor corrections left for 2015.
By Thilini Kahandawaarachchi-Thursday, 10 August 2017
During the last decade, China has heavily invested in ports across the world spanning from Africa to Australia. In South Asia, they built the Gwadar Port in Pakistan and the Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka. Despite being a staggering $1.12 billion investment, last week’s tripartite agreement between Sri Lanka Ports Authority, China Merchant Port, and the Ministry of Ports and Shipping has left many criticising China’s investments in the Hambantota Port.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fatal lightning of his terrible swift sword: His truth is marching on. ~ From ‘The Battle-hymn of the Republic’ by Julia Ward Howe (1819-1910)
( August 10, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Maha Sangha (the community of Buddhist monks) of Sri Lanka are on the march. But please don’t jump to the conclusion that I am going to assert that they are on the warpath or are going to voluntarily assume or advocate for others a literally militant role in the context of the country’s simmering politics, as would any reader predict on the basis of the ‘righteous rage’ of violated Truth and Justice depicted in the lines from the 19th century American poet Julia Ward Howe’s famous poem (It is one of my favourites) quoted in the epigraph above. She happened to be an abolitionist social activist against the evil of slavery, which was normal in her country at that time. However, the ‘march’ is only metaphorical in both contexts (i.e., here and in the poem).
What I mean is that the Buddhist monks have been forced to make a stand in response to what they perceive as the worst existential threat that they have faced since independence. However, their engagement is not of a militaristic nature. It is a nonviolent attempt to ensure the victory of truth and justice over injustice and falsehood that are now, according to them, are reigning. Monks are only advocates of righteousness (Of course, politically motivated critics will dispute this, irrespective of whether their conduct in any given situation deserves censure or not). It is truth that begins to march on when the upright monks point the way for the guidance of rulers (whether current or future). Monks’ involvement as a lateral or central or marginal force is bound to be misconceived or misrepresented as a purely political intrusion, particularly by those who do not believe that Buddhist monks have at least a quasi political role to play in our society. But this sort of benign mediation by monks in mundane affairs is a social responsibility that devolves on Sri Lankan monks with a conscience; they just cannot relinquish that responsibility even if they wish to do so. I need not invoke the historical and cultural background that leads one to make this assertion, because many speakers and writers have already commented on the subject, and for the average Sri Lankan it is a matter of common knowledge (a fact, cleverly shielded, like other positive pieces of information about the country, from foreign observers by anti-Sri Lanka propagandists). The other factor that legitimizes the advisory role of monks would like to unobtrusively play in governance is the very nature of Buddhism as a truly ‘secular’ (in the sense that the word is understood in the celebrated Western democracies) ethical philosophy, rather than a religion. I’d like to remind the reader of Bhikkhu Bodhi’s lucid essay titled “Tolerance and Diversity” in The Island of August 7, 2017.Here I am not dragging Bhikkhu Bodhi into local politics. My suggestion only (for those who need) to highlight the fundamental difference between Buddha’s teaching and monotheistic ‘religions’ in respect of the concept of secularism. The prominence given to Buddhism in the current constitution does not make Sri Lanka a Buddhist theocracy unlike constitutional recognition conferred on a monotheistic religion would turn the relevant country a strictly (religious) non-secular state. The Sri Lankan Supreme Court has declared that under the current constitution Sri Lanka is effectively a secular state.
Actually, it doesn’t matter if the monks’ social activism is interpreted as political or non-political. Throughout history they advised the monarch, which certainly influenced their political decisions. Rulers also provided legal authority for the enforcement of judgements that leader monks delivered on errant monks, as in cases of disrobing them on grounds of violated bhikkhu discipline. The monks are bound to be nonpartisan when they have to meet their historically assigned or inherited obligations towards the society that supports them with the ‘four requisites’ (food, shelter, clothes and medicine), for they are bhikkhus ‘mendicants’ in terms of the religious precepts they have undertaken to follow. The perfect democracy, humanity, and compassionate tolerance of Buddhism does not allow people of other religions to be disadvantaged in any way in a state where the majority are Buddhists.
The monks cannot abandon their duties towards the lay society which mainly consists of Buddhists – but they are not discriminatory towards people of other faiths – simply because their viewpoints and well meant activities could displease the minorities, who might wrongly view them as fundamentalist, or racist, or sectarian, or domineering; but they need to appreciate the righteousness that impels monk activism, the overriding universal compassion that blesses not only those in the Buddhist fold, but outside it, even non-humans.
Something that bears out the fact that Sinhalese Buddhists do not use their vote on the basis of race or religion is how poorly Buddhist monks generally fare at parliamentary elections , except perhaps in rare circumstances brought about, for example, by perceived non-reciprocation of their goodwill by other communities, and how deeply they embrace democratic ideals. Average monks, on the other hand, with no special spiritual attainments to their credit are, like ordinary laypersons, are pathujjanas or worldlings (‘The world is too much with us…’ as they could truly confess with poet Wordsworth). Not all monks can be thought to perfectly fulfill this requirement of being non-partisan, for a stake in party politics is usually worthwhile in ensuring material gain or worldly success in this corrupt world, be the pathujjana a monk or a layperson. A few loudmouthed monks, particularly the corrupt handful that act as if they are oblivious of the abundantly available evidence that the Buddhasasana is being targeted by inimical non-Buddhist forces (which, nevertheless are a marginal element among the traditional minority communities), have joined the ranks of critics of the strengthening Sangha unity. The Buddhasasana includes the Dhamma, the monks, the Buddhist laity, the monasteries, Buddhist shrines, all properties donated to the Sasana by ancient royalty and lay upasakas (lay followers of the dhamma), including those given at later times, ruined places of worship and other Buddhist archaeological treasures, which are our historical heritage, and extant rituals such as the Dalada perahera in Kandy, and other ritualistic and architectural monuments that proclaim the proud cultural identity of Sri Lanka. It is no racism to speak up for the assertion and preservation of this unique identity, when it is in danger. It is no threat to peaceful co-existence with other religionists to do so. Unfortunately, it is the strident noises of mindless extremism against the majority community that are heard drowning out the mature mellow words of sage advice uttered by these monks.
The eminent monks who are being drawn into the movement that is gaining momentum (sucked in despite themselves, as Buddhists know very well, without ignorant aliens having to berate them about it) were criticized for keeping quiet in the face of numerous acts of barefaced aggression and blatant hostility against Sinhalese Buddhists in the recent past, especially in the north and east provinces, and for naively trusting the false assurances of protection offered by opportunistic politicians of both the major parties who have taken the vote of the patient Buddhists for granted, while exclusively focusing on the bloc votes of the minorities led by self-righteously communalist politicians . Leaders who come from the majority community are often ready to implicitly disown the monk activists, even though they would love to use them to garner Buddhist votes. On rare occasions when a leader with some courage dares speak about injustices that the Sinhalese Buddhist community are subjected to, he or she gets shouted down as a racist. The relative shyness of the southern leaders to associate themselves with the monks openly is demonstrated by the fact that no important political leader, perhaps with the exception of NFF leader Wimal Weerawansha, according to the media, has fully endorsed the viewpoint of the Maha Sangha, so openly, although it is not only the most non-communalist, non-totalitarian, non-sectarian but the most democratic approach proposed to resolve the religious fundamentalist problem that the Buddhist monks have been instrumental in foregrounding as a crucial aspect of the deeper national crisis now facing our country – the threatened disintegration of the unitary state with a predominant Buddhist cultural identity to accommodate federalism.
No foreign observers, nor persons alien to our language and culture, can understand or appreciate what these monks are saying. These strangers who want to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent sovereign state with a unique recorded history of over two and a half millennia do not have any empathy with the monks or the rest of Sri Lankans. Hence the external and internal opposition that is being registered against the monks. Despite such opposition, the monk leaders are determined to replace the poisonous harvest of ‘grapes of wrath’ (In Julia Ward’s poem, the phrase means an unsatisfactory situation that calls for divine intervention/retribution, i.e., just punishment of those responsible) with the rare elixir of universal compassion that Buddhism offers.
The sensible majority of all Sri Lankans have welcomed the recently announced unanimity of opinion among the Maha Sangha regarding the deteriorating state of affairs in the country. Issuing the now well known Asgiriya Statement of June 20th the Asgiriya Karaka Sangha Sabha suggested that something is not alright with the way the country is being run by the current regime. That is a damning observation coming from the Maha Sangha. The July 4th declaration by the same Maha Sangha that the country does not need a new constitution at this juncture was received by the general public as a more concrete manifestation of the positive development heralded by the Asgiriya Statement. What is needed is the implementation of the provisions of the current constitution to stop the rot, including the attacks on the Buddhist cultural heritage and heritage sites of the country.
But there has been opposition to this Sangha rising from the beginning. It comes from a minority, which, although it has little justification for getting involved in our internal affairs because of being effectively alienated from the majority of the population on the basis of one reason or another, now seems to be doing everything in its power to destroy the historical, cultural, and political basis of our Motherland that the Maha Sangha unequivocally represent. This hostile, small minority (rendered powerful by default in a local political context shot through by meteoric disturbances of regional geopolitics) consists of six marginal sections, according to my own amateur reckoning, namely: unfeeling neo-liberalists, moribund Marxists, federalist communalists, anti-Buddhist religious fundamentalists, unprincipled, opportunistic politicians, and a set of well meaning but deluded young political theorists who call themselves ‘secularists’, which I will reserve for a future write-up.
Aug 10, 2017
“As good customs have need of laws for maintaining themselves, so the laws, to be observed, have need of good customs. In addition to this, the institutions and laws made in a Republic at its origin when men were good, are not afterward more suitable, when they [men] have become evil. And if laws vary according to circumstances and events in a City, its institutions rarely or never vary: which results in the fact that new laws are not enough, for the institutions that remain firm will corrupt it.” ~
