Does microfinance really alleviate poverty?

Tagging along to visit loan shark clients, ethnography-style, provided the level of insight often absent from purely quantitative studies. Interviewing both lenders and borrowers allowed us to uncover distinct informal borrowing schemes used by microbusinesses, and revealed a mismatch between incentives and strategic objectives in formal microfinance schemes.

by Frithjof Arp-Jan 10, 2018

( January 10, 2018, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Despite around US$34 billion in funding and numerous microfinance initiatives to help entrepreneurs in the world’s poorest countries, informal moneylenders and predatory loan sharks continue to thrive. Designed to help alleviate poverty in some of the world’s poorest countries, microfinance initiatives provide loans to entrepreneurs and small businesses, hoping this will help the poor to work themselves out of desperate poverty.

But if formal, government-supported microfinance initiatives are widely available, why haven’t loan sharks and predatory lenders been wiped out? If microfinance cannot compete with informal lenders, can we be confident that it really works?

These questions really matter. Philanthropic donors and policy-makers are enthusiastic about microfinance initiatives and, understandably, those working in microfinance often have a vested interest in showing that their work is effective. Research into how microfinance initiatives really are performing should therefore take into account the often highly politicised context in which poverty alleviation schemes operate. But that isn’t always easy – or even possible.

In Thailand, for example, the controversy surrounding rice subsidies for poor farmers forced the former prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, to flee the country. She was tried and convicted in absentia. At around the same time, it was reported that, relative to their peers in South-East Asia, Thailand’s poor are getting poorer. In such politicised contexts, it is difficult to find researchers willing to ask awkward questions about why this might be so.

This means that the enthusiasm of microfinance funders is still not grounded in rigorous studies. Research on microfinance sits somewhat uncomfortably across disciplines – finance, economics, management and development studies, among others – and many research projects studying the effectiveness of microfinance schemes are driven by academics’ need to publish in high-ranking academic journals. This can lead to research that applies highly complex and discipline-specific quantitative methods to large samples of microfinance borrowers without focusing on more fundamental questions such as why predatory lenders still thrive.

Fortunately, some researchers and governments are starting to realise that we know less about these schemes’ effectiveness than we might think. That’s why my team started our research by asking a fundamental question: Why is it that moneylenders still thrive when formal microfinance is widely available?

The sceptical approach

Attempting to evaluate microfinance initiatives in isolation, many studies ignore the competition from informal lenders. In contrast, we set out to listen to people and gather information from three different sources. We conducted in-depth interviews with poor micro-entrepreneurs, many of which had borrowed from both formal and informal lenders. This latter type of borrower, in particular, drew interesting comparisons. We also interviewed representatives of formal microfinance initiatives and informal lenders, including loan sharks.

Tagging along to visit loan shark clients, ethnography-style, provided the level of insight often absent from purely quantitative studies. Interviewing both lenders and borrowers allowed us to uncover distinct informal borrowing schemes used by microbusinesses, and revealed a mismatch between incentives and strategic objectives in formal microfinance schemes.

Our recent paper aggregates findings from two studies in Indonesia – an ideal research setting because, along with Bangladesh, it hosts some of the world’s most widely available microfinance schemes.

Among our findings is that microfinance initiatives can produce unintended consequences. When poorly managed, they provide entrepreneurship opportunities for “middle men”, where borrowers who more easily qualify for loans from microfinance initiatives then lend to poorer borrowers. Consequently the poorest of the poor micro-entrepreneurs benefit less than the comparatively less poor, and this reinforces existing socio-economic hierarchies in these countries.

Getting it right (and wrong)

This informal intermediation is just one of the problems making formal microfinance initiatives less effective than they might be. In fact, the formal sector can learn a lot from the informal sector.

Poor staff management in formal organisations permits – and even fosters – informal intermediation, reducing microfinance effectiveness. We found that loan officers at formal microfinance organisations have an incentive to focus on quantitative outcomes such as the number of loans provided and rollovers of “safe” loans, rather than on funding the poorest borrowers. Loan officers know that some borrowers use their loans to lend to others; they provide loans to these informal intermediaries because they know that they will reliably pay back their loans.

We even found collusion between intermediaries and loan officers, as well as former microfinance loan officers becoming informal lenders themselves. “It is easy to do”, they said, easier than to “sell noodles or operate a small grocery stall”, and borrowers “do not care whether we have licenses or not”. During preliminary fieldwork in Thailand in August 2017, we found that informal intermediation and relending of loans between borrowers occurs there, too.

To stop predatory lenders from taking advantage of poorer borrowers, the microfinance industry needs to develop ways to identify and prevent management failures. It is also important to understand that informal lending doesn’t just involve predatory loan sharks. There is a whole spectrum of informal intermediation, for example, ranging from the benign and casual to the systematic and downright criminal.

Therefore, research on poverty alleviation must take a sceptic approach, and listen to borrowers and all lenders carefully. Without learning from the different lending schemes of informal lenders, microfinance initiatives cannot be efficient and competitive – and that is why they haven’t displaced the informal lending on which many borrowers still depend.

Frithjof Arp, Nottingham University Business School China, University of Nottingham

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. 

Thawed, fresh embryos work equally well in many women

Doctor Katarzyna Koziol injects sperm directly into an egg during in-vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure called Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) at Novum clinic in Warsaw October 26, 2010. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel

Gene Emery-JANUARY 10, 2018 

(Reuters Health) - - Women with infertility unrelated to a common hormonal disorder may have more options when they try in-vitro fertilization, two large new studies show.

Whereas in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), freezing and thawing embryos before implantation offers a better chance of pregnancy and birth, in women without this condition thawed embryos and are no better or worse than fresh embryos, researchers in China and Vietnam have found.

The findings may encourage doctors to just implant one embryo at a time, lowering the risks that come when doctors try to implant more, producing multiple births and their associated complications.

SPONSORED

The papers, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, are “good news for women seeking in-vitro fertilization,” said Dr. Lan Vuong, chief author of the Vietnamese study.

After an earlier study by the Chinese team showed that frozen embryos were better for women with PCOS, “a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that we should always do frozen. Some programs around the country won’t do fresh transfers anymore,” said Dr. Christos Coutifaris of the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, who was not connected with the new research.

“Now these two papers, equally large and done in non-PCOS patients, show that in terms of live birth, which is what we care about, there is no difference,” he told Reuters Health by phone. “So to apply the rule to everybody that we should freeze your embryos is probably not correct.”

Dr. Vuong said that in the past, doctors have often implanted more than one fresh embryo in women because of concerns that a frozen transfer may not work as well.

The fact that thawed embryos “produce the same pregnancy rate with less complications should transform the way in-vitro fertilization is practiced,” she told Reuters Health by email. “After the first fresh embryo transfer, it will be possible to freeze the remaining embryos and transfer them one by one, if necessary, without reducing the chance of pregnancy.”

Dr. Vuong, of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, and her colleagues also found that women with high levels of the female hormone progesterone might be better off receiving a thawed frozen embryo.

Dr. Coutifaris, who is president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said a higher progesterone level may indicate that the development of the embryo and the womb are out of synch, and using a thawed embryo allows for better timing of the implantation.

It’s one example where “the challenge for us, as practitioners, is to determine who are the patients who will benefit from a freeze-only approach,” he said.

In the Chinese study of 2,157 women undergoing their first in-vitro fertilization cycle, the birth rate was 48.7 percent with thawed embryos and 50.2 percent with fresh. Doctors typically implanted two embryos per attempt.

In the Vietnam study of 782 women undergoing their first or second attempt, the live birth rates after the first transfer were 33.8 percent with frozen and 31.5 percent for fresh. They also implanted, on average, two at a time.

In both studies, the difference in birth rates between the groups was so small that it might have been due to chance.

Neither study found a higher risk of neonatal or obstetrical complications in either group, although frozen embryo transfer produced a statistically lower risk of over-stimulated ovaries, which leads to swollen and painful ovaries and is potentially dangerous.

The rates of the syndrome in the Chinese study were 0.6 percent with frozen embryos and 2.0 percent with fresh. The senior author was Dr. Zi-Jiang Chen of Shandong University, who did not respond to emailed questions.

It was the Chen group that, in 2016, reported that frozen-then-thawed embryos offered a 7-percentage-point edge when it came to producing live births among infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome: 49 percent versus 42 percent. The improvement came primarily from a lower rate of pregnancy loss.

“The cost for freezing embryos is about 30 percent more than that for fresh transfer,” said Dr. Vuong. “However, the effectiveness of the treatment should be considered in decisions about which approach is more cost-effective. We have done a cost-effectiveness analysis of the two treatments and found that freezing embryos and subsequent transfer is not cost-effective over fresh transfer.”

SOURCES: bit.ly/2m2bPYw and bit.ly/2CxHmro The New England Journal of Medicine, online January 10, 2018.

Sri Lanka: Tricks of the trade in pseudo democratic governance

Justice must not only be done but must manifestly appear to have been done.

by I. P. C. Mendis-Jan 11, 2018

( January 11, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Presidential Commissions have their advantages, disadvantages and uses, depending on the particular government in power and the different agendas. Whatever the kind of Commission – special or normal, it is generally time-consuming. The Treasury Bond Commission has taken 10 months. One would think it not too long considering the megabucks involvement, the intricate nature of the issues and the unanticipated further issues that emerged during its proceedings.

If the government was serious in getting to the bottom of the huge problem in the shortest possible time, holding a proper inquiry through a Presidential Commission, all it had to do was to take the short cut of appointing a Special Presidential Commission with penal powers in-as-much as the late Prime Minister, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike did with the Thalgodapitiya Commission, where two or three of his Ministers were shown the door. The Yahapalana Government did not do that. The Treasury Bond Commission was appointed by President Sirisena when he was almost pressed against the wall and had to defend his own position against the mighty “Defenders of the Mahendran/Aloysius Faith”, and even the dogged agitation to re-appoint Arjuna Mahendran as Governor of CBSL after his initial term had expired. His appointment is reported to have been opposed by two Cabinet Ministers who won under the UNP ticket. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, he depended too much on “green-horns’ within the UNP to win his day. SLFP Minister Amaraweera, I believe, ran post-haste to the Bribery Commission with a dossier, followed by the JVP, and the country began to smell a rat.

Prime Minister RW had no alternative but to relent and Indrajith Coomaraswamy has brought in a breath of fresh air to the “near -tainted” Central Bank. An old and respected hand who years ago had been released by the CB to the Finance Ministry/Treasury, and later shone at the Commonwealth Secretariat in London, is reported to have been much coaxed into accepting the responsibility and he has accepted it in the best interests of the country; keeping the legacy of integrity and respect of his illustrious father the late “Roving Raju”, a virtual institution of the Treasury at the time. We wish him well to pull the country and the CB out of the mire.

“Quid Pro Quo”

The DEW Gunesekera “COPE” could not be taken up in Parliament in 2015 because President Sirisena dissolved Parliament and called a general election in August 2015. It looked almost a ‘quid pro quo’ to assuage the Prime Minister for not agreeing to his insistence on re-appointing Mahendran. Whether President Sirisena intentionally did it or not, it had the salutary effect for the PM and the UNP section, of finding momentary relief playing for time. Despite the growing resentment on the alleged scam, perhaps the President was lulled into a false sense of security and belief with the personal assurances given by the Prime Minister on Mahendran’s behalf. little realising that he too could be vicariously aligned with the “Defenders of the Mahendran/Aloysius Faith” who were all out to paint Mahendran and Aloysius of PTL brilliant white, bringing in its wake the popular refrain for three years now of the alleged corruption in the former Rajapaksa regime. Parliament was thus dissolved and a general election called in August 2015. The opportunity to discuss the DEW G. Report was lost and DEW Gunesekera lost his National list place in Parliament.

Whatever political differences one may have with the JVP, the country owes a debt of gratitude to the successor of DEW Gunasekera, Sunil Handunnetti, who took the Chair of the COPE and accomplished a most difficult task in the midst of immense opposition and tactics from the “foot-note” gang” of the UNP, not excluding bombastic empty rhetoric. He did not throw in the towel and the COPE Report became a good base for the Presidential Commission, and an eye-opener for the entire country.

One remembers how the Auditor-General was humiliated by various interested parties. We remember how Mano Ganeshan’s representative was virtually removed from the COPE and Sujeewa Senasinghe appointed in his place, to strengthen the defence of Mahendran and Aloysius, more so the Prime Minister. He went to the extent of writing a book. His numerous telephone calls to Aloysius, he defended with the argument that they were necessary to obtain information for his book. He did not elaborate whom he contacted to double check the story for its veracity, and how he decided to continue in COPE, without declaring the conflict of interests and whether such conduct was in consistent with good governance and principled conduct. He had already made up his mind to clear the perpetrators. But he is an honourable man, a good party disciple who declares publicly that he had not received any monetary gain. Together with him, there were some others who were reported to have received and originated calls.

Only Dayasiri Jayasekera came out with a plausible explanation for the two calls. It is unfortunate that the Presidential Commission, according to reports circulating, has not touched on this important aspect. It did arise at the last stages of the Commission’s term, before the belated final extension, but seeing the seriousness of the emerging situation, one would have thought the country would not have minded further extensions to compile a comprehensive report.

Dappula de Livera and Yasantha Kodagoda have done a tremendous job under trying circumstances no doubt, and they, left to themselves, would have assisted the Commission in a way that the whole truth would have been revealed if the time factor of the Commission was discounted; which would have benefited the country. What can a Commission do in the circumstances of finding itself not being certain of its period of office being extended? There appears to be a lapse here, intentional or unintentional.

The “Hero” Prime Minister

The Prime Minister, I believe, had declared his intention to give evidence and the Commission thought it fit to invite him. One would have thought that the A-G himself should have listed him as a key witness, particularly in a situation where Mahendran had declared that he was acting under the PM’s instructions. It was practically during the last few days of its term, with no inkling of an extension then that the PM appeared. As to why he was granted special consideration and privileges not available to other witnesses was not explained. They say the law is no respecter of persons. Whether even Bill Clinton was afforded special privileges in the investigation on the Lewnsky scandal is a question that has to be asked. Dappula de Livera and Yasantha Kodagoda were sidelined in the questioning and the Attorney-General himself did the honours to this special witness. To all intents and purposes an incisive cross-examination was conspicuous by its absence. Similarly, the cross-examination of Mallik Samarawickreme and Kabir Hashim appeared to be a “damp squib”. Witnesses RW, Mallik S. and Kabir H were all key witnesses who could have been intricately examined and important evidence extracted through well-planned examination. The excellent work that de Livera and Kodagoda did, after burning the midnight oil at great risk to themselves, were doused and dampened in the end as most people see it. The indecision about an extension of the term of office of the Commission played no mean part, in an indecent haste to complete the innings when the going was good for the country, but bad for the government and the perpetrators.

The Commission Report

The much, awaited Report was finally handed over to the President on 30th December 2017, and within four days the President gives a very short summary of the recommendations. According to the Sunday Island of 7th January 2018, different versions without embarrassing statements had been published elsewhere in an apparent cover-up bid. Obviously he or his officials could not have gone through 1257 pages and assimilated everything the Commission had said, and it appeared unfair that the Report had been made short-shrift of that way, without the people being made aware of the full contents. It is to be hoped that at least it will be presented to Parliament swiftly and printed.

Tarry a little Jew!

Sections of the Opposition and certain organisations are all agog demanding that the perpetrators are arraigned before the Halls of Justice swiftly. But as Portia in Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” told Shylock- “Tarry a little Jew, the law hath yet another hold on you” – in my own humble way I would advise these agitational groups that they have missed a vital recommendation made in the Report, that the Central Bank of Sri Lanka should first conduct a forensic audit with regard to the alleged fraud and corrupt practices from 2008 and based on such findings legal steps should be taken. The mandate of the Commission was to inquire into the relevant activities from 1st February 2015 to 31st March 2016, and one could go with the recommendation if the forensic audit was confined primarily to the period of the mandate; but now it appears to have gone beyond the mandate and covered seven more years to the one year and two months the Commission has really investigated. In terms of the President’s statement, the Commission itself was mindful they had no such mandate, yet it is surprising how after reporting it had not done so, mixed up this period with the mandated period and made it a condition prior to instituting legal steps against the perpetrators concerned in its Report. How soon a meaningful forensic audit over a period of eight years and two months can be completed to satisfy legal requirements, is a guess one would leave to the intelligent reader to decide. The agitators can shout till the cows come home, but the perpetrators will be laughing all the way beyond 2020. Little wonder they are so confident. There could be absolutely no objection to probing the period from 2008 to 2015, but why wait till that forensic audit too is completed to take legal action on the current Report?. What a world! Justice delayed is Justice denied. It is a pity if after all this effort, this recommendation is permitted to stand in the way of a speedy solution to the matter which was under investigation and pave the way for a ” Great Escape”! It could happen only in Sri Lanka – Quite a theme for Sunil Perera and the Gypsies!

Justice must not only be done but must manifestly appear to have been done. Hence, with all due respect to the AG and his band of efficient officers, there appears to be a need for outside lawyers to lead the team of prosecutors, together with the AG’s Lawyers in prosecuting the perpetrators.. The precedent was created when George Chitty QC was brought in to prosecute in the Bandaranaike assassination case. The UNP government itself did not send the then AG Douglas Jansze, who successfully prosecuted the coup suspects of 1962 here to the Privy Council to argue the case. It retained foreign lawyers. Thus the AG’s department could be free of pressures which are bound to emerge in a big way.

Lots of talk but little progress in Sri Lanka over journalist murders

 Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe at a seminar on the safety of journalists in Colombo in December 2017. Despite Sri Lanka's commitments to address impunity, no justice has been secured in the cases of 10 murdered journalists. (AFP/Ishara S. Kodikara)

By Steven Butler/CPJ Asia Program Coordinator on January 9, 2018 3:16 PM ET

It was the police line-up from hell. Forget all those "Law and Order" scenes where a victim stands anonymously behind a one-way mirror. Sri Lankan journalist Namal Perera had to stand eyeball-to-eyeball with 42 army intelligence officers in April, each of whom, Perera explained to me while demonstrating his fiercest tough-guy glare, faced him with a cold stare and arms folded aggressively.

Perera had to think back to that day nine years earlier, on June 30, 2008, when attackers on two motorcycles and in an unmarked white van chased him and his friend as they left the Sri Lanka Press Institute in Colombo, where he was deputy director at the time. He recalled how, as the van blocked their car, he looked straight into the eyes of its driver, before assailants bashed the windshield, beat him and his friend with clubs, and fled as a crowd gathered. After receiving assurances of protection from police last year, Perera picked out those eyes and one more pair from the lineup.

Sri Lanka's 26-year civil war--during which CPJ documented repeated violence against journalists--ended in May 2009. Yet authorities have not secured a single conviction in the cases of 10 Sri Lankan journalists murdered there in retaliation for their work since 1992. This lack of progress led to Sri Lanka's consistent appearance from 2008 to 2015 on CPJ's annual Impunity Index, which highlights countries where journalists are slain and their killers go free.

Namal Perera pictured in the hospital after being attacked in 2008. The journalist identified two of his assailants last year. (The Sunday Times, Sri Lanka)

Perera's case is unusual--a victim who survived and could ID his attackers.

Impunity for crimes against journalists remains a front-line issue in Sri Lanka; indeed, ending impunity was a promise of the government of President Maithripala Sirisena when he defeated Mahinda Rajapaksa in elections in 2015. In the past three years, threats against journalists have sharply receded. The freer atmosphere is the main reason why Himal Southasian was relocated to Colombo a few months ago, after being virtually shut down in Kathmandu, Aunohita Mojumdar, the magazine's editor told me. And it's why UNESCO says that it chose Colombo for its conference in December on promoting freedom of expression and the rule of law "through ending impunity for crimes against journalists."

Senior government leaders attending the conference said all the right things. "All attacks will be fully investigated," promised Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, while lamenting the destruction of evidence by the previous administration. "We have a long way to go to investigate the crimes of the past, including the murder of journalists," said Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Mass Media.

After listening to police spokesman Superintendent Ruwan Gunasekara rattle off a list of cases and the progress or lack thereof, Law and Order Minister Sagala Gajendra Ratnayaka stood up to clarify. "Where we started in most of these cases, we were starting below zero. The evidence was destroyed, many years had lapsed," he said. "But I want to assure everybody that the government is committed to this. We've asked the police to prioritize the cases on freedom of expression."

Can the cases be solved? None of the local journalists with whom I spoke while in Colombo are holding their breath.

Discussion of these cases in the Sri Lankan press is surprisingly open, including the identities of those believed responsible for ordering hits on journalists, after the suspects' names were read out in parliament under privilege. Newspapers have reported that the attack squad that went after Perera was the same one that less than six weeks earlier kidnapped and severely beat Keith Noyahr, a prominent columnist at the weekly The Nation. (Perera told me that he believes the attackers were put on to him because his business card was in Noyahr's wallet when he was abducted.) Noyahr later emigrated to Australia. He has cooperated with police investigators, but did not return to appear in court nor identify the suspects last year, according to press reports.

Perhaps more significant, reports citing court officials say that same attack squad is linked to the 2008 murder of Lasantha Wickramatunga, who, as founder and editor of the Sunday Leader, was perhaps the most high-profile journalist to be murdered in Sri Lanka. In February last year, police arrested five military intelligence officers in connection with the murder, although the suspects are out on bail and no formal legal case has been filed.

Of course, it's just common sense that if a squad of military intelligence officers repeatedly attacked or killed journalists, they had orders from someone higher up the chain of command. The names of those suspected of giving the orders are more than whispers among journalists in Colombo, who allege that those same individuals continue to occupy high-level positions in a coalition government concerned about future electoral prospects and facing declining popularity over a banking scandal. "The previous regime has not magically gone away," said Sanjana Hattotuwa, founding editor of the news website Groundviews.

Hattotuwa's view is why many journalists say that despite assurances, they doubt there is enough political will to pursue cases to the end.

Skepticism runs deep for other reasons. Of the 10 journalists murdered for their work, all but one--Wickramatunga--are Tamils, the minority ethnic group whose Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) organization engaged in the long, bloody secessionist war, until its defeat in 2009. As R. Bharati, president of the Sri Lanka Tamil Media Alliance, pointed out to me, in a tone of resignation, none of the arrests so far have advanced justice for murdered Tamil journalists. V. Premnath,editor of the Tamil daily Uthayan, added, "Even after 2015, we are facing so much intimidation and harassment by state authorities, the military and police."

Aside from the smattering of arrests, only one conviction related to an attack in which a journalist was killed has been secured: in 2014 authorities convicted a LTTE leader of conspiring and abetting a 2008 suicide bombing at a political event that killed at least 27 people, including reporter Rashmi Mohamed.

"The culture of impunity is part of our psyche," said Deepika Udagama, chair of Sri Lanka's Human Rights Commission. "Even the public has gotten used to this idea of selective justice."

Back at the UNESCO conference, remarks from the prime minister that attacks against journalists stopped under his administration were met with confusion. "What am I?" journalist Freddy Gamage asked me later, in disbelief. Assailants severely beat Gamage on June 2, 2016, following his reporting on local corruption. And, just two days before the conference, local outlets reported how Tamil radio anchor Shanmuganathan Manoharan was attacked in the northern city of Jaffna on his way home from work.

As for Perera, who now works at the Australian High Commission in Colombo, he hopes for justice but says he is not sure if he will see a conviction in his case.

Asia program coordinator Steven Butler lived and worked in Asia as a foreign correspondent for nearly 20 years, and later was Foreign Editor at the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau. He holds a PhD in political science from Columbia University.

Japan courts Sri Lanka maritime order in Indian Ocean

  

2018-01-11

Sri Lanka’s strategic location, astride the main shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean, has kept in the gaze of the world powers more and more. The latest example of such attention turned out to be the visit of Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono to Sri Lanka last Thursday just for a couple of days, for the first time in 15 years. 

During his meetings with President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his counterpart Tilak Marapana, the Japanese Minister laid emphasis on what he called ‘Open Indo-Pacific Policy’. 

Amidst this increasing tussle among the international players to secure strategically important projects, Japan moves in to court Sri Lanka as the environment has to be conducive here for it to engage transnational business through the sea lanes straddling Sri Lanka

The latest attempt by Japan to court Sri Lanka comes in the context of Sri Lanka leasing out the Hambantota Port for development by China Merchants. 

In aftermath of the conclusion of the visit, Japan’s Deputy Press Secretary Toshihido Ando who accompanied the Minister, said that Japan valued to its relations with Sri Lanka, a country located in a strategic point on the Indian Ocean sea lanes. He said Japan sought to enhance further relations.

• The latest attempt by Japan to court Sri Lanka comes in the context of Sri Lanka leasing out the Hambantota Port for development by China Merchants
• China and India, as the leading economic powerhouses of the world, place the greatest demand in the world for energy sources
• This remark shed light on Sri Lanka’s importance to the international community in terms of its positioning. No matter what, any power, be it India, Japan, China or the United States, is not ready to let go of Sri Lanka
• Minister Marapana expressed appreciation for Japan’s assistance to date and expressed his hope for further assistance in various areas
• Besides, a leading Japanese Business delegation is slated to arrive in Sri Lanka soon to explore opportunities. There are as many as 130 Japanese companies which are involved in business activities here

This remark shed light on Sri Lanka’s importance to the international community in terms of its positioning. No matter what, any power, be it India, Japan, China or the United States, is not ready to let go of Sri Lanka. 

China has already invested in great volumes in Sri Lanka. India, apart from its current component of investment here, seeks to infuse more money into strategic projects such as seaport and airport developments in Sri Lanka. 

Amidst this increasing tussle among the international players to secure strategically important projects, Japan moves in to court Sri Lanka as the environment has to be conducive here for it to engage transnational business through the sea lanes straddling Sri Lanka. A bulk of oil trade in the world takes place in this part of the Indian Ocean. 

China and India, as the leading economic powerhouses of the world, place the greatest demand in the world for energy sources. With their economies rising further, the demand is bound to increase by leaps and bounds in the years to come. 

This remark shed light on Sri Lanka’s importance to the international community in terms of its positioning. No matter what, any power, be it India, Japan, China or the United States, is not ready to let go of Sri Lanka

Not only oil the trade, but also international dealings in other consumer goods and commodities also happen through the same shipping lanes with the involvement of the countries such as China, India, Japan, South Korea, Singapore etc. 
Against this backdrop, press secretary Ando, quoting his Minister Kono, said Japan stood for Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy. According to him, his Minister emphasized the need to further enhance cooperation in the areas of maritime, security and defence with Sri Lanka, which is at the centre of the strategy. 

A news item posted on the website of the Japanese Foreign Affairs Ministry, the Minister stated that Japan seeks to further promote infrastructure development cooperation to strengthen connectivity of ports and emphasized the importance of openness, transparency and economic viability, as well as financial soundness of the recipient country in the area of infrastructure development. In response, Minister Marapana stated that under the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy proposed by Japan, it is important to ensure freedom of navigation and Sri Lanka seeks to further promote cooperation with Japan in the areas of maritime, security and defence,”. 

It said, “Minister Kono stated that Japan will enhance cooperation towards the improvement of social infrastructure, including in the areas of environment, terrestrial digital broadcasting and the national reconciliation process. In response, Minister Marapana expressed appreciation for Japan’s assistance to date and expressed his hope for further assistance in various areas. Minister Kono explained the importance of maximizing pressure on North Korea, including through the full implementation of relevant UNSC resolutions, and the early resolution of the abductions issue. Minister Marapana stated that Sri Lanka supports Japan’s position on North Korea and will implement relevant UNSC resolutions. 

Apart from courting Sri Lanka in this regard, Japan also sought Sri Lanka’s assistance to apply pressure on North Korea by implementing the resolution of the UN Security Council. During the meeting, Sri Lanka has pledged full support for Japan’s position and agreed to implement the resolution in full. 

In 1970s, some Japanese nationals were abducted by North Korea. Japan called the resolution of this abduction issue by allowing the remaining Japanese nationals to return. 

“Many in 1970 were abducted by North Korea. Only five returned. We want the remaining ones to return. They have not returned. In terms of North Korea, we have nuclear issues. They have tested and missiles have been launched,” he said. 

Besides, a leading Japanese Business delegation is slated to arrive in Sri Lanka soon to explore opportunities. There are as many as 130 Japanese companies which are involved in business activities here. 

Apart from courting Sri Lanka in this regard, Japan also sought Sri Lanka’s assistance to apply pressure on North Korea by implementing the resolution of the UN Security Council. During the meeting, Sri Lanka has pledged full support for Japan’s position and agreed to implement the resolution in full

Asked whether Japan would increase the presence of its maritime self-defence force here, he said Japan was keen on the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Policy. He said it was based on the promotion and establishment of rule of law, promotion of free navigation, economic prosperity, peace and stability. 

“We believe in the rule of law. We believe in a peaceful maritime order,” he said. 

Asked about the leasing out of the Hambatonta Port to a Chinese company, he said any infrastructure development project, be it port or whatever, should have international standards. 

“Any infrastructure project conforms to the international standards such as openness, transparency, financial soundness, viability, fiscal viability of the recipient country,” he said.     

 

What Mahinda Deshapriya should learn from the Indian Elections Commission

By C. A. Chandraprema-January 10, 2018, 10:06 pm 

The rejection of the nomination lists of several political parties and independent groups made headlines during the nominations period for the local government elections to be held on 10 February. The rejection of the nominations lists of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna gained more publicity than the other rejections because of the greater public focus on the performance of the SLPP at this election. The rejection of nomination lists is a matter that should be taken up for public debate because this is a matter involving the people’s franchise. From the information available to this writer, the rejection of SL Podujana Peramuna nominations lists had taken place for the following reasons.

Maharagama UC – the required number of female candidates had been included in the nomination paper, but in the column indicating the gender of the candidate, the gender of one female candidate had inadvertently been entered as ‘male’.

Weligama UC – The authorized person had gone to hand in four nomination papers with a lawyer. The authorised person had handed in the first nomination paper and had then been distracted for a moment by another official and during that short period, the lawyer had handed in the second paper. The authorised person had then handed in the remaining two papers. The three papers handed in by the authorised person had been accepted while the paper that was handed in by the lawyer was rejected on the grounds that it had not been handed in by the correct person.

Panadura UC – While the signature of the party general secretary has to be attested by a Justice of the Peace, the latter had failed to write the date on which the endorsement was made, below his signature.

Agalawatte PS – The date on the nomination paper had inadvertently been written as 17 December 2017 instead of 14 December 2017.

Mahiyanganaya PS – This nomination paper had all other requisites as well as the correct number of male and female candidates but the column indicating the gender of the candidates had been left blank.

Tirappane PS – The box on which the date of handing in of nominations should have been written as 22 December 2017, had been left blank.

The above is the situation with regard to the SLPP nominations lists that were rejected. There is no doubt that the rejection of the nomination papers of other parties too would have taken place on similar grounds. Do any of the instances mentioned above strike an ordinary voter of sound mind as reasonable grounds on which an entire nomination paper should be rejected? Can bureaucratic nitpicking of this order be allowed to obstruct the exercise of the people’s sovereignty? In this respect, there is much that the Sri Lankan Elections Commission can learn from the Indian Elections Commission. The Indian Elections Commission has published a Handbook for their Returning Officers, which has an entire chapter on the scrutiny and rejection of nomination papers. What follows below are some verbatim extracts from pages 92 to 102 of that handbook where the Indian Election Elections Commission has educated their Returning Officers how to deal with nomination papers in a manner conducive to upholding and not stymieing the sovereignty of the people:

1. Scrutiny of nomination papers is an important quasi- judicial function. You must not allow any personal or political predilections to interfere with the procedure that you follow or the decision you take in any case. Law expects you to be fair, impartial, and treat all candidates equally.

2. Even if no objection has been raised with regard to a nomination paper, you have to satisfy yourself that it is valid in law. If any objection is raised, you will have to hold a summary inquiry to decide the same and to treat the nomination paper to be either valid or invalid.

3. There is a presumption that every nomination paper is valid unless the contrary is prima facie obvious or has been made out. In case of a reasonable doubt as to the validity of a nomination paper, the benefit of such doubt must go to the candidate concerned and the nomination paper should be held to be valid.

4. Remember that whenever a candidate’s nomination paper is rejected without proper reason and he is prevented thereby from contesting the election, there is a legal presumption that the result of the election has been materially affected by such improper rejection and the election will, therefore, be set aside. There is no such legal presumption necessarily in the converse case where a candidate’s nomination has been wrongfully accepted. It is always safer, therefore, to adopt a comparatively liberal approach in dealing with minor technical or clerical errors.

5. Do not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect, which is not of a substantial character. Any mistake or error of a technical of clerical nature should, therefore, be ignored by you. You may also note that Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, lays down that failure to complete, or defect in completing a declaration regarding symbols in the nomination paper is not a defect of a substantial character. A nomination paper should be accepted or rejected on merits, taking all the available material into account.

6. In the past, there were instances where nomination papers were rejected on flimsy grounds, e.g. mistakes made in the nomination paper regarding; (a) the year of election, or (b) the exact name of the House of the Legislature or any minor error in the name of the constituency, (c) the description of an electoral roll number, or (d) the choice of symbols, or (e) some discrepancy between the age, name, or other particulars of the candidate or his proposer as given in the nomination paper and in the electoral roll and so on.

7. Such unjustifiable and improper orders of rejection on technical grounds had led to a large number of election petitions and the eventual setting aside of several elections with consequent waste of time, money and labour for all concerned, with adverse and damaging observation of courts all of which could have been avoided. Similar instances of improper rejections should not occur again and it is up to you to interpret the provisions of the law intelligently and with commonsense.

8. Do not, therefore, reject any nomination paper for such technical or clerical errors or discrepancies. Most of them can and should be directed by you to be set right at the time of the presentation of the nomination paper. It would, therefore, be very undesirable if you fail at the proper stage to help a candidate by exercising your powers and discretion under the proviso to Section 33(4) of the said Act and later at the time of scrutiny you reject his nomination paper on the ground of those very defects which could have been set right under that section.

9. If a candidate to whose nomination paper an objection has been taken applies for time to rebut such objection, you should adjourn the hearing of the objection till the next day or the day after that, but not beyond 11.00 a.m. on that day. The scrutiny of all other nomination papers must, of course, be completed on the day of scrutiny, notwithstanding such adjournment in respect of one or more nomination papers. If the day next is a holiday, the hearing should be completed before 11 a.m. on the day fixed for withdrawal of candidatures.

Readers will note that going by what has been stated in the Handbook for Returning Officers of the Elections Commission of India, none of the afore mentioned SLPP nomination papers would have been rejected in India. All the rejections mentioned above clearly fall within the rubric of ‘flimsy reasons’ mentioned in the Indian Elections Commission handbook. It should also be noted that the Indian Elections Commission has stressed the need for returning officers to use their commonsense and also the need to give time for candidates to rectify any errors in the nominations paper even if a couple of days is taken for the purpose.

Yahapālanaya In Crisis: UNP Anxious As Sirisena Plays Lone Hand

The Yahapalana Government is in the throes of the worst crisis with the United National Party (UNP) vexed over President Sirisena playing his cards close to his chest.

January 10, 2018

Sirisena, who is also the leader of the other major partner of the government, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), has of late kept Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (Leader of the UNP) in the dark about his moves.

First, the President is yet to release the report submitted by the Commission of Inquiry into the Central Bank bond scam. Even Ranil Wickremesinghe is yet to receive a copy of the report. UNP Deputy Leader and former Minister of Finance who was named and shamed by Sirisena when he made a special statement, has called for the release of the report.

Karunanayake hinted that Sirisena has left out parts of the report. He finally made a formal request to the Presidential Secretariat to release the report citing the Right to Information Act.

Meanwhile Wickremesinghe called for a Parliamentary debate on the report, but a debate was not possible since Sirisena is sitting on it.

 

Secondly, according to sources close to the UNP leadership, the party is upset that Sirisena has sought a Supreme Court opinionabout the possibility of continuing as President until January 2021.

This move prompted an emergency meeting of the UNP leaders. The meeting had been adjourned for the MPs to attend Parliament and was resumed thereafter.

Although the formal agreement between the two parties lapsed at the end of the year there the future of the partnership has not been brought to question so far. The agitation in the UNP camp seems to have arisen because of the secretive nature of Sirisena’s recent moves.

Sirisena came to power on a mandate to change the constitution, in particular to abolish the Executive Presidency. He has on numerous occasions vowed to do so and has claimed that he would not seek re-election.

On one occasion he offered the following comment on the matter:

 

“I insisted that the terms of the Presidency be reduced to four years, but the Committee of Constitutional Experts and political leaders did not agree with my demand. They said that holding a Presidential Election every four years was not good for the country.”

19th Amendment to the Constitution states:

3). Article 30 of the Constitution is hereby repealed and the following Article substituted therefor:-
(1) 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.

(2) The President of the Republic shall be elected by the People and shall hold office for a term of five years.”.

Section 49 of 19th Amendment:

49. (1) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that,–

(a) the Seventh Parliament in existence on the day preceding the date on which this Act comes into operation, shall, unless dissolved earlier, continue to function until April 21, 2016 and shall thereafter stand dissolved;

(b) the persons holding office respectively, as the President and Prime Minister on the day preceding April 22, 2015 shall continue to hold such office after such date, subject to the provisions of the Constitution as amended by this Act;

and

(c) every person holding office on the day preceding ……..

The binding nature of a mandate sought through a manifesto and rhetoric aside, the 19th Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that Sirisena will hold office only in accordance to this particular amendment and not as per the constitutional provisions that existed when he was elected on 08 January 2015. This means that the amended version of Article 30 holds. In other words, “The President of the Republic shall be elected by the People and shall hold office for a term of five years.”

Read More

‘Clash of MPs’ in Parliament

 

2018-01-10 12:

Parliament was engulfed in turmoil today with the members of the United National Party (UNP) and the joint opposition trading blows and exchanging unsavoury words over differences with regard to the tabling of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) report on the Central Bank bond.

Parliament met yesterday for a special session to discuss the CB bond transactions. At the start of business, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya announced that President Maithripala Sirisena had agreed to make available copies to the House in a week.

However, the three main political groups in the Opposition -- the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the joint opposition and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) were not agreeable to this.

JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who is also the Chief Opposition Whip, said the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) which hold the savings of the workers had lost as much as Rs.8.5 billion in the larges ever financial fraud committed in this country and therefore the report should be submitted to the House without any further delay.

“We have also sought a report under the Right to Information Act. It means we should be given a copy by January 15. Today is January 10. One cannot say the President’s Office is not ready now. Therefore, there is no reason for the presidential secretariat to delay giving the copies. If the President has referred the report to the Bribery Commission and the Attorney General’s Department, then why can’t it be given to the House? The House is above them all,” he said.

His position was widely accepted by joint opposition’s parliamentary group leader Dinesh Gunawardane. He said the Speaker assured them the other day that a copy would be made available to the House yesterday. He asked the Speaker to order the Presidential Secretariat to release the report to the House immediately.

“We even agreed at the party leaders meeting that the English version would suffice for the time being. Parliament is supreme. That is the position upheld by all the past Speakers. Once former Speaker Anura Bandaranaike upheld that even the Supreme Court could not overrule Parliament. Former Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa upheld that view. We have heard that a report is available with the Attorney General. He is an official answerable to the House. We can engage him now,” Mr. Gunawardene said.

TNA and Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan said the debate should take place at the earliest.

“There is no dispute over that. This is a report the country is interested in seeing. We must debate it and get to the root of it,” he said.

TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran also endorsed what the JVP leader said and said a report should be available by 1.30 p.m.

The Speaker responded saying the president’s office had agreed to send it within a week and asked the members not to create a rift between him and the President. At this point Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe stood up to make a statement.

Mr. Gunawardane raised objections saying the Prime Minister should not be allowed to make a statement in the absence of an overall debate. However, the Speaker allowed the Prime Minister to go ahead with his statement. At this moment, the members of the JO started demonstrating displaying posters and condemning the bond scam. They walked into the Well of the House and moved towards the Speaker. Just then Polonnaruwa district UNP MP Sydney Jayaratne and some others like Hector Appuhamy confronted the protesting MPs and snatching their posters. It led to a tense situation, leading at times to the members on both sides of the House exchanging fisticuffs. UNP MP S.M. Marikkar had nearly exchanged fisticuffs with JO MP Gamini Lokuge. Amid the din the Prime Minister made his statement and subsequently, the House was adjourned.

Meanwhile, there was further tension after Mr. Marikkar who arrived in the Chamber after the House was adjourned and slapped Mr. Lokuge who was standing in the aisle. UNP MP Chaminda Wijesiri also began to hit Mr. Lokuge provoking the other JO members to thrash Mr. Wijesiri.

Fisticuffs were seen being exchanged by MPs Appuhami, Johnston Fernando and Prasanna Ranaweera whose shirt was apparently torn in the melee. (Kelum Bandara and Yohan Perera)

Video by Susantha, Sanjeewa

NO SIX YEAR FOR PRESIDENTIAL TERM FOR SIRISENA- EXPERT OPINION

Image: President Sirisena who promised to do away with Executive Presidency in front of late Maduluwawe thero’s body now wants to continue for six years in his office. (credit: Daily News)

10/01/2018

Although President Sirisena has very clearly said that the term of president should be 5 years, now he has requested the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka to determine ” Whether, in terms of Provisions of the constitution, I as the person elected and succeeding to the office of President and having assumed the office in terms of Article 32(1) of the constitution on 09th January 2015 have any impediment to continue in the office of the President for period of six years from 9th January 2015.. “
We give below the opinion expressed by ‘ Democracy Sri Lanka’ group.
Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

3. Article 30 of the Constitution is hereby repealed and the following Article substituted therefor:-
4. (1) 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.

(2) The President of the Republic shall be elected by the People and shall hold office for a term of five years.”.

 Section 49 of 19th Amendment:

 (1)For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that,–

(a) the Seventh Parliament in existence on the day preceding the date on which this Act comes into operation, shall, unless dissolved earlier, continue to function until April 21, 2016 and shall thereafter stand dissolved;

 (b) the persons holding office respectively, as the President and Prime Minister on the day preceding April 22, 2015 shall continue to hold such office after such date, subject to the provisions of the Constitution as amended by this Act;

and
(c) every person holding office on the day preceding ……..

So, 19th Amendment makes it clear that the President in office on 22 April 2015, that is Maitreepala Sirisena- will hold office as per the amended Constitution, and not as per the constitutional provisions that existed when he was elected on 08 January 2015.

In contrast, although the 19th Amendment reduces the term of Parliament to 5 years, the then existing Parliament can continue till 21 April 2016, that is the full term of 6 years to which it was elected.
President Maithripala Sirisena said that the term of office of the President of Sri Lanka will be reduced to five years from the original six.

“I insisted that the terms of the Presidency be reduced to four years, but the Committee of Constitutional Experts and political leaders did not agree with my demand,” the President said addressing public officials of the Polonnaruwa district at the Thopawewa school grounds today (26).

“They said that holding a Presidential Election every four years was not good for the country,” he said.

The President added that they later came to the consensus that the term of the Presidency should be confined to five years due to his strong insistence.

The committee comprising constitutional experts are in the process of discussing on how unlimited powers of the Executive Presidency should be vested in the Legislature.

“Anti-apartheid hero and former South African President Nelson Mandela succeeded in bringing many reforms to that country during his four year rule after languishing in jail for over 27 years,” he noted.

President Sirisena said that Sri Lankan leaders can learn many lessons from President Nelson Mandela who introduced many reforms in the economic, political and social fields within his 4 year rule.

Obscene ostentation of Chichee sons surpassed..! Wristlet of Sirisena’s son in law is worth Rs. 8.8 million, waist belt is Rs. 6 million, and pair of shoes is Rs. 3 lakhs; whither SL?

(Lanka-e-News -10.Jan.2018, 6.45AM) It is most unfortunate after  publishing  the  report then  about the ‘ChiChee putha’ (a son of corrupt Mahinda Rajapakse) who wore Louis Vuittton wristlet worth Rs.150,000.00 and a pair of shoes worth over Rs. 300,000.00,  we are now  shockingly compelled  to publish a worse obscene ostentation and profligate lifestyles  of the son in law and son of  president Sirisena,  who won the presidential election making  solemn promises of forming and maintaining   a good governance government . The son and son in law of president Sirisena have obviously broken  the ignominious records of ‘Chichee’ son. 

It is a well and widely known fact president Sirisena and his family are currently at the point of ‘death’ by strangulation internationally , owing to their  inordinate greed to collect over US dollars 4 million on the Russian warship deal which prompted them to smuggle out an international criminal Russian hacker wanted by America a to Russia  . It is this same president’s son in law (husband of Chaturika  Sirisena )Thilina Sampath who  is wearing a wristlet worth Rs. 8.8 million ! a waist belt worth Rs. 6 million and  a  pair of shoes  worth Rs. 300,000/- !!

White gold -! ‘Even I am not  that worth !’

The Rs. 8.8 million worth wristlet of Thilina is Audemar’s  Piguet, a most expensive wrist watch in the world. Not enough ( according to reports reaching Lanka e news ) , Thilina also has three more super luxury wristlets , namely Rolex, Pathe Philip and Cartier worth Rs. 3-4 million. Those who do not know about wristlets will think these are not so expensive going by appearance. 

The super luxury belt of Thilina  is worth over  Rs. 6 million and  is made out of Taurillon leather  obtained from a rare kind of cow in Switzerland , and sewn out of white gold from Dubai. As the fastener has the Alphabets L and V which symbolize Louis Vuitton , and can be identified by anyone , Thilina has replaced the fastener with one made out of white gold from Dubai. Consequently the value of the waist belt is Rs. 6 million!

Daham Sirisena's pair of shoes ‘ Santoni’ is  worth Rs. 300,000/- , and the waist belt  (about Rs. 200,000/-)  of Maithri’s son Daham Sirisena too  belong to  the Loius Vuitton class.
It is a pity  Maithripala Sirisena  who immediately after becoming president , went into an ordinary shoe shop in Colombo on 2015-06-01 to make an exhibition via photographs that he is a most  ordinary citizen and a most ordinary leader  who buys  most ordinary pair of shoes  , has now metamorphosed into  a most  extraordinary citizen now wearing extraordinary sandals worth over Rs. 100,000/- ! 

Though all these expensive adornments  look ordinary , those are actually of  colossal  worth. Only world’s celebrities wear high priced items of that quality . If  anybody identifies those and reveals   the immense worth of those to the super duper son in law and son,   they do a play acting and question ’is that true ?’ ‘Is that so much worth?’ or say  ‘I really do not know  ….’ ‘Even I am not that worth’ and ‘ this was given to me as a gift by  someone.’  The cunning Sirisenas resort  to such histrionics while sporting  a bogus smile to fool the gullible masses.

President’s son in law who could not repay the loan given by Sarath Amunugama….

This  Thilina Sampath who is today wearing Rs 8.8 million worth wristlet ,and a belt worth Rs. 6 million before his FL (father in law) became president was a pauper who ran  a photo studio in Polonnaruwa and went bankrupt. 

Even to start the studio Thilina  he had to  borrow money using the influence  of his FL who was at that time minister of health. During that period Sarath Amungama was the minister ,projects. Under his project, loans were granted to individuals  under whom ten or more people worked, to purchase equipments . The maximum loan granted was Rs. 15 million.

Using the influence of Maithri , Thilina  obtained this loan. After buying a camera or two  and opening a studio he did  not give employment to ten people though that was mandatory for the borrower.

Thilina who is by birth a loafer  after receiving the  loan amounting to over Rs. 10 million went  wild on a merry making  mission. He wasted  his money on women in Colombo  . Sleeping in Hotel rooms, and flirting with girls. Owing to Thilina’s sexual starvation and lust , disputes erupted at home with  Chaturika almost divorcing him.

By then he had run into arrears with his loan re payment . It were  Maithripala  Sirisena and Dudley Sirisena who  intervened to resolve the dispute. His loan arrears were settled by Dudley  Sirisena, while Maithripala  boosted Thilina’s business by making it compulsory that photographs for identity cards , passports and driving licenses are obtained from Thilina’s studio. It is about that time the last  presidential election was held.

Based on what president’s son in law Thilina wears and the ornaments he  flaunts , one can imagine to what  unbelievable extent the 6.2  Million people have been fleeced , robbed and plundered by the unconscionable , unscrupulous and unashamed Sirisena family after the presidential election .
What is  perplexing and intriguing about all this obscene ostentation and wasteful expenditure spending millions on  what he wears is , Thilina is able to indulge in such monumental profligacy without any official business of his own and the  two advertising Firms are run in the name of Chaturika. We shall reveal how Thilina earns such colossal sums of monies in our next article.

After Thilina Sampath’s involvement in the smuggling out  of most wanted Russian criminal hacker leaked out , Thilina who got alarmed closed his face book account, obliterated all details about him in the internet  . All  these stark facts are kept hidden while  Thilina through his  masquerades conducts himself as a popular figure. 

Year 2018 is going to end the mirth and merriment (Nandana Vindana) of Gamarala

It is noteworthy Maithripala Sirisena who came to power making  loud solemn promises an umpteen number of times that he is going to abolish the executive presidency within 100 days  of his becoming president , as well  as  halt all the monumental corrupt practices and criminal activities of Rajapakse nefarious decade,  sadly at the end of his three years reign has only  duped the entire country in the  manner mentioned in the above paragraphs.  How did Sirisena family amass so much wealth?  Who gave massive gifts worth Rs. 8.8 million , 6 million or 7 million ? are crucial questions . Surely nobody gives gifts of this huge value for nothing or without ulterior motive.

Certainly these are ‘Deal payments’ and ‘extortion collections’. While  claiming  he has a sword ,and it cannot be said , whether it will be relatives or friends who will be slashed, he is deceiving the country.

6.2 million people threw  out Rajapakse’s lock, stock and barrel not for a Gamarala to  build a selfish  empire for his family at country’s expense.  These deceptive practices , self seeking abendas and profligacy  of Gamaralas shall be stopped once and for all. 

Surely people cannot go on day in and day out  falling victims to Gamarala’s diabolic deceits.  2018 should therefore be the year that ends Gamarala’s mirth and merriment at public expense .

-Chandrapradeep-

Translated by Jeff.
News report to refresh the memory…. 
Rocket Rohitha’s Rs.300,000.00 worth pair of shoes vis a vis president Maithri’s austere footwear

---------------------------
by     (2018-01-10 08:06:43)