Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, January 15, 2018

President amended Bond Commission report twice to suit his needs; it is president who encouraged hooting - Dr. Wickremebahu (Video)


LEN logo(Lanka-e-News -15.Jan.2018, 10.00AM) The Bond Commission report that was received by the president was amended on two occasions in order to make Prime Minister Ranil Wiickremesinghe a wrongdoer , Dr. Wickremebahu Karunaratne , leader of Nava sama samaja revealed. (Lanka e news already reported  this first : A report was forwarded to him on the 7 th of December 2017, and this was held back  until the 31 st December to obtain another report ).
Dr. Bahu went on to point out the president giving political twists to the report when making statements in that regard is wrong.  Moreover when the P.M. tried to furnish answers , opposition was mounted and hooting was encouraged against that by the president  , he lamented. 
The president is headed for a racial holocaust , he warned.
Dr. Bahu made these comments when addressing a press briefing recently.
Dr. Bahu’s speech (video) is hereunder 


---------------------------
by     (2018-01-15 04:48:03)

Constitutional Reforms Process Needs Corrections


By Lal Wijenayake –January 15, 2018


An important event in the Constitutional Reform Process was the discussion in the Constitutional Assembly on the first interim report submitted by the Steering Committee. The debate that commenced on the 30th of October and gone on for 5 days brought about very positive views for the success of the attempt to bring about constitutional reforms to meet the twin problems of democratization of the state and national reconciliation. In the constitutional assembly discussion on the interim report, fortunately we did not see the expected fireworks but instead what we saw was a very positive approach towards constitutional reforms. Through many divergent views were highlighted and some very critical comments made. 

On a study of the constitutions made by our legislators who constituted the constitutional assembly and who are the ultimate decisions makers of this whole process, shows that the most important matter on which concerns were expressed was on the restructuring of the state/nature of the state. It was strange that though this matter has raised as an important matter of deep concern, no deep thinking/study went into this matter.

The Public Representation Committee on Constitutional Reforms (PRC) at its public sessions in all the districts made it a point to get the views of those who appeared before the PRC on this matter as we realized that this was a matter of deep concern to the people.
 
Regarding the democratization of the state there was all-round agreement and the only concern was on to what extent social, economic and cultural rights should be accommodated. 

In the case of the restructuring of the state/nature of the state, divergent views were expressed. Most of those from the North (but not all) stood for Federalism as the solution to the national question while in the South it was the opposite, except for some academics, constitutional lawyers and politically left inclined who appeared before us or made written representations, vast majority were opposed to Federalism and the demand was for an unitary form of government. We did not take this view on its face value but probed deeply to ascertain what they meant by ‘Federalism’ and ‘unitary state’.

When we questioned those who stood for Federalism as to why they were for Federalism when under the present constitution through the 13th amendment substantial powers are devolved on the Provincial Councils. The standard answer was that the minorities were not treated equally and the minorities should have the right to decide on their …………. within the areas where they are living. When we probed deeply we saw there were reasons to show that there was discrimination on the use of their language, job opportunities and allocation of resources. When we go deeper into the problem it is seen that the Tamil community has been out of main stream politics since 1956 and they feel that they are not a part of State power and are marginalized. It is seen that the representatives of the Tamil community has not been a part of state power since 1956 though very prominent personalities with Tamil names has held positions even at Cabinet level.   Therefore the main problem is the stake the community enjoys in the power structure of the state. 

When we questioned those who appeared before us in the South, who were for a unitary state as to why they insist on a unitary state the standard answer was that they were against the division of the country, and the country should remain undivided under one government. They expressed the fear that federalism might lead to division of the country. When we probed as to what they feel about the Provincial Council system we found that they were for devolution of powers though they felt that the Provincial Councils has not achieved what was expected. Most important observation is that all the seven Chief Ministers who appeared before us were for devolution and implementation at the 13th amendment fully with some reservations on police and land powers that are vested in the Provincial Councils under the 13th Amendment and what they expressed was that there should be a solution regarding Police powers and land powers vested in the Provincial Council which is acceptable to all. 

Even at the debate on the interim report in the Constitutional Assembly except for the JHU, there was no serious opposition to the concept of devolution of powers to the general or to the Provincial Council system. 
 
The constitutional reforms, if it is to be meaningful, has to end in a new constitution that is acceptable to all sections of the country. It has to be a constitution that can create a Sri Lankan nation with a Sri Lankan identity, which were have failed to create during the last 70 years since independence. 

We have to promulgate a constitution which will be acceptable to all sections of the people of our country, so that they will proudly say that it is their constitution and they will proudly say that they are Sri Lankans. 

Therefore, we gave our mind to the possibilities of a state based on a structure acceptable to all communities. As stated in our report what will be acceptable to all sections of the people will be a state based on

Read More

Throwing punches & trading insults Parliament sinks to new low over Bond Commission report


By Methmalie Dissanayake-2018-01-14

The very first parliamentary session of the New Year undoubtedly was a reminder of a most famous 'Frank Underwood' quote to fans of American political drama TV series House of Cards: 'If you don't like how the table is set, turn over the table!'

This special parliamentary session was called to take a final decision on the Bond Commission report which was pledged to be placed in the House as the first item of business for the day.
Ravi K's phone

Former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake, from the beginning of the session was seen busy with his mobile phone. From the time Speaker Karu Jayasuriya announced the Bond Commission Report would not be presented to Parliament that day (10)... to when the Leader of the House said that the Government was ready for any kind of debate and the Prime Minister said that he needed to make a special statement and even when the Opposition was vehemently protesting against the PM, Karunanayake did not take his eyes off his mobile phone.

The former minister did not even show any interest to be a part of the brawl between the Government and the Opposition MPs which erupted later in the Chamber.

When the House commenced sittings, Speaker Jayasuriya announced that the Presidential Secretariat had informed him that the Bond Commission report and 34 reports of Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into Serious Acts of Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power, State Resources and Privileges (PRECIFAC) would be made available to Parliament after one more week.
Secretary to the President had also stated that copies of the Bonds Commission report had been referred to the Attorney General, the Central Bank and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.

Kiriella's statement

The argument began between Government ranks and the Opposition when Leader of the House Kiriella provocatively said "It was the JO and SLFP that wanted a debate today. We came prepared but now they are shying away saying they can't have a debate without seeing the report," when it was clear that the special session was convened to present the Bond Commission report in Parliament, after which party leaders were to meet and discuss on the progression of the debate. It was also announced that the Prime Minister would make a special statement.

Opposition ranks protested against Wickremesinghe proceeding with his special statement when the Commission report was in fact not tabled, thus making the House unable to decide on the debate.
The Prime Minister said the Opposition could blame him more after listening to the statement he prepared to deliver. "It is very important to me - delivering this statement. You can blame me more after listening to this," he said. However, the Opposition repeatedly said that they did not come to listen to his statements. Therefore, the PM had to make the statement amid the protests.

Ranil's chant

Joint Opposition (JO) MPs, Udaya Gammanpila and Padma Udayashantha were the first ones who came to the Well. Several JO MPs followed them with placards while shouting slogans such as 'Bank Thief!!' but the PM did not stop making the statement. SLFP MP Namal Rajapaksa also came to the Well but stayed away from the melee. MP Dinesh Gunawardena was also seen with Rajapaksa later.
When the JO MPs tried to grab the Mace, Sergeant-at-Arms Anil Parakrama Samarasekera and his deputy Kushan Jayaratne held the Mace in the bracket. JO MP Mahindananda Aluthgamage, who ran away with the Mace in 2014, was also seen near the Mace. However, this time he was seemingly trying to control his colleagues from harming the Mace.

When the tense situation seemed to be growing worse, senior members including Dinesh Gunawardena were seen asking the Speaker to suspend the sittings and call a party leaders meeting. However, the Speaker announced the suspension of sittings for ten minutes only after the Prime Minister concluded his special statement which could only be heard through headphones. The PM after reading his statement cheerfully said to the UNP MPs, while swinging his hands dramatically in air "Say this after me... Who is the thief?"

While UNPers screamed 'Mahinda Hora!' JO MPs shouted 'Ranil Hora!'
Sanity prevailed for a moment after Speaker left his Chair and some UNP senior Ministers and JO seniors were seen engaged in casual talk - just like on any other day after a fiery battle.

Marikkar's attack

Things would have remained calm and the 'August Assembly' would not have turned into a virtual battle field had not Marikkar, who earlier escorted a sick Dr. Jayawardena out of the chamber, entered from the Opposition's side to attack Gamini Lokuge.

Lokuge and all his colleagues were caught off-guard when Marikkar who approached the former from behind slapped the senior.

He then ran away from the chamber even before the 'Chataas' sound of the thundering slap could die and JO members could catch him. Lokuge who was in for a shock barely had time to recover from the slap and was getting up from the seat, when Marrikkar's colleague Chaminda Wijesiri punched him in the face. Even though Marikkar ran away, Wijesiri was trapped, as JO members surrounded him from all sides. Seeing his sorry situation, Matale MP Rohini Wijeratne rushed in and held onto Aluthgamage's hand as well as another JO member's hand. However, things were not in her favour as angry MPs started punching each other over her head while, a few JO members who realized it was a woman who had been trapped finally pushed her aside with the help of UNP woman MP Dr. Thusitha Wijemanna.
Sagala's block
While the two main parties were engaged in an ugly brawl, TNA and JVP members became spectators and Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan who occupies a front row seat was escorted to a back bench to keep him safe.

The Prime Minister, who would otherwise have left the chambers soon after sessions were suspended on any other day, was present in the chamber and after things seemed to have calmed down, tried to go to the Opposition side to inquire about the situation. He was, however, obstructed by Minister Sagala Ratnayake who was seen giving a firm 'no' to the PM and blocked him from proceeding beyond the front row of the Opposition.

Aftermath

After the brawl, the UNP, SLFP, JO and JVP called media briefings. The UNP and the JO pointed fingers at each other. Marikkar said, 'Lokuge slapped me and I slapped him back. I will never stay without giving a return after taking a slap."

Hector Appuhami and Chaminda Wijesiri said, "We also can fight. But we do not want to fight in Parliament as we did not come here for that. But if they want a fight then we cannot stay back, crossing our arms."

The JO, meanwhile, said that the Government deliberately wanted to start a fight. 'They created this bloody brawl by trying to grab our placards. The Government wants to hide thieves who are behind the Bond Scam," the JO stressed.

JVP lashed out at the Prime Minister and Speaker, saying that they were responsible for the 'unnecessary' clash which erupted in the Chamber.

Addressing the media at the Parliament complex, JVP MP Vijitha Herath said, "During the Party Leaders' meeting held on 9 January, the Government promised to present and table the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry investigating and inquiring into the issuance of Treasury Bonds and the 34 reports prepared by the Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into Serious Acts of Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power, State Resources and Privileges (PRECIFAC), yesterday (13) morning. But they failed to do so. Instead, the Prime Minister tried to use this parliamentary session as an opportunity to make a statement.

"If the Premier and Speaker knew the reports will not be presented today, they should have postponed the parliamentary session. We did not come to listen to statements of the Prime Minister. Therefore, both of them should take the responsibility for that unnecessary clash which erupted in the Chamber," Herath added.

Moreover, JVP MP hit out that the President saying that he should ensure that the Bond Commission report and the other 34 reports are presented to the Parliament as it is Parliament that holds the monetary control of the country. Herath said, "He should present the report to Parliament on time. However, he also failed to deliver on his responsibility."

Herath responded to the Prime Minister's remark that the Bond Commission Report will be presented to Cabinet. When journalists queried about this remark, Herath said that the Bond Commission Report is not an Act or a Gazette notification. "Therefore, it is unnecessary to present the report to the Cabinet. Instead of doing so, the Government should present it to Parliament as the citizenry have a right to know about the contents of report," he added.

Politics that was a voluntary service in our country has been made a business

Anura-Disanayake-2017.09.10
 by

People have lost interest in politics as the politics in our country that was a voluntary service has been made a very profitable business. The politics in Sri Lanka today is more profitable than heroin racket. Heroin racket is profitable but dangerous. However, there is no danger in politics. People enthusiastically make it possible for politicians to steal. As such, politics has been transformed into a dignified profitable business,” says the Leader of the JVP Anura Dissanayaka speaking at a meeting held at Ulhitiyawa area in Wennappuwa.
Speaking at the meeting held to support the JVP candidates contesting the Wennappuwa Pradeshiya Sabha at the local government election Mr. Dissanayaka said, “The main reason for people in Sri Lanka to despise politics is because it has been made a business. The bond scam is one such business that has been committed in the country lately.

The working masses in our country suffer all 24 hours of the day to earn a living. Fishermen risk their lives to go to the deep sea to earn a living. However, the bond fraudster s do not confront such risks. The son-in-law earned Rs. 12000 million without much effort. His profits are the size of five brick kilns. The people have to face the consequences of this crime until 2045.

A politician from upcountry began his profession as an insurance agent earning Rs. 1,200 monthly in 1990. He enters politics. The so-called patriot now has houses on Kinsey Road, in England, has shops in AirPort. His daughter studies in the USA. See how profitable politics is! Don’t people despise such politics?

In 2015 Mr. Maithripala Sirisena is elected as President. He says he would abolish presidency. He said he would go home in 2020. However, after 3 years he gets the ‘taste’ of politics. He asks the Supreme Court whether he could continue as President until 2021. When coming to power he said he would go home in 2020. Now, after three years in office, he asks whether he could be in power for another year. This is power hunger.

The ‘yahapalana’ president who said he would go home after five years has been caught up in the political business net. If he was democratic and promotes good governance he need not ask whether he could continue till 2021. This is what Chandrika did and also Rajapaksa did.

When we were young when we were asked to draw a picture we drew a man with a mask, tattoos on his body and a pistol or a dagger in his hands. When today’s children as asked to draw a thief they draw a man with a national suit with a shawl or a man wearing a full suit. This is now the future generation looks at politicians of today. Politics has become bitter for people. There are some in villages who say they are traditional UNPers or they have been members of the SLFP for generations. However, their leaders have not stuck with one party. How many times SB, Jonnie, Mangala, Gamini Lokuge, Karu Jayasuriya have crossed from one party to another. However, people in the village have been divided into parties for generations and fight with each other. The political leaders who are elected by the people jump from one side to another for privileges and to engage in political businesses.

We ask the people in this country to vote for the JVP to stop the political business. We are prepared to make politics that has been made a business a people friendly service, a voluntary service that works for the people. Hence, we believe people at Wenenappuwa and other areas in the country would rally around the JVP.

The JVP leader for Puttalam District Samantha Koralearachchi, Candidates for Wennappuwa Pradeshiya Sabha Anton Kumara and Devon Layantha also spoke. A large crowd was present.

SC decision conveyed to Sirisena unofficially ! accepts defeat – reacts like the fox in sour grapes story !

By Wimal Dheerasekera

LEN logo(Lanka-e-News -15.Jan.2018, 10.00AM)  President Sirisena who makes grandiose announcements that he is prepared to step down from his post even  today without waiting for tomorrow , irrespective of the decision of the Supreme court (SC) , and that he would accept whatever decision delivered by the SC ,made another  statement some days later. 
If another Polonnaruwa village folk questions president Sirisena , ‘after saying you are prepared to step down from the post today itself , even without waiting for tomorrow , then why on earth are you seeking court intervention to stay in office for another year ?’  Is Sirisena going to say ,aney it is because I have gone crazy  because of my inordinate power greed? 
We are informed there are a number of reasons  for Sirisena to make statements betraying his retreat at the end of the objections raised by the SC  . Those are…. 

The side of Chitrasiri and the lapdog  …

Among those who gave wrong advice to president Sirisena is Chitrasiri the most  junior SC judge , who is a bosom pal of the president . The proximity of relationship between president and Chitrasiri can be gauged based on the following fact :
When Priyasad  Dep was selected as Chief justice , the president named two individuals  for that post – they  were Priysad Dep and Chitrasiri . If the president who should make appointments on merits has chosen the most junior judge for the post of CJ, one can imagine how close the president is to Chitrasiri .  
What’s more , being a lackey and lickspittle of the president the latter appointed this same most junior SC judge Chitrasiri as the president of the Bond Commission with the sole aim of slinging mud at the UNP despite the COPE Committee handing over its report earlier on this bond issue to the AG to study the report and file action , if necessary. 
Chitrasiri who arranged for installation of secret cameras at the residence of the president to watch the evidence given by the witnesses , spent almost all his time at Paget road residence of president Sirisena and least time at the omission as its president. Chitrasiri then undertook the contract to get the presidential term extended for  another year , and misled the power greedy  president to seek SC  opinion. Like a drowning man grabs even  a straw  the president eagerly swallowed the deadly pill  of Chitrasiri. 
The other individual who added sweetness  to the bitter deadly  pill was the Attorney General (AG)  Jayantha Jayasuriya who is now crawling on the laps of president Sirisena and sniffing his entire forbidden zone. Sirisena’s eagerness for power outran his sureness so much so that he did not even consult the leaders of his consensual government  allied parties known to him ,  in this regard. Instead , he sought the unknown SC  which he does not know ,to inquire ,   ‘ can I be in power until 2021?’ Believe it or not , even SLFP seniors were not aware of president’s stealthy moves.

The president seeking to justify his power lust is now engaging in his favorite pastime – bluffing  his way out by saying there was a doubt among society  regarding his term – whether it is 5 or 6 years  , and therefore he sought SC’s intervention. As far as we are concerned , there never was such an ambiguity  before . 
It is only after he made this obnoxious self centered inquiry this issue became a topic of discussion. May be it is  only in the thesaurus of Sirisena , ‘society’ means his self seeking, self fattening  group of opportunists including Kili Maharaja, Sirisena’s daughter and son in law ,Chitrasiri and NGO crook cum brief-less lawyer ShiralLakthileke . We say this because even the legal draftsmen of the 19 th amendment did not know such an ambiguity exists  pertaining to  president Sirisena.
Unfortunately for Sirisena , when this sordid attempt of the president became widely known  among society , it only stirred up a hornet’s nest with bitter opposition being mounted against the president despite his cool and calculated bluff . It is president Sirisena who earlier on said loudly and proudly , he wanted to reduce his term to four years in keeping with his policies , but it is others who kept it at 5 years against his wishes . Lanka e news displayed   this video footage alone, with his speech over a 40,000 times ! Such video footages and posts were published via the social media many hundred thousand times. 
It is only  Attorney General alias Ata-nehe General presently the lap dog of Sirisena, and lawyer of Ulapone Sumangala the advisor to president of the den  of villains who ill advised the president that he can continue in power until 2021 through SC intervention. The majority on the other hand held the view that , this is not an issue at all to be inquired from the SC as the 19 th amendment is abundantly clear as regards the legal position.

The legal luminaries and experts pointed out the clause ‘to dispel doubts’ specially incorporated in the 19 th amendment , is in support of their contention that the term of the president is 5 years only, and terminates in 2020.
The AG Jayantha Jayasuriya by now better known as the Ata -nehe General proved he is also a mole- nehe (brainless) imbecile when he advanced the stupid  contention that when the president took oaths upholding   the people’s sovereignty , he was to be in power for 6 years , and if that sovereignty is to be changed by the 19 th amendment introduced subsequently ,a fresh  referendum of the people is necessary .
It is a  pity Jayasuriya did not have even  that little grey matter to understand,  the people installed  Sirisena in power to  abolish the executive presidency within 100 days of his becoming the president . Therefore  the sovereignty of the people must have  been  upheld then by the abolition of the executive presidency within 100 days by the president. Therefore , what is this sly attempt for a six year term instead ? 
As for   the second argument of the AG that a referendum is necessary, the answer  is ,   the draft bill of the 19 th amendment before it was passed in parliament had already been referred to the AG and thereafter to the SC , and ensured that a people’s referendum is not necessary .
If the same Institution which then  said a referendum is not necessary , is now arguing it is necessary,  where on earth do you get such Institutions and legal systems? unless that  is a mental Institution . To please whom is all this being done? Is it to safeguard the sacrosanct laws and the rule of law or to demolish them ?  Is this aimed at replacing the inviolable rule of law which was earnestly expected by the Rainbow revolution, with the  rule of the jungles of brutes ,and laws of scoundrels  in society ?  
Meanwhile , leader of the house Lakshman Kiriella making  an open  statement in Parliament said , until the president had forwarded his request to the SC ,even  the party leaders of the good governance government were not aware of it . Consequently , the party which is an ally of the incumbent consensual government for good governance is now plunged in   a political crisis. 
This revelation was tantamount to giving a slap in the face of Sirisena who knows only to hit below the belt on the sly. 
The bitterest opposition against  the president came from the SLFP seniors. They plainly told Sirisena  , his conduct is a direct hit at their  campaign  in  respect of  the upcoming elections ,and boosts the  Mahinda Rajapakses. Rajapakses openly announced ,if the 19 th amendment does not apply to Sirisena , Mahinda Rajapakse can again stake his claim at  the presidential election. Irrespective of whether that is possible or not , certainly that is going to give Rajapakses the edge at the forthcoming elections.
At the same time, independent lawyers like senior S .G. Punchihewa  also expressed their opposition to the president’s efforts to extend his term by a year. They made an important revelation , that is , the SC verdict is only its opinion and not its decision.  If the president is making attempts ( sly ,of course) to be in power after 2020, a case can be filed on that day , and at that time , the same judges may not be on the bench , the senior lawyers pinpointed. 
The JVP which at other times  is in the vanguard citing  foolish or sound  grounds ,on this occasion was dumbfounded. In addition, publicity too was given by them  to the baseless and unlawful  arguments of the Attorney General in court on behalf of the president . The JVP thereby confirmed beyond doubt the truth in the allegation ‘as long as Maharaja is aligned with Sirisena, the JVP will not oppose’ hurled at them  by other Leftists . Why they are behaving  this disdainfully   , only  the slimy and shallow JVP can explain.  

President cuts not only the nose but even his ‘hose’ to spite the face …

Based on unofficial reports received by us ,Chitrasiri himself has notified  Sirisena , the majority decision of the SC is not what Sirisena longed for. 
Sirisena who has an infinite capacity to bluff his way through , after becoming aware of this backlash said ,   irrespective of whether it is in his favor or not,  he will accept the SC decision , while adding, even today without waiting for tomorrow he is prepared to  step down from his post ,  and go away . This is like  the Fox that attempted and failed in the ‘sour grape story’ .
By all these maneuvers and machinations ,it is none other than the president ,Pallewatte Gamaralalage   Maithripala Yapa Sirisena who by trying to cut the nose to spite the face has cut off even his own  ‘hose’ too .

By Wimal Dheerasekera 

Translated by Jeff
---------------------------
by     (2018-01-15 04:40:10)

After SC rules five years, President still under fire for asking the question

  • President had ulterior motives to ask question at election time: JVP 
  • AG’s interpretation of six years ‘odd’ says CPA 
  • ‘We thought he came to abolish the presidency’: Dr Sara 

No collision in coalition at cocaine crush !


Recent developments may seem to have put the duo on an apparent collision course but President Maithripala Sirisena and Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe were together with a smile yesterday when 928 kilograms of cocaine were destroyed in public

logoBy Dharisha Bastians -Tuesday, 16 January 2018

President Maithripala Sirisena has continued to be at the receiving end of strong criticism, even after the Supreme Court put an end to speculation about the duration of his term on Sunday (14).

The Presidential Media Division confirmed that the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court which held a public hearing on the question posed by President Sirisena about whether his term would end in five or six years, had communicated its decision to the President that he could hold office for a period of five years according to the Constitution.

The decision resulted in widespread relief after fears that the President was seeking the opinion of the country’s apex court to stretch his term of office – changed to five years through the 19th Amendment – to six years. The Attorney General’s interpretation that President Sirisena assumed office before the passage of the 19th Amendment and was therefore entitled to serve a six-year term; and his argument that reducing his term to five years would be an infringement of the sovereignty of the people and the franchise, appeared to have been rejected by the Supreme Court which appeared to hold that the current President was also subject to the provisions of the 19A.

Speaking to Daily FT, Executive Director of the Center for Policy Alternatives Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, said he found it “rather odd” that the Attorney General would come to court and offer this constitutional interpretation. CPA also intervened in the public hearing, holding that the Constitution entitled President Sirisena only to a five-year term. “Perhaps the AG genuinely believed it could be interpreted this way. But it is a fairly straightforward reading and it confuses me that the AG could come to court and say this,” Dr. Saravanamuttu noted.

 The 19th Amendment, sometimes called the single most significant achievement of the Yahapalanaya Government to date, contained specific transitional provisions to clear any doubt about the powers of an incumbent President and Prime Minister, subjecting persons holding those offices at the time of enactment to the provisions of the new amendment.

He added that the CPA was very happy that the Supreme Court had agreed with their interpretation of five years, since the whole issue was fairly straightforward as per the 19th Amendment. “But it is confusing as to why the President should ask for an advisory opinion on the duration of his term at this point in time – or at all, given that we were led to believe that he came to office to abolish the presidency,” the CPA chief added.

Holding a press briefing yesterday, JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva echoed these sentiments, saying that it was ironic that President Sirisena who came to power promising to abolish the executive presidency was now asking the Supreme Court if his term was five or six years.

“The President is not fulfilling his mandate. Instead his preoccupation is with protecting the SLFP and establishing his power in that party,” Silva accused. The JVP General Secretary also accused President Sirisena of “ulterior motives” in seeking this Supreme Court opinion at the height of election season.

Last Friday, under heavy fire from critics and civil society, the Presidential Secretariat said the President had sought the opinion of the court in order to dispel confusion that had arisen in political circles about the duration of his term. Speaking publicly, President Sirisena vowed to bow to the determination of the court on the matter, saying he was “ready to go home even today.”

As per the Supreme Court determination on the question of President Sirisena’s term of office, presidential elections will be declared at the tail end of 2019, giving the incumbent President roughly a year and 10 months in which to pursue his policies.

The current Parliament, which was elected in August 2015, will outlast President Sirisena unless he seeks and wins a second term of office in 2020, something he vowed not to do when he was elected in January 2015. Under the terms of the 19th Amendment, President Sirisena will be unable to affect the dissolution of Parliament before his first term expires, since the amendment prohibits a president from dissolution of the legislature until it reaches the 4.5-year mark, or in this case, February 2019. 

Mourning the death of Reform Agenda


By Arjuna Ranawana-2018-01-14

When President Maithripala Sirisena took office three years ago he voluntarily surrendered most of the powers of the executive presidency to the Prime Minister and Parliament, and supported a reduction in the term of office of the President from 6 to 5 years. It was a key part of the Reform Agenda he had campaigned on and received six million votes for.

That is why Sri Lankans are wondering why he is asking the Supreme Court whether he could serve a six-year term.

Is it a sudden change of mind?

I don't think so, because there have been signs that the President is growing into a job that he got rather unexpectedly, and may want to keep it a bit longer, partly if not wholly, because of recent events.
Hora, Hora

A few days ago, we were treated to a disgraceful display by Members of Parliament where these 'Honourable' representatives of the people fought like schoolboys, and even the normally dignified Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe resorted to Trade Unionist sloganeering.

Members, mostly from the Joint Opposition, and the United National Party, shouted 'hora, hora' (thief) at each other after the Government failed to table the report of the Presidential Bonds Commission as promised.

While the JO yelled 'Ranil hora' the UNP Members responded with 'Mahinda hora.' No mention of the President here.

At this time, SLFP leadership – at least what some would call the Maithri Faction – was not by the Diyawanna but in Anuradhapura, launching its Local Government (LG) election campaign.

Addressing the rally, the President sought to use a pithy, commonly used example to spin this public display of hooliganism by his rival parliamentarians to his advantage.

He said, "When a man is walking down the street and his pocket is picked by a criminal, he runs after the pickpocket yelling, 'thief, thief.' Then the pickpocket looks behind him and keeps running also yelling 'thief, thief.' That is what happened in Parliament."

Effectively he painted both the UNP and the Mahinda faction of the SLFP as the rogues that have looted the nation's wealth.

Within hours, an expertly edited video version of these remarks, interspersed with clips from the fracas in Parliament, was being shared by thousands on Social Media.

"The President is using his homespun style to present himself as an alternative to the electorate," observes Political Commentator Dr. Suren Rāghavan.

Bombshell

It was soon afterwards that the political bombshell was dropped on the nation as documents leaked to the media indicated that the President was asking the Supreme Court whether he could continue in office until 2021, a full six-year term, instead of the 5-year term he had said he would serve as stipulated in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution that he himself had championed.

A chorus of protests has risen in the country to this idea, mostly on the grounds that a man who had said "five years is enough for me," has no moral right to ask for another year.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is among the Civil Society groups protesting. In a statement it said "In the lead up to the enactment of the 19th Amendment in 2015, President Sirisena himself noted that the reduced Presidential term of five years will apply to himself. CPA hopes the President is mindful of his earlier assertions. CPA also urges Constitutional and political actors to act in a manner that upholds the spirit of the 19th Amendment."

After considering public petitions that argue for and against the request, a five-Judge bench of the Supreme Court is to convey to the President this weekend, the legality of a sixth year.

Rāghavan says the fact that Sirisena asked the Supreme Court for an opinion as to whether he can continue for a sixth year is remarkable. "Other Presidents, whether it was J.R. Jayewardene or Mahinda Rajapaksa bullied the Supreme Court," into doing what the Chief Executive wanted it to do. "It's the right thing for a democratic leader to do," he points out.

Rāghavan is among those who are supportive of an extra year for the President and also that Sirisena, against all his promises, should contest for a second term in office.

"What alternative is there?" he asks. "If the Mahinda faction comes in, they will resume terrorizing everybody. If Ranil comes in they will continue looting the country. Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, I prefer Maithri," he says.

Survival

Professor Sarath Wijesuriya, a Senior Lecturer at the Colombo University and one of the architects of the Reform Agenda on which Sirisena was elected to power is also supportive of the President continuing in office for the same reasons.

But he paints the bigger picture which saddens him.

"He should have dissolved Parliament when he was elected and asked the electorate to vote on the Reform Agenda. Instead, he appointed the minority UNP as a Government and then went for the election. All this (the Bond Scam) took place in the interim," he says.

Wijesuriya also feels that Sirisena believes that after Wickremesinghe came to power, the Prime Minister 'cut a deal with the Rajapaksas that he will not harm the family (in investigations into alleged criminality by the Rajapaksa sons and brothers.)' In that context, he states, he had no choice 'but to accept the Chairmanship of the SLFP for his own survival.'

Rāghavan agrees that appointing Wickremesinghe as PM before a General Election was a 'political mistake.'

"It was one small signature on a paper, but history will judge Sirisena harshly for that," he says.
Now, says Wiejsuriya, Sirisena has lost the independence he had as Common Candidate and therefore is unable to implement the reforms Sri Lankans are crying out for.

"It is a sad day, because the Reform Agenda is dead," he laments.

A cartoon, also doing the rounds on Facebook and Twitter, shows an ordinary citizen passing by Parliament and hearing the sounds of the 'hora, hora' chant from within, responds by saying "no need to yell, we know."

That is a good representation of the dilemma faced by voters.

Increasingly, the situation has left us with nothing to go on.

Soon we need to vote for elections to LG bodies, which should only be about getting our day to day needs addressed, but these shenanigans have overshadowed what should have been a local campaign.
It is difficult to predict the sort of impact all this will have on the upcoming LG polls, but it is evident that the disgust with party politics is growing among the electorate.

Sri Lanka: Morality of The Law and The President’s Dilemma

There are two schools of thought here: natural law and legal positivism. Those who profess natural law argue that the link between law and morality is incontrovertible and inextricable.  In other words, the relationship is not contingent. 


by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne  - 
The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount…If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State.
― Harry Truman
           
( January 15, 2018, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) Manik de Silva’s well reasoned article of 14 January titled Sri Lanka: President’s term five years or six? Where he says [T]here is no question that the president, whatever the legal position, is morally bound to serve for five years and no longer. If the judges rule that his term is six years, there is nothing to stop him from vacating office at the conclusion of the fifth year and proclaiming a presidential election to elect a successor if the presidency is then in existence, raises an interesting question. If, as the Attorney General of Sri Lanka argues, the 19th amendment which reduced the term of office of the President from 6 to 5 years is prospective and not retrospective, and the President was elected at a time when the term of Presidency was 6 years, the President could retain his office until 2012; or, as Mr. de Silva   says, irrespective of such a decision by the Supreme Court, the President could disregard the ruling (which would be law of the land ) and stand by his statement which he made when he was elected, that he would be President only for 5 years, would the President be bound to follow the law and be morally exonerated from  being fettered by a law which goes against his promise to the people of Sri Lanka?  Mr. de Silva comes up with a practical solution suggesting a compromise between compliance with the law and preserving the President’s moral dignity and credibility with the people of Sri Lanka, by resigning after 5 years in office and calling for a Presidential election on the ground that the prospective 19th Amendment which limits a President’s term of 5 years was initiated by him and therefore that he is morally obligated to adhere to the Amendment.  In other words, this becomes a dialogue on the primacy between law and morality.
There are two schools of thought here: natural law and legal positivism. Those who profess natural law argue that the link between law and morality is incontrovertible and inextricable.  In other words, the relationship is not contingent. Therefore, if there is a clash between the two (natural law and human law), morality should take precedence.  In other words, even if the law says the President can hold office for six years, he is bound to relinquish duties after five years.     Thomas Aquinas famously said that everything under providence is measured and regulated by eternal law and those of the individual who participates in it by natural law; not that these two are different laws but the universal and particular aspect of one and the same law. Aquinas therefore ascribes primacy to natural law which espouses doing good and doing the right thing; avoiding evil and bad actions.  Natural law exponents say that all human laws must be morally justified. The Western tradition of jurisprudence has shown an inclination toward natural law using the argument that human law is either just or unjust or good or bad. St Paul in his letters to the Romans said that laws should be “written on the heart”.
H.L.A Hart – a highly admired exponent of jurisprudence – who supports legal positivism, recognizes that there are two types laws: primary laws and secondary laws. These two categories exist in what Hart called a “core” and a “penumbra” where at the core are primary laws which imposed a duty on humans.  Examples are speeding laws; laws prohibiting trespass.  At the penumbra are secondary laws where humans could use the primary laws to enact their own different laws.  Hart called them laws that bestowed power and explained further: “[U]nder rules of the one type, which may well be considered the basic or primary type, human beings are required to do or abstain from certain actions, whether they wish to or not. Rules of the other type are in a sense parasitic upon or secondary to the first; for they provide that human beings may by doing or saying certain things introduce new rules of the primary type, extinguish or modify old ones, or in various ways determine their incidence or control their operations. Rules of the first type impose duties; rules of the second type confer powers, public or private”.
The question at issue for the President would be whether he has  a moral obligation to follow the law. In other words, does human law trump morality?  Ronald Dworkin, a respected exponent of jurisprudence, has opined that law and morality are contingent and that legal positivism can only be linked to morality insofar as morality gives a certain legitimacy to legal propositions.  Hugh Baxter, a legal commentator says: “Morality, even for “inclusive” positivism, is relevant in determining the law on a given point only if a social rule, such as Hart’s rule of recognition, ultimately so specifies.  This rule of recognition is a social rule, accepted “as a matter of custom and practice”.
The 18th   Century German philosopher Immanuel Kant based his philosophy on human dignity and opined that how we judge the right thing to do does not depend on consequentialism as propounded by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham who followed the view that the rightness of our actions depends on the maximum happiness of the maximum number of people, but rather on what Kant called the “categorical imperative”. Kant’s categorical imperative carries  the philosophy that one must act as others might act towards one.
Kant was of the view  that one should act categorically and not consequentially.  To explain this rather high sounding principle, I would say that the moral worth of the acts of anyone  must be unconditionally and universally acceptable as being for the good of the people governed.  Michael Sandel, one of the most popular professors at Harvard Law School who teaches a course simply called Justice, in his book, Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do?  cites the example of a shopkeeper who sells an item from his shop to an intellectually challenged person.  The shopkeeper knows that he can give his disadvantaged customer the wrong change and make a huge profit.  But then he desists, and gives the correct change on the basis that, if the fact that he overcharged his customer gets out, he would lose business.  Professor Sandel argues that the shopkeeper in this instance did the right thing, but for the wrong reason.  The right reason would have been that the correct change was given because the shopkeeper acted autonomously, i.e. according to a law that he gives himself, that requires him to be a good person universally, who respects the dignity of the other person without discrimination.
With all these interpretive and seemingly lofty philosophy, one is assured that the President will take the right decision. President Obama, in his book Audacity of Hope said that we work to achieve and retain here things: a sense of purpose; a sense of direction; and a sense of dignity.  Martin Luther King Jr. said that one’s worth is measured by three things: dignity; achievements and joy, beauty and justice taken together.  I would add a fourth: integrity, which  is doing the right thing even if no one is watching.

Technology-related Violence Against Women and Girls in Sri Lanka: Key Trends


Featured image courtesy Politico

There is little research done on technology-based violence against women in Sri Lanka. In addition, there are no trilingual, easily accessible, open-source resources for digital security, key because many leaks occur due to lack of understanding about security measures to ensure privacy online. Research shows the varied impact of online harassment can be feltoffline. The stigma has even driven young girls to suicide in Sri Lanka. Attempts to report violations to Facebook are met with the response that they do not violate Community Standards, as most of this content is in Sinhala or Tamil; the vernacular languages. While Information and Communication Technology has given women and girls increased capacity for self-expression and public and political engagement, often a direct proportionality can be seen in the increase of women and girls’ access to the Internet and increase of violence against women online.
It is in this context that the Center for Policy Alternatives (the institutional anchor ofGroundviews), Ghosha (a feminist initiative in Sri Lanka exploring intersections between technology and women’s human rights) and youth group Hashtag Generation set out to conduct a research on the prevalence of technology-related violence against women and girls in Sri Lanka, with a specific focus on Facebook. We began to analyze a set of Facebook pages in October 2017. The past three months have also been significant on account of a global conversation on violence against women in the form of the #MeToo campaign. It is by no means the first such conversation (or even the first #MeToo campaign), nor will it be the last. It is important to recognize this as a significant moment while also acknowledging the various factors and privileges that elevated this particular movement. The momentum of the campaign has reached the Global South as well, with the release of an online list of Indian men in academia accused by women of repeated sexual harassment and the conversation and debate that arose from it. Many in Sri Lanka participated as well, highlighting the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment here too.   It is in this context that we share some preliminary observations from our research.
Key trends
Culture of Sexism and Misogyny
The Facebook pages monitored in these three months have shown that,
  1. Incidents of sexual harassment
  2. Non-consensual dissemination of images and intimate images and
  3. Other forms of technology-related violence against women and girls
are not isolated incidents. They happen in the context of a culture of casual sexism and misogyny that is the norm in these Facebook pages. This is common across pages in Sinhala, Tamil and English. The messages are often conveyed using humour and packaged as memes and cartoons. As part of the ongoing research, these posts have been documented for posterity, including screenshots, but we are opting not to share them at this stage.
Nonconsensual Dissemination of Personal Images and Intimate Images
One manifestation of the culture of sexism and misogyny online is the non-consensual sharing and dissemination of personal and intimate images, a clear form of violence against the women affected. The pages we have monitored indicate that the images shared publicly are just a preview of larger databases and are used as a way to invite page followers to privately gain access to more images. In some instances, the images used are personal images and not intimate images, but the accompanying captions and comments are derogatory, abusive, violent and incite further violence.
Propagating violence against women while defending women
Another trend noted was that even when some pages publish content in defense of women, the captions and comments are using derogatory and abusive language against other women or women in general to support their defense. This is an indication that as an extension of the public space in which people live their political and social lives, the Internet is replicating and sometimes augmenting structural inequalities against women.
Anonymity
There is a strong culture of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of online violence on Facebook. The pages we monitor don’t indicate who is administrating them and most often, the followers and commenters are not identifiable either. They are either using a fake identity/profile or have not shared identifiable markers such as a profile picture or a full name. While there might be opportunities to use Facebook reporting guidelines to report perpetrators and get content removed (and the next section explains why this is not so simple), if the women facing violence on Facebook want to report to law enforcement, there isn’t sufficient information to identify the perpetrators. Facebook’s real name policy has in fact been used totarget members of the LGBTIQ community in the past – many of them use pseudonyms on social media but were inadvertently outed by the policy. As a response to the criticism Facebook said they would change their policy so that it did not disproportionately affect marginalised communities. Yet in practice users continue to subvert the system, as the research is showing.
Manipulation of Facebook Reporting Guidelines
Finally, the key trend we have observed during this period is that all these pages take various measures to avoid coming under the purview of Facebook reporting guidelines. This is done in a variety of ways including only liking and commenting on posts and not sharing, so that the posts are not visible beyond the pages, not including captions to the posts but only text on images and not directly linking to websites that publish non-consensual intimate images but including the link on images. These pages are also taking advantage of the fact that technology-related and online violence against women or violence and hate speech on the basis of gender are not identified as grounds for reporting under Facebook reporting guidelines for photos (as opposed to links and comments). Unless you know the women whose photos are being shared as explained before, there are no options to report the often abusively framed photos. Ultimately, most of these posts fall through the cracks of Facebook’s security framework because they are in languages for which comprehensive support is not available. This has been confirmed by several survivors and activists, who note that though content is violent and abusive in Sinhala and Tamil (though Tamil content is more closely monitored as it is comparatively widely used) Facebook does not identify it as violating community standards when reported.
Challenges
Some of the challenges our team faced during this period included:
  •    Some of the pages identified in our methodology being deleted by the time data collection happens though our different methods of data collection are addressing this issue – perhaps due to the pages being reported by other users.
  •    Monitoring both Sri Lankan and Indian Facebook pages in Tamil given that Sri Lankan Tamil language Facebook users are active on both types. We have decided to monitor both types of pages to understand user behavior in both.
  •    Mental duress on the researchers due to some of the graphic content we have been monitoring and documenting. We have formed a WhatsApp group on which we can have conversations and support each other and also identified that we must seek counseling should we need it.
As part of this project, we will be hosting a series of focus group discussions in early February, and invite all women and girls who have experienced technology-related violence against women to write to us with your input.
For those seeking support for specific cases of technology-related violence, please contact the Grassrooted Trust.
Is Sri Lanka a “Killing field” full of toxins where people die of chronic disease?


by Chandre Dharmawardana, Canada. (chandre.dharma@yahoo.ca)-Posted on January 15th, 2018

LogoThe claim that Sri Lankan soils and its agricultural produce are full of toxins, and that it is a “killing field”  is an attractive slogan for those foreign agents who compete with Sri Lanka’s  agricultural products. It is also a useful cry for those who want to destroy the rural landscape and replace it by an urban Megalopolis. Tea, rice and most leafy vegetables and grains accumulate toxins from the soil during the plant’s period of growth, and the toxin accumulation  in the  rice grains or tea leaves, can be as much as a hundred times larger than in the soil. The straw and leaves can also have high toxin levels and using such matter for composting also becomes problematic, if we indeed have “killing fields” full of toxins.  Fortunately, Sr Lanka  does not  have such “killing fields”.

Some of our own  writers have unwittingly embraced the popular  view of a toxin-filled “killing field”, without comparing the toxicity data for  Sri Lanka with data for other countries like UK,  Belgium, Malta,  New Zealand, or India  etc, before making a strong pronouncement condemning Sri Lanka. In 2013 Dr. Asoka Bandarage wrote a blog to Huffington Post reporting the extreme views popular with the public, also articulated by Venerable Ratana and after 2015 by the Presidential Secretariat.  They  launched the “Toxin-free Nation” slogan and wrought havoc with the agricultural sector of the country.  More recently, Dr. Amarasiri de Silva, an anthropologist now based in the USA also wrote  similar  articles, but here invoking the “authority” of a young Swedish  student studying the Veddas (“Vanniye Aeththo”), to claim that Sri Lanka is awash with toxins. Drs. Ashly de Vos and Prassana Cooray have expressed similar, but more measured  sentiments in the Island newspaper. Nothing is more far from reality.

The X-ray Radiograph given in Dr. Bandarage’s 2013 blog has little to do with Kidney disease and  seems to be an investigatory pyelogram. Perhaps it was not Dr. Bandarage, but Huff Post who placed a file photo without any thought, but designed to emphasize the alleged “killing fields” aspect. Here is the link to Dr. Bandagae’s 2013 article.


Cadmium is probably the most dangerous heavy-metal toxin that may be present in the soil, water, diet, tobacco etc.  Below are some figures from advanced countries for the amount of cadmium found in the soil, and for Sri Lankan soils.

(Data from FAO soil bulletin 65,  the Wolfson British Geochemical map, and other sources.)
location                                    Cd in mg/Kg of soil
Shipham, (in Somerset) UK        9 -360 mg/kg
UK average                        about    1
Belgium av.                                    3.5
Malta av.                                         2.5
Sri Lanka av.                    less than 0.05 mg/kg
These countries have acquired a lot of pollution from 200 years of industry, mining, use of coal, and since  the 20th century, use of gasoline (petrol) and diesel. The pollution has NOT come from agrochemicals. When scientists  point out these facts, they are accused of defending the agrochemical companies and scientists are labeled  “paid agents of agri-business”.  Some academic scientists may be consultants to  agrochemical companies who may ask them to solve problems that the company scientists do not want to engage in. Then the scientist is paid for the job he/she does. For instance, Monsanto or Bayer may consult a scientist’s views  to reduce and evaluate the toxicity of a new product line. However,  such companies have their own  well equipped in-house research units far excelling university installations.  If a “contract” is given to an academic institution, then it is usually to study some rather fundamental aspect with no short-term or market implications. These contracts do not in most cases vitiate what that scientist may write in the peer-reviewed literature. Furthermore, full disclosure of “conflict of interest” is the norm, unlike with NGO’s who are answerable to none.
Let us look at the data instead of  hurling accusations. The use of agrochemicals and disease ANTI-CORRELATE  with each other as seen from the following comparison.

Country                                            Use of Agrochemicals per annum
El Savador (has CKDu)                     71 kg/hectare
Sri Lanka                                            250 kg/hectare (mostly in the Tea estates)
NCP in Sri Lanka (CKDu)                 50-100 kg/hectare per year
New Zealand   (no CKDu)                 1200 kg/hectare
Qatar                (no CKDu)                 11,000 kg/hectare
Significant progress has occurred in understanding the cause of CKDu, even in the face of the constant vilification that scientists and doctors have had to face from the public, led by environmental advocacy groups espousing ideology-based explanations of the disease  unsupported by any research. The  book “Wakugadu Hatana”, written by Dr. Jayasumana, and carrying  a forward by  Dr.  Gunadasa Amarasekera is an example of how such advocacy groups unfairly  accuse leading researchers  of being in the “pocket of agrochemical companies”,  with no evidence to support  such claims.

Scientists who apply for research grants without implicating  agrochemicals allegedly get no grant money in the prevailing ethos of Sri Lanka. Nevertheless,  a tentative mainstream scientific consensus has  emerged from the multi-disciplinary studies  undertaken by CERTKID,  a joint effort including Peradeniya University, the Kandy Hospital and other scientists.

Dr.  Tilak Abesekera, a leading Nephrologist of the Kandy Hospital and Peradeniya University presented  the current scientific view on chronic kidney disease in the Daily News in early 2017. That was written prior to an  important study   on CKDu published  in the renowned journal Nature by Dr. Wasana et al. Nevertheless Dr. Abesekera’s article  gives the right picture.

The mainstream view of the cause of CKDu  in Sri Lanka is that those who regularly consume water from wells contaminated with fluoride (and having hard water) contract CKDu.  This was proved by feeding such water to laboratory mice. A more general perspective on the matter, taken in the context of the Kangaroo Court held in the Hague by the so-called  “citizen-led” trial, the banning of glyphosate etc., may be read in


Dr. Jayasumana and Ven. Ratana formed the “Sri Lankan delegation” at this Gilbertian Nanki-Poo trial,  to implicate glyphosate for CKDu even though 97% of the CKDu patients have no significant glyphosate found in their biopsies.

CKDu can be prevented by providing clean drinking water to  the affected villages. Even in the affected villages, those  who drink water from tanks, agricultural canals etc., do NOT contract the disease. The affected people live  away from the irrigation water and use their own wells in the higher ground. Dr. Manthrithileke et al of the International Water Board showed (using tracer isotopes) that these suspicious wells were isolated from the agricultural water table. The endangered parts of the villages are not too far from the irrigation canals water can be piped in from the canals. Many of these house holds  now collect rainwater from their roofs using large tanks that store the monsoon water. This program was began by many concerned individuals including the late Mr. Ranjith Mulleriyawa who lived among the people and focused on the water problem of the affected parts of the villages. Unfortunately, instead of such simple solutions, the Government and some influential officials pushed the  purchasing of expensive “Reverse-Osmosis” (RO) plants from the USA etc.. They sell bottled water to poor farmers at as much as Rs 2-3 a bottle! Such plants may have been an understandable initial knee-jerk solution in the face of public fear mongering (“killing fields”), but it is no longer justified today. Furthermore, RO plants are a constant drain on foreign exchange as the necessary filters and electronic parts etc., have to be imported, and the machines themselves will have to be replaced in about 5 or 6 years.

by Chandre Dharmawardana, Canada. (chandre.dharma@yahoo.ca)