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

Friday, January 19, 2018
























Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 11:11 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Lankapage LogoJan 19, Colombo: Sri Lanka's Minister of Finance and Mass Media says the general public has lost confidence in traditional journalists and media due to the excessive use of smart phones which has resulted in deterioration of quality and standard of the news.
He said in this situation of the lack of trust in the traditional journalist, everyone who has a smartphone has become a journalist and the traditional journalist reporting without credibility and any foundation has caused this situation.

Minister Mangala Samaraweera made these comments speaking at a workshop organized by the Sri Lanka Press Council for the teachers of the Matara District held at Pearl Cliff Hotel in Matara today.
Expressing his views the Minister said a survey was conducted in the United States in 2017 on the reliability of professions and journalist and politicians were at the bottom as the least reliable professions.

"That means we are in the same boat," the Minister said declining to explain why politicians are the least reliable.

"Today people's confidence in the traditional journalist is diminishing. The reason is reporting with no basis. In the past, whatever reports were published in newspapers, there was a basis for that. Now, news is being produced for the needs of journalists, politicians, and various people. But in this modern society these lies cannot go forward. They will be proven and with that, the trust in the mass media will be lost. Today everyone has smartphones. All of them have become a reporter. Therefore, the censorship is not valid for today," the Minister explained.

Minister Samaraweera said that the reporters are trying to showcase a different picture to the public through their smartphone culture and rumors and wrong information are being spread as news. As a result the standard and the quality of the news have deteriorated.

The Minister said a dialogue on this issue is being conducted at worldwide level to change the 'fake news' culture.

"The censorship and laws alone cannot free the society from this peril. We need to create a new generation that excludes tribal ideas," he said pointing outhit the schools and the teachers have a major role to play in this regard.

Minister Samaraweera pointing out that according to Google, Sri Lanka topped the list of the countries that searched the word "sex" said when more restrictions are imposed people will be more tempted to explore and this situation does not arise in open societies.

"Therefore, you as teachers have a huge responsibility to direct the children to create an open society," Minister Samaraweera said.


MP Buddhika Pathirana, Chairman of the Sri Lanka Press Council Koggala Wellala Bandula and Director General of Government Information Sudarshana Gunawardena were also present.

Political stability and national unity


2018-01-18

The Cabinet’s co-spokesman Rajitha Senaratne insisted yesterday that the National Unity or consensus government would continue whatever happened at the February 10 elections to 341 municipal, urban councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas. 

Addressing a Cabinet news conference and responding strongly to questions on various issues, Dr. Senaratne said the consensus government between the UNP and the SLFP was an historic alliance worked out for the first time since independence. He stressed that President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe were committed to the National Unity Government and its vision 2025 programme for sustainable, eco-friendly and all-inclusive development. The minister said the President and the Premier had a close relationship and trusted each other, therefore he believed the Unity Government would continue till 2020 or even 2025 though there were disputes and divisions and some leading SLFP members were critical of the UNP especially after a report was issued by the Presidential Commission which probed the Central Bank bond issues from February 2015 to March 2016. Some UNP members have also been critical of the President. When a journalist asked the co-spokesman about one MP who had referred to a pickpocket President, Dr. Senaratne responded by saying it was former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and close associates who had pick-pocketed the country in a massive way. 

About 11.15 am yesterday the bond commission report with annexures and recommendations -- running into about 1,400 pages -- was handed over to Parliament. The minister said Speaker Karu Jayasuriya had called a party leaders meeting later yesterday to discuss what should be done about the report. Last Wednesday Parliament held a special session to discuss the report. But as it had not yet been made available to members, the speaker gave permission to the Prime Minister to make a statement on the issue. 

This led to a rumpus and pandemonium which some observers described as one of the most disgraceful days in parliament. President Sirisena has also said that 32 major cases of serious frauds, bribery, corruption and other political crimes had been spotlighted by a Presidential Commission appointed earlier. These cases and the bond commission’s full report had been handed over to the Attorney General’s Department and the Criminal Investigation Department for prosecution. 

While the cleanup of political corruption has become a major issue and President Sirisena insisting he would take action against those found guilty whatever party they belonged to or whatever rank they held, an equally important issue for the country is ethnic reconciliation in the aftermath of a catastrophic 26-year war. 

Tamil National Alliance front-liner M.A. Sumanthiran, playing a prominent role in the party and in lasting reconciliation efforts, on Tuesday night gave a two hour interview in Sinhala to the Independent Television Network (ITN). He said that despite some small sections still speaking with separatist tendencies, the TNA was committed to a united Sri Lanka and was with the National Government in its truth and reconciliation efforts. The progress was slow, Mr. Sumanthiran said, but the Tamil people especially needed to understand that the issues were highly complex and had to be handled in a delicate way so as not to provoke another racial or religious conflict. 

Mr. Sumanthiran said the three key issues involved were the handing over to civilians of the lands taken over by the military, expeditious action by the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) set up to probe what had happened to people who had disappeared and the case of so-called “political prisoners”. He was thankful that the military had handed back some 50 per cent of the land taken over from the civilians. He was also hopeful that the OMP would act fast because there were thousands of people who were still heart-broken because they did not know what had happened to their loved ones. As for political prisoners, Mr. Sumanthiran who speaks Sinhala fluently said the problem was that these suspects were being held without trial for more than ten years and he hoped the government would either produce them in courts for necessary action or release them if there was no substantial evidence. 

For the first time the main Tamil political alliance TNA is supporting the national government and most analysts believe the continuation of this consensus process would not only bring sustainable economic development but also racial and religious unity in diversity.     

JVP intervention against harassment of Northern candidates by intelligence divisions fruitful

bimal-rathnayake
 by

The Election Commission has taken action regarding a complain made by the National Organizer of the JVP Parliamentarian Bimal Rathnayaka in connection with the harassment of candidates contesting the local government election in the Northern Province. According to Mr. Rathnayaka’s complaint officers of intelligence divisions visit residences of the candidates who have forwarded their nominations for the election from the North to collect information regarding them and their families.

The Chairman of the Elections Commission has written to Mr. Bimal Rathnayaka stating that he had informed the IGP and the DIGP in charge of administration and the elections section to immediately stop collecting personal information of the candidates.

Ensure A Free and Fair Election and Elect Honest Candidates

Local Councils are, primarily, area-based representative governments with a mandate to manage local issues and plan for the community’s needs.


The following statement issued by the Australian Advocacy for Good Governance in Sri Lanka, Melbourne, Australia
(January 19, 2018, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Local Government Elections in Sri Lanka are to be held on 10 February 2018. Under the new mixed electoral voting system, 8,356 councillors are to be elected from 341 councils, an increase of 3870 councillors from the last elections.
The Executive Director of the People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) in his recent briefing said that a large number of various criminals have received nominations to contest the elections. PAFFREL further states that of the 243 complaints received so far, 182 have been confirmed, of which 61 pertain to the UNP, 60 pertain to the SLFP/UPFA and 48 pertain to the newly formed SLPP (Sri Lanka Peoples Peramuna). In addition, wheeler-dealers including political parties appear to be engaged in ‘bribing’ and ‘fooling’ the electorate to vote for their candidates.

The Australian Advocacy for Good Governance in Sri Lanka (AAGGSL) wishes to emphasise the solemn pledges made at the 2015 Presidential Election and the 2016 General Elections, that rule of law, cleaner government and practicing democracy will be established, and in particular, electoral malpractices will be prevented.
Local Councils are, primarily, area-based representative governments with a mandate to manage local issues and plan for the community’s needs. They are responsible for implementing programs and policies, setting their own regulations and by-laws, and providing a range of services – keeping the interests of the local communities at heart. Managing community infrastructure and assets such as local roads and bridges, public street lighting, drains, recreation and leisure facilities, libraries, parks and gardens, community safety and public amenity can be done efficaciously only in consultation and partnership with local communities and leaders. Councillors ought to be broad-minded, liberal and selfless to be able to serve the interests of their cities and towns.
AAGGSL strongly appeal to the Sri Lanka electorate to identify and reject candidates who are unsuitable for the role, particularly those who have been involved in criminal activities. The need is to elect candidates who can honestly and genuinely contribute to improving conditions in their local government electorate with knowledge and enthusiasm.
We further urge all political parties not to give any primacy to central governance issues such as constitutional reform, national security, unitary state, etc. that has no relevance whatsoever to the impending local government elections. The last thing we need is self-centred politicians muddying the waters by making calculated utterances for their own gains.
We also appeal to the Election Commission of Sri Lanka to take all necessary measures to ensure a free and fair election.

Now, JVP spares PM and blames President for appointing Mahendran


 

The JVP says President Maithripala Sirisena should take the full responsibility for appointing a Singaporean as the Governor of the Central Bank.

Addressing a press conference held at the party headquarters yesterday, JVP MP and Chairman of the Parliamentary watchdog committee – COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises) Sunil Handunnetti said the President, as the person who signed Arjuna Mahendran’s appointment letter, should take the blame for what Mahendran had done at the Central Bank.

"The President now says he opposed appointing Mahendran to the post of Central Bank Governor, having signed Mahendran’s appointment letter. The President cannot absolve himself of the blame for appointing a foreign national as the Central Bank Governor. Even the Prime Minister stated before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry that investigated the bond scams that it was the President who had appointed Mahendran to the post of Central Bank Governor."

MP Handunnetti said that according to the bond commission report, the Prime Minister giving evidence before the commission had stated that when the new government came to power in January 2015, there was a consensus within the government to appoint Mahendran to the post of governor of the Central Bank. According to the submission made by the Prime Minister, he had discussed the matter with the then Finance Minister who had agreed that Mahendran was the most suitable person for the post of Governor Central Bank. Thereafter, with the Finance Minister’s agreement, Mahendran’s name was recommended to the President for the post. On that recommendation, the President appointed Mahendran as the Governor of the Central Bank. "That was what the Prime Minister told before the Bond Commission. The bond commission has expressed their concerns over the appointment of a foreign national to the post of Governor of the Central Bank," MP Handunnetti said, adding that President Sirisena who appointed Mahendran to the top most place in the Central Bank should share the blame for what Mahendran did and did not do as the Central Bank Governor including the latter’s involvement in the bond scam.

Will Legal Action be taken to recover bonds scam loss? Corruption Watchdogs express concern



By Gagani Weerakoon-2018-01-19

Anti-corruption activists are now raising concerns as to whether legal action could be taken against the infamous Perpetual Treasuries Limited, to recover the losses the Government incurred as a result of selling Treasury Bonds between 2015 February to March 2016.

These Watchdog groups claim that the report of the Presidential Commission, that investigated the alleged Bonds scam, which was sent to Parliament on Wednesday (17), lacks certain information contained in the comprehensive report.

What was released to the public, they point out, was only the Executive Summary. The entire report comprising 20,000 pages in three volumes has yet to be sent to the Speaker, official sources said.
What the Speaker has is only Volume One, they added.

The activists are also urging President Maithripala Sirisena to appoint the second Presidential Commission immediately, which would be effective to investigate and recover the profits made by PTL from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 too.

President of the Voice Against Corruption (VAC) Wasantha Samarasinghe said they have doubts about recovering the losses the Government incurred as a result of the issuances of the controversial Treasury Bonds,......as the Presidential Commission was only mandated to investigate auctions that took place between February 2015 and 31 March 2016.

"The profit earned by the Perpetual Treasuries from February 2015 to March 2017 amounts to a total of Rs 18,224 million, whereas the PCoI, report, has only out down the loss to Rs 11,937 million. That is because the commission was not mandated to investigate bond auctions held after March 2016. Whatever the profit made by PTL is a loss to the Government. We have doubts that someone would be able to challenge the commission's report in Court once the Government initiate legal action against the PTL and Arjun Aloysius," he said.

Samarasinghe noted that Arjuna Mahendran functioned as the Governor of the Central Bank till July 2016 and the CBSL suspended PTL as a primary dealer only in July 2017."The profit made by PTL for the six-month period, from April to September 2016 alone, is Rs 6,813 million. There is a question whether this amount falls under the mandate of this commission or not. By March 2017 PTL has recorded a total profit of Rs 18,225 million. We urge the President to either extend this commission as the second one or appoint a new commission to recover the total amount, lost by the Government up to March 2017, from Arjun Aloysius and PTL. It should not be kept for the next government," he added. Meanwhile, Executive Director of CaFFE Keerthi Tennakoon, in a letter sent to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya yesterday, while pointing out that only a lesser portion of the Bonds Commission Report (which has three volumes) has been submitted to Parliament by the Presidential Secretariat, has urged the latter to take action to distribute the salient documents and annexure for the Parliamentarians."The MPs should have at least the CID forensic report, an annexure referred to as C-350 in the report based on which the commission has made certain recommendations, for them to be able to study and analyze before engaging in any debate," the letter stated.

Dayan The Oracle Calls Ranil A “Curse”


By Shyamon Jayasinghe –January 18, 2018


image“…..these are only some of the few seen and unseen development outcomes under the leadership of Sirisena and Wickremesinghe. Wickremesinghe’s entire focus is on economics, whereas your buddies MR and Gota, had no clue on the  subject. Your favourites led one of the most corrupt  and dictatorial regimes in the history of Sri Lanka. Ordinary pedestrians holding onto their ‘siri siri’ plastic shopping bags had to turn their miserable arses and hold onto the nearest wall when Gota and other VIPs  used to hover about in Colombo. You want to see these guys substituting for the current yahapalanaya government? You must be crazy, man!”

Dayan Jayatilleka (DJ) hallucinates being an oracle. Like the famous oracle of Delphi in ancient Greece? People in ancient Athens used to listen intently to that oracle when he makes utterances and predictions from time to time. The oracle, then, was the signal for public belief. In Dayan’s case, despite his incurable over-assessment of himself, discerning readers are increasingly looking at the man as a fool. Not a simple, naive, fool but an intrepid one who is mindlessly writing his two cents.  Every paragraph in his latest foray in Colombo Telegraph (under the caption, “Ranil the Curse and Mahindagamanaya 3 and Gota)  is false, sickly and vulnerable.

Dayan Jayatilleka and Rajiva Wijesinha

 
One commentator tries to compare DJ with Rajiva Wijesinha. I think that is a disservice to Rajiva who is a man of class and who is utterly civil and decent-although I have disagreed with the latter, too, recently. That is a different matter. The point is, Rajiva Wijesinha is in so many ways above DJ. First, he never uses rude and impolite language when criticising those whom he disagrees with. In a comment dated 16/1/18 on one of my articles at Colombo Telegraph this man described me as a “scumbag.” Mind you, in my piece I never referred to DJ overtly or covertly since I do not treat him as a significant opinion writer  anymore. DJ refers to Prime Minister  Ranil Wickremesinghe as “a knave.” Now, Rajiva did criticise his cousin, Ranil, with whom he is in bad terms; but he dis that at the level of a true intellectual. Nothing vulgar and nothing even derogatory. That’s what a gentleman is. In my response I did credit Rajiva for that.

DJ’s ‘Curse’

Besides, Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW) is not only the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. At base, his is the leader of the largest political party in Sri Lanka. Has been Prime Minister four times. He won a Parliamentary seat this time seat gaining over five lakhs of votes in Sri Lanka’s most educated and modernised electorate. He Is the one political leader in our country today who can confidently and on par face international personages such as the British Prime Minister or the Federal German Chancellor. I cannot see any other political leader in our island today who can do that. We had persons like Lalith Athulathmudali and Gamini Dissanayake but they are gone. I cannot see any other political leader today who has such a grasp of economic, social or political policy. Friend or foe (not the DJ foe) must admit that. When, recently, Ranil addressed the respected and learned body of lawyers here in Melbourne he gave such a brilliant and erudite speech that one of the senior political leaders commented to me, “you should be proud to have a Prime Minister like that!” The problem is that RW does not go boasting. He is to himself-considered and deliberate and often inarticulate. That is, perhaps, a fragility.

Now, I must emphasize that I am not a fan of RW. I stand always to defend those unfairly attacked, when there is nobody to do that. I write with verification and I have given the evidence in this instance, above. I don’t need to be a sycophant of any political leader, RW or any other, for the simple reason that I have absolutely nil ambitions in Sri Lanka. I met and spoke to Ranil for the very first time in my life when he came to Geelong, Melbourne. Of course, he knew about me because of my profile in the Public Service and in my role in the cultural scenario of Sri Lanka.
India’s Hold
 
Now, DJ slashes Ranil for giving India a foothold in the deep South. The Rajapaksa regime had planned to give that strategic base to China. Is that any better? China has big- power ambitions and so they would have been far more dangerous. Besides, China has already been given the dominant strategic hold in Sri Lanka by the previous government that DJ wishes to get back. Due to huge debts given at commercial rates, we are already a virtual vassal state of China-unable to extricate ourselves of that embedded dependence. We failed to negotiate our way out and to our advantage over the Port City Project. China is close to being our new colonial power, if one goes by contemporary forms of colonialism. Our great neighbour was getting too  nervous and had to be placated somewhat. This is  geopolitical balance in foreign policy. Sri Lanka cannot frighten its neighbour. JR did that once and we got into trouble as India started training the LTTE cadres in their soil.

Besides, Sri Lanka had an unmanageable debt on the Harbour Project and there was no way of earning revenue  for repaying that debt. Hence, the government hit upon the brilliant idea of selling equity on a joint basis on that harbour project. Our huge debts are now diminishing. The IMF recently commented favourable on our debt management and fiscal management, which had taken the country to bankruptcy under DJ’s favourite government.

Indeed, DJ, Ranil is a curse to you as you cannot get rid of him. In a more serious way, he is a curse to all the Rajapaksas because he is the king pin behind this government. If he falls, the government falls. So, keep trying to bring him down. That is the logic of the Opposition and that is how they politicised the Bond issue against Ranil.
Achievements

See how his yahapalanaya outfit has already achieved  so much. Like me to show you? Then open your eyes without reluctance or blink. Take your hatred out and try a bit of ‘upekka.’ Democracy is restored. People are seen freely protesting without being hammered by mafia and thugs with iron bars or shot by the soldiers as in Rathupaswela, when villagers protested asking for water. The evil men of murder whom your pet, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, is said to have developed  as a secret force in Colombo are not to be seen. Editors of newspapers have not been murdered on the streets and they roam free while ruthlessly attacking the government with their newly-won freedom. No white vans tapping the doors of journalists in the dead of the night and taking the latter away-leaving behind whole families crying, wailing, and weeping! No add to this all, court is not conducted in Temple Trees anymore. We have an outstandingly impeccable Chief Justice. We have the Freedom of Information Act in force. We have Independent Commissions in action. Our exports have recorded an increase after so many years. Road and rail infrastructure  is coming up. Colombo City will soon have a new road network. Sri Lanka is friendly with all foreign countries.

Read More

Rest guilty of dereliction

Toyota Prado vehicle, which most of the members bought duty free is popularly known as ‘Parliament Model’
Out of 225 MPs that included the nine rejects and dozens of Ministers, only six were present for the scheduled seven-hour session of the C onstituent Assembly
It seems the hallowed precincts, on the banks of Diyawanna, has become a safe haven for the entire 225  
2018-01-20
Out of 225 MPs that included the nine rejects and dozens of Ministers, only six were present for the scheduled seven-hour session of the Constituent Assembly that met three weeks ago under the auspicious of its Chairman, to debate the long awaited proposals of the Interim Committee.  
When Chairman Karu Jayasuriya read out the names of the members who were billed to speak on that day, not a single were present, perhaps they were too busy fighting for places for their kith and kin and cronies in the lists of nominations for Local Government Elections. 
It seems the hallowed precincts, on the banks of Diyawanna, has become a safe haven for the entire 225.  
The “Constituent Assembly” wound up day’s proceedings in a few minutes without discussing the core issue of their engagement.  
At least half the 210 [Leaving out nine back-door entrants] should have attended the House; they are supposed to represent the people at the august forum and the Constituent Assembly on priority before they engage in LG polls.  
It is not only the Constitution that needs amendments, but the Standing Orders too, to make it compulsory that a minimum of 50 to 60 percent of the total time duration of the Parliamentary sitting are covered by each and every Member.  
Reports state that if a Member walked into the Chamber even for a couple of minutes during a session, his attendance is marked as ‘present’ and that he collects his allowance of Rs 2,500/-.  
All 225 raise their hands on a proposal to enhance a privilege or introduction of a new one without a semblance of divisions, arguments, and debating.  
They unanimously and collectively make decisions on their emoluments and perks. The 216, who did not attend the session had scant respect for their basic responsibility, for which they have been voted for.  
A pension in five years— have the people of this country sanctioned these gratuities?  
Duty Free vehicle permits, supposedly, a privilege that has been granted for buying a vehicle that they need for official and private running has been converted to an acceptance of a ‘bribe’ from another citizen for exempting him from the duty payable on an imported vehicle.  
Both the member and the buyer are liable to be convicted of bribery and cheating the State of the duty component of the vehicle. Over to you CIABOC, FCID and CID!  
According to media reports, one of the first Act of a newly appointed lucky loser from the Galle District was to barge into an OIC’s room in a Police Station to rescue one of his supporters, who had allegedly violated the traffic code, and in the next few days he collected a ‘bribe’ from a prospective buyer of a vehicle to part with his duty-free permit. [Permits are being sold for over 20 million they say].  
In other words, he disallowed the Customs from collecting the duty from the buyer. Where else on the earth a legislator commit such crimes?  
Each Minister costs the tax-payer, Rs 8.5 Million for a month according to a retired Central Bank Deputy Governor.  
This is only the legal emoluments and other expense involved; bribes commissions, under the table deals, are un-accounted for. How true was a senior minister of the former regime, who is a powerful man in the present as well, when he said just before the January 8 Presidential election, that “Our men had made enough, they will not clamour for more, if you vote a new team they will adhere to our earlier methods and you are the loser, therefore vote us back to power.”  
This reminds the story of Simien (Ethiopian) Jackal who preferred to remain with the thousands of ticks that infested its’ body when others attempted to get rid of the parasites, saying ‘If you do so new ticks who are starving will take its place and extract more blood’.  
However, the Minister was proved correct when they ransacked the Central Bank just on the 49th day of the ‘Silent Revolution.’  
The CID and FCID are chasing behind Sil Redi, Rajapaksa monuments and Daisy Archchi’s ‘Menik Malla’, while numerous cases of billions squandered by former scoundrels, looted and hoarded in Dubai, Cyprus, Ukrain, and Swiss Banks remain intact and unrecovered: The murders, disappearances are swept under the carpet too.  
The message they convey appears to be, “In the event of a change, please ensure not to touch on Multi-Billion [if not Trillions] Bond Scam, and other scandals.  
Ministry of Agriculture continues to pay 21 million a month for an office building that is incomplete, which they do not occupy.  
A Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry moved recently included some millions to cover Rents & Local Taxes for its offices. Highways and Higher Education pays 56 co-ordinators at 65,000/- a month. This, however, was explained in Parliament by both the Minister himself and the PM, who said “They are our supporters who helped us to make the January 8 ‘Silent Revolution’ a success!’  
Let me get back to the by-gone days when this country was governed by gentlemen politicians, their dignity and decorum in consecrating the legislator by burning midnight oil when discussing an important piece of legislation before them; the famous marathon sessions. [To be fair by the UPFA men, just before the 2015 General Elections they broke rest one night within the Chamber in defence of their deposed leader; they even left behind some empty Vat 69s in the process—desecrated the revered House?].  
One of the participants in that all-night thamasha, now a Yahapalana Minister later quipped, “Why if the UNP could hoard rice at the Mattala International Airport, what is wrong in leaving some Scotch empties there?”  
Those Marathon Sittings in the 1960s
Marathon sittings of the House takes place when there is an urgent business to be transacted. Generally, it is for the consideration and early passage of legislative measures that such meetings are summoned.  
Subjects that come up under these circumstances are naturally of a controversial nature; thus Members of the Government, as well as the Opposition benches, are always on the alert.  
An all night sitting, therefore, particularly the post-prandial part of it, seldom fails to provide an incident which results in the chair having to intervene and a member having to be asked to withdraw from the House or having to be named.  
On Monday, 27 November 1967, exactly 50 years ago, the debate on the Monetary Law [Amendment] Bill was introduced to give legislative sanction to Government’s decision to devalue the Rupee which lasted non-stop from 10o’clock in the morning till 8.30 am the following day.
Allowances and Benefits of our MPs
A Member of Parliament receives a salary of Rs 54,285 paid monthly through Parliament, while Ministers, Deputy Ministers and State Ministers receive a salary applicable to their grade from the particular Ministry. 
In addition to the monthly salary, MPs are entitled to allowances. MPs who do not hold a Ministerial appointment, would receive an additional entertainment [Perhaps to entertain the voters] allowance and a drivers’ allowance.  
In addition, each MP is entitled to an office allowance of Rs. 100,000, telephone allowance of Rs. 50,000 and transport allowance for personal staff of Rs. 10,000 for four personal staff to office per month.  
At the start of each term an MP as an allowance to purchase office equipment such as a copier and fax machine, and computers. They receive free postage facilities worth Rs. 175,000 annually.  
In addition a Rs. 100,000 Special allowance to make donations for funerals and other functions in the electorate, a recent introduction well accepted by the entire 225 in unison.  
Based on the distance from Parliament to their electoral district, each member is entitled to a fuel allowance and a duty free permit to import a vehicle under their name.  
Members from constituencies from outside Colombo receive a housing allowance to rent a house. In addition, MPs and their families have exclusive use of the General’s House, holiday bungalow in Nuwara Eliya.  
Members are entitled to subsidised meals members in dining area at the Parliament complex.  
In addition, young members without higher educational qualifications, obtain direct admission to the Sri Lanka Law College without sitting for the entrance examination.  

MS-RW Unity Govt. must stay united for the sake of the country



logoFriday, 19 January 2018 

A few days after the Unity Government celebrated its third anniversary, President Maithripala Sirisena asked the Supreme Court: “Whether, in terms of provisions of the Constitution, I, as the person elected and succeeding to the office of President and having assumed such office in terms of Article 32 (1) of the Constitution on 9 January 2015, have any impediment to continue in the office of President for a period of six years from 9 January 2015, the date on which the results of my election was declared.” The Supreme Court said it is five years.

The next bombshell was on Tuesday at the Cabinet when an emotional President walked out of the Cabinet meeting after voicing disappointment over criticism levelled against him by some United National Party lawmakers.

President Maithripala Sirisena told the Cabinet on Tuesday that he was not an “ungrateful or inhuman” person who has forgotten the help he received during the presidential election. But he had to do something about the bond scam. It was too big to be ignored. The President was responding to some of the criticism levelled at him on various political stages in the run-up to the Local Government elections.

The hard truth

For President Sirisena, leading the nation through a ‘Unity Government’ is itself a challenge. Irrespective of the claim by the UNP or the JVP that it was they who made Sirisena the President, the fact was the Opposition did not have a candidate who could muster 50% of the votes needed to defeat Rajapaksa, given the power and resources the Rajapaksa family wielded.

This was the case earlier too, as they sacrificed their stake and pitted former Military Chief Fonseka to contest the former President. The outcome in the 2010 presidential election was a total disaster for the Opposition. Maithripala Sirisena on the other hand took a huge risk and with his partners (UNP, JVP, TNA and civil society) rescued Sri Lanka from a slide into increasingly nationalist authoritarianism. The incredible victory of a broad coalition representing Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims gave hope to the country that finally it could address its longstanding political challenges: remedying the 60-year failure to grant Tamils a fair share of power on the Sinhala-majority island, and restoring for all citizens the rule of law, damaged by decades of politicisation, bitter ethnic bias and impunity.

According to diplomats, the democratic benefits from the defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa and the removal of his family and supporters from key Government positions is still huge.

Grateful

Despite the President repeatedly saying he is not an “ungrateful or inhuman” person who has forgotten the help he received during the presidential election from the UNP, JVP, TNA and civil society, the President firstly, secondly and thirdly has to be grateful to the ordinary people of this country for electing him as the President. It is they who wanted the change and made it happen.

Therefore given that this Unity Government has less than 24 months to deliver, it is time MS and RW reconcile and bring back the people who took the risk to put this Government together to the forefront. This Government in the eyes of the public has got hijacked by people who were openly supporting the Rajapaksa re-election campaign or were watching the fun on the sidelines or living overseas, but descended very fast when Maithripala became President to take up key positions in the administration.

Media responsibility 

The Unity Government under the President and PM has achieved a lot; but a lot remains to be done. Understandably, many criticisms are being made of the Unity Government set up by the UNP and the President because they promised to run a clean administration and have fallen short. Some of them are fair and some are total distortions.

Ironically, the most vociferous are the print media and TV. They need to be grateful for the new freedom they have got. Simply lashing out at the President and the Prime Minister the key architects of the revolution of 8 January would not help their cause in the long-term. One reason for this adrenaline rush, is that the press finds, at last, some opportunity for enlarged circulation as it creates news and even creates conflict. “Controversy” is always possible and loved by press people and the media. Also, social media has been unaffected as it is free by definition.

The Prime Minister is often the main target and he is accused for all the bad things that happens in the Government. Why? Because, from the Opposition point of view he is the key to the survival of this Government. If he is out, the Government falls and President Sirisena will have an uphill task keeping a Government together. Ranil no doubt is the brain behind the Unity Government’s way forward.

Local elections

Looming large now is the local elections, originally due in 2015 but repeatedly postponed according to the JVP for fear the SLFP might trail not only the UNP, but also the Rajapaksa faction, which operates in Parliament as the “Joint Opposition”. Three provincial council polls, with the same risk for SLFP, are also scheduled in 2018.

The SLFP is a resentful junior coalition partner, whose ministers see uniting their own party as a top priority – thus making peace with Rajapaksa as the best way to regain control of government. The Rajapaksa clan would however need to overcome significant hurdles to return to power. The earliest that Parliamentary elections can be called for is 2020.

A more likely scenario is the deepening conflict in the coalition, as the SLFP bides its time and prepares to regroup for both Parliamentary and presidential elections post 2018. Meanwhile, the Rajapaksas are doing whatever they can by exciting their base, attacking constitutional reform and transitional justice as capitulation to anti-Sinhala and foreign forces. The rising COL and the bond fiasco is also helping their effort to create chaos in the rural areas and incite the unions.

Future

The Government requires to retain the support from the three key constituencies that brought it to power: reform-minded Sinhalese, Muslims, and Tamils, while a few from these groups are likely to support the Rajapaksa-led Opposition.

Rebuilding trust in the Yahapalanaya Government requires compromise and balancing expectations and risks across a spectrum of challenges and very importantly the President and the Prime Minister accepting the fact that they need each other for this Government to succeed.

At a minimum, the President and Prime Minister need to agree on a five-point program of renewal: Set up an UNP-SLFP economic team to develop and oversee consensus policy on economic reforms and sharing short-term hardships more equitably. They need to launch a campaign for a new, more democratic, pluralist constitution, including increased devolution, and commit to achieving the two-thirds majority needed in Parliament, while building support to win a referendum.

If more time passes without prosecution of major corruption and crimes, the more people will lose faith in the President and the Prime Minister. The Government would then have lost its most powerful asset and have to face an election with nothing much to talk about other than the 19th Amendment. The country can certainly achieve a lot if the Unity Government can focus on the political and economic reform and on some of the tangible results the people want and also prevent chauvinism and extreme religious opinion taking over the national agenda. And here lies Sri Lanka’s future.
(The writer is a thought leader.)

LAW OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

 
By Chandra Tilake Edirisuriya-2018-01-19

In M.P. Perera (1955) 57 NLR 35, the accused was convicted of murder. At the trial, he gave evidence on his own behalf. In the course of the cross-examination, the accused was asked whether he had made certain statements to the Police Officer who investigated the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. As he did not admit the statements, the prosecuting Counsel, after the close of the defence, sought to impeach his credit by showing that he made these statements.
The statements in question were recorded by the Police Officer after the Magistrate had commenced his preliminary inquiry at the scene of the offence and after he had made the order remanding the accused to Fiscal's custody. Basnayake ACJ expressing the view of the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal said: "In the instant case Crown Counsel was seeking to introduce new evidence to meet the evidence given by the accused, and what he sought to do was in fact to exercise the right he had under Section 155 of the Evidence Ordinance to impeach the credit of the accused by proof of former statements inconsistent with the evidence." This is in line with the view taken in Rasiah v Suppiah (1949) 50 NLR 265, that the need for evidence in rebuttal, strictly so called, does not arise in these circumstances, says Prof. G.L. Peiris in his comprehensive thesis 'Criminal Procedure in Sri Lanka.'

In Wijeratne v Ekanayake (1947) 48 NLR 306, Dias J stated that evidence by way of rebuttal can be led by the prosecution in the interests of justice, in three types of situations: (1) where the prosecution is taken by surprise by the evidence called for the defence, for example, an alibi which can be disproved; (2) where, under Section 15 of the Evidence Ordinance, proof is available to rebut a defence raised by the accused for the first time when the accused gives evidence; and (3) where a previous statement incompatible with the testimony of the accused in Court is available to show that the evidence of the accused is untrue.
A necessary limiting
principle
Where evidence in rebuttal is given for the third of the purposes referred to by Dias J in Wijeratne v Ekanayake, a necessary limiting principle is that a statement can be received as evidence in rebuttal only if it counters directly a statement which had previously been made in Court as part of the evidence in the case. This limitation is illustrated in Jinasekera (1945) 46 NLR 243. The second accused gave evidence that it was he and not the first accused who had stabbed the deceased. The prosecution, with the leave of the Judge, called an Inspector of Police to 'rebut' the evidence of the
second accused by means of a contradictory statement made earlier to the Inspector of Police by the second accused. It was held that only the contradictory statement, and nothing else, should have been received as evidence in rebuttal. Howard CJ observed: "A further statement should not have been produced in evidence (at this stage) inasmuch as it was not called in rebuttal of anything the second accused had said in evidence."
It may be noted, incidentally, that an answer given by a witness (including the accused) in cross-examination remains un-contradicted if it is not intended to lead evidence in rebuttal. In Wijeratne v Ekanayake, Dias J, commenting on this aspect of the matter, said: "The rule of evidence is that the cross-examiner can ask the witness 'Did you on a previous occasion either to the investigating Police Officer or to some other person say so and so?' If the witness denies such a statement, the cross-examiner must elect whether he is going to discredit the witness by proving that previous statement, and in that event he will at once mark the inconsistent statement if it is in writing, and duly prove it at the proper time either by calling the person who recorded the statement to produce it, or if the statement was not recorded, by calling the person who heard the inconsistent statement made. If he fails to do so, all that happens is that the evidence of the witness stands un-contradicted and the Judge of facts will assess the credibility in the usual way. In the case of an accused witness, in particular, it is the duty of the Judge of facts to have addressed to his mind the warning that the alleged unproved statement should be disregarded in assessing the credit to be attached to the evidence of the witness. If that is done, the failure to prove such statement is of no consequence." On the other hand, if a caution on these lines is not addressed to the jury, the omission to prove in rebuttal the alleged contradictory statement may result in grave prejudice to the accused witness, says Prof. Peiris.

The calling of witnesses to rebut a defence raised ex improviso by an accused person at the trial is illustrated by several cases, he says.

The decision of Nihill J in Ahamadu Ismail (1940) 42 NLR 297, at an Assize Trial is of particular assistance. In this case, the prosecution asked for leave to call in rebuttal a witness, F, to 'counter' the suggestion made by the accused that he went to the boutique of one J for the purpose of selling gems to J at the instance of J's employee, F. The prosecution was aware that the accused had gone to a certain boutique and sold gems and that the accused had stated that he could identify a boy in that boutique who had witnessed the transaction. At the trial, the accused gave the boy's name as F. The case for the prosecution was that the accused had a large sum of money with which he hired assassins to commit the crime, but the accused sought to give an explanation for the possession of a large sum. Nihill J allowed F's evidence to be led in rebuttal. It was the Judge's view that the prosecution could not have led the evidence of F as part of the prosecution case and that it was only after the accused gave evidence that F's testimony became relevant. The accused, in giving evidence, had offered an account of his movements in the village (including the visit to J's shop at F's suggestion), and Nihill J thought it proper to allow F's evidence to be led in rebuttal to enable the prosecution to prove that this part of the accused's explanation of his conduct and movements after the crime was false.

For the purpose of destroying an alibi
In Sediris (1970) 47 NLR 224, the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the prosecution to lead evidence in rebuttal for the purpose of destroying an alibi which the defence endeavoured to set up as part of its case. Alles J quoted with approval the observation by the English Court of Criminal Appeal in Flynn (1957) 42 Cr AR 15 that: "If in the case of an alibi, evidence comes into the possession of the prosecution at a late stage, it ought, as a general rule, to be admitted, unless the alibi has been set up earlier." The Court acted on the principle that, in the interests of justice, evidence in rebuttal should be permitted when the prosecution has been taken by surprise by evidence being led on behalf of the defence which the prosecution could not reasonably have anticipated.

In Sediris' case, the Court of Criminal Appeal stressed that the prosecution is not entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as of right but the leave of the Court must first be obtained. The following considerations were declared to be relevant for the purpose of exercise of the Judge's discretion in regard to the reception of evidence in rebuttal: (i) whether the prosecution has been taken by surprise; (ii) whether the rebutting evidence could have been given in chief; (iii) whether it does or does not surprise the defence; and (iv) whether its admission places the defence at an unfair advantage.In other words, the following considerations militate cogently against the reception of evidence in rebuttal: (1) evidence the necessity for which should have been obvious from the outset, cannot be given in rebuttal. The prosecution cannot be asked to be permitted to remedy a manifest deficiency in the evidence called in support of the prosecution. The prosecution cannot endeavour to call, after the closure of the case for the defence, supplementary evidence if the material on which it was to be given had been in the hands of the prosecution from the beginning and if the evidence related to a branch of the case on which the prosecution must have realized that positive evidence ought to be given: and (2) as decided in Noor Mohamed (1949) AC quoted with approval by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Ruparatne (1955) 56 NLR 353 "in all these cases, the Judge ought to consider whether the evidence which it is proposed to adduce is sufficiently substantial having regard to the purpose to which it is professedly directed, to make it desirable in the interests of justice that it should be admitted. If, so far as that purpose is concerned, it can in the circumstances of the case have only trifling weight, the Judge would be right to exclude it. Cases must occur in which it would be unjust to admit evidence of a character gravely prejudicial to the accused, even though there may be some tenuous ground for holding it to be technically admissible. The decision must then be left to the discretion and sense of fairness of the Judge."

In Don Wilbert (1962) 64 NLR 83, Sinnetamby J delivering the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, adopted the statement that "The general theory of our law is that he who affirms must prove and, therefore, it is for the prosecutor to prove his case, and if there is some matter which the prosecution might have proved but have not, it is too late, after the case for the defence has been closed, to allow further evidence to be given." This is the general rule, insisted upon in the interest of protecting the accused; the situations in which the prosecution may be afforded a second opportunity, as it were, of adducing evidence after the end of the case for the defence, are to be viewed as exceptional, Prof. G.L. Peiris concludes.

Does Debt Pay? China and the Politics of Investment in Sri Lanka

What are the sources and impact of China’s economic leverage over Sri Lanka?

Does Debt Pay? China and the Politics of Investment in Sri Lanka

The Diplomat
By Darren J. Lim and Rohan Mukherjee-January 20, 2018
Last month, the Sri Lankan government formally handed over control of the port of Hambantota to Chinese interests on a 99-year lease. The price was over one billion dollars, but this came mostly in the form of a reduction in the enormous debt burden to Beijing that is crippling the island nation’s economy. Strategists warn that by giving up control of the port, a strategic asset straddling Indian Ocean shipping lanes, Sri Lanka is sacrificing its sovereignty and succumbing to what one Indian analyst has labelled “creditor imperialism” by China.
If China’s motives are indeed imperialist, is this form of economic diplomacy effective? In a recent article, we explore the sources and impact of Beijing’s financial leverage over Colombo. For more than a decade China has been increasing its use of credit abroad—provided on both concessional and non-concessional terms—to facilitate both the international expansion of Chinese industry and the cultivation of influence with recipient governments. Beijing’s signature international initiatives in recent years—the Belt and Road Initiative and its components such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank—are similarly based on the provision of financing, demonstrating that China has the resources to wield significant power and influence on the world stage. Moreover, they create the perception that Beijing is ready and willing to take an active leadership role.
The Sri Lankan case offers an illustrative instance of how the Chinese model of debt-driven infrastructure financing plays out. Needing to jumpstart economic reconstruction following the end of a brutal civil war, Colombo eagerly accepted close to $15 billion in Chinese money between 2005 and 2017, largely to facilitate the construction (by Chinese companies) of large infrastructure projects including a power plant, an airport, an extension of the existing port at Colombo accompanied by a brand-new financial district called the Colombo Port City, and an entirely new port at Hambantota.
Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
The resulting scenario provides important lessons for governments lured by the promise of China’s famous no-strings attached infrastructure financing. The power plant suffered numerous outages, the airport became the “world’s emptiest,” and the Hambantota port was a “commercial failure, getting hardly any ships.”  Commercial failures, meanwhile, meant that insufficient revenue was generated to cover loan repayments, creating distressed assets.
For the debt-addled Sri Lankan government, the prospect of renegotiating these often-onerous loan agreements was hampered by a lack of transparency surrounding the precise terms of the original contracts, which removed the possibility of external checks and balances to hold the government accountable for negotiating good commercial deals. This in turn created the conditions for pork-barrel politics, in which projects were pursued not for the long-term economic benefit of the country but for political or personal benefit—building “bridges where there were not rivers.”
Unsurprisingly, these dynamics generated political tensions, and corruption allegations featured prominently in the 2015 Sri Lankan presidential election. The incumbent Rajapaksa administration was sensationally defeated, with the incoming government promising to extract Sri Lanka from the worst excesses of its China ties. Political will, however, could not overcome economic reality. By themselves, the under-performing projects may have been manageable, but combined with the overarching weaknesses of the Sri Lankan economy they became a crippling burden. A deteriorating balance-of-payments and falling foreign currency reserves were forcing authorities to rely on foreign financing to cover budget shortfalls and achieve economic growth. Amid such fragility and a lack of alternative sources of liquidity, the new government had little choice but to seek accommodation with Beijing, despite its political desires and commitments.
China’s debt-financing has therefore yielded at least two strategic benefits: the Hambantota port itself, and more broadly the willingness of an otherwise skeptical government to maintain and even build upon positive bilateral relations. However, two major countervailing factors make it unlikely that these outcomes will translate into substantial gains on the security front. First, domestic sentiment in Sri Lanka has been increasingly hostile to Chinese finance. As with Chinese investments in many African countries, Sri Lankans have begun to resent Chinese state-owned enterprises for using predominantly Chinese labor and technical skill to build poorly-performing assets. In early 2017, for example, violent protests greeted Colombo’s decision to clear land and resettle communities in the Hambantota port region in order to create an industrial zone for Chinese firms.
Second, Sri Lanka’s neighbor to the north, India—a rising major power and regional competitor to China—plays an outsized role in Colombo’s security calculations. New Delhi has long sought to keep external powers out of South Asia, and although this stance is currently changing, Beijing is not on the guest list. In fact, China is the cause of India’s more active neighborhood diplomacy, including efforts to undermine Chinese influence in Sri Lanka; for example, by offering to buy the virtually defunct Hambantota airport and pushing to invest in the Eastern Container Terminal of the Colombo Port. Given Sri Lanka’s historical, cultural, and social ties to India—there are at least 60 million Tamils in India and four million in Sri Lanka—it is unlikely that Colombo will make policy concessions that are overly prejudicial to New Delhi’s interests.
Instead, we find that the Sri Lankan government has sought to maximize the benefits it can gain from the competition for investment and influence between China and India. Sri Lankan leaders have declared an “omni-directional” foreign policy that seeks to accommodate the interests of both great powers and in the process secure the best deal possible for Colombo’s development plans. While infrastructure projects may struggle or fail and Beijing may lap up a distressed asset or two in the short term, the odds of this type of economic diplomacy successfully driving a wedge between India and Sri Lanka on the security front remain minimal.
Indeed, history shows that imperialism—of the creditor variety or otherwise—is a fraught and often unprofitableenterprise.
Darren J. Lim is Lecturer in the School of Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University. Rohan Mukherjee is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale-NUS College, Singapore. Their recent research on China’s economic statecraft in Sri Lanka is available here.

Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 07:36 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.


Jan 19, Colombo: An Independent think-tank and a leader in the provision of information and strategic analysis in Sri Lanka says the cabinet decision to ban women from purchasing liquor is unconstitutional.

Verité Research in a statement says under Sri Lanka's Constitution all persons are equal before the law and no one should be discriminated on the grounds of their sex.

"Article 12(1) of the Constitution states that 'all persons are equal before the law, and are entitled to the equal protection of the law'. Moreover, article 12(2) states that 'no citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of...sex.' Therefore, acts that discriminate against women on the grounds of their sex violate their fundamental rights, and are thereby unconstitutional, the think tank said.

Sri Lanka's Finance Minister on 9th January amended the schedule in the Excise Notification no.666 of the Gazette Extraordinary of 1979 to allow females over 18 years to purchase alcohol legally and to allow women to be employed in licensed premises without prior approval from Excise Commissioner.

However, on the request of the President, the Cabinet of Ministers on 16 January unanimously decided to withdraw the Excise Notification No. 02 / 2018, which removed the prohibition on the sale of liquor to women within the premises of a tavern by reinstating the previous ban under Excise Notification No.666 of 1979.

Verité Research points out that the Cabinet's decision therefore discriminates against women on the grounds of their sex.

"The new decision dated 16 January 2018, is not protected under article 16(1) of the Constitution, as it does not fall within the category of 'existing written law or unwritten law' at the time of promulgating the Sri Lankan Constitution of 1978.," the think tank points out.

It further says that there is an imminent infringement of a fundamental right as the Cabinet decision on 16 January 2018 falls within the category of 'executive' action women have valid grounds to petition the Supreme Court as their fundamental rights have been infringed by the cabinet decision.

"Article 126(1) affords the Supreme Court the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to 'hear and determine any question relating to the infringement or imminent infringement by executive or administrative action of any fundamental right' (emphasis added). The Cabinet decision dated 16 January 2018 falls within the category of 'executive' action. Moreover, the decision to withdraw Excise Notification No. 02/2018 amounts to an imminent infringement of article 12(2) of the Constitution, as the decision will directly result in the Minister of Finance and Mass Media withdrawing the said Notification. Such withdrawal will constitute an infringement of women's rights to equality and non-discrimination guaranteed by articles 12(1) and (2) of the Constitution," Verité' Research explains.

"Therefore, interested parties anticipating an imminent infringement of their fundamental rights have valid grounds to petition the Supreme Court under article 17 (read with article 126) of the Constitution," it adds.


Following the Cabinet decision, the Minister of Finance and Mass Media Mangala Samaraweera Thursday (18) signed a special gazette notification 03/2018 and 04/2018 issued under the Excise Ordinance Act stating the withdrawal of the earlier gazette notifications which allowed the women to purchase alcohol.