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

Thursday, September 13, 2012


IOM blamed for double standards


TamilNet[TamilNet, Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 21:04 GMT]
A section of the officials of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), working with the Sri Lankan State, have been harassing former LTTE members to return the identity cards the organisation had earlier provided to them certifying their release. The IOM, which undertook ‘pre-release profiling’ of more than 10,000 ex-Tiger members, had received foreign aid from Japan, Norway, USA, The Netherlands and the UK for the programme named ‘Information, Counselling, and Referral Services’ (ICRS). After completing the project, the inter-governmental organisation, with its global agenda of restricting ‘illegal immigration’, has now sought to prevent the possibility of ex-Tiger members using the identity card to document their background when they seek political asylum outside the island, informed sources told TamilNet. 

Front side of an identity card by IOM
Front side of an identity card by IOM [personal details removed by TamilNet]
Front side of an identity card by IOM
Back side of an identity card by IOM [personal details removed / edited barcode by TamilNet]
The ‘identity card’ by the IOM has become the most important document to prove their status as released ex-LTTE members. 

Parents and family members of the released ex-LTTE cadres say they have also been struggling to get the IOM to assist them to locate their kith and kin when their released family members are arbitrarily detained or abducted by the SL military.

A former member of the LTTE, who has survived the brutal detention and psychological torture in the SL military run ‘rehabilitation’ programme, described the IOM using the Tamil proverb: ‘vealiyea payirai meaynthathu’ (the fence that ate the crop). 

In the meantime, recent reports have brought out that rape and sexual abuse of Tamil women by the occupying Sinhala soldiers have become routines in Vanni. 

In August, Japan's former peace envoy Yashushi Akashi made a visit to Ki'linochchi to inspect the ICRS programme. 

But, on his way back to Japan, he reportedly offered a bail out option to Rajapaksa if the latter was prepared to take the side of the ‘Co-chairs’. 

In 2011, Japan had given USD 1.5 million to IOM for the project which aimed reintegrating former LTTE members with their families. 

Norway funded the programme with NOK 3 million for the same project later in 2011.

The UK had given £650,000. 

“IOM's overall programme for the reintegration of former LTTE cadres has been active since early 2009 in the East and 2010 in the North,” according to IOM. 

With 146 member states and offices in over 100 countries, the IOM says it is ‘promoting humane and orderly migration for the benefit of all.’
Sri Lanka to probe war missing in north
By Agencies-Xinhua | 2012-9-13

Global TimesSri Lanka is to conduct inquiries over people reported missing in the former war-raved northern Jaffna town, the national human rights body said Thursday.

The Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission, the national human rights body in the country, said that the investigations will focus on those reported missing in 2006 in Jaffna.

Hundreds of minority Tamil civilians were reported missing during the 30 year war between the military and Tamil Tiger rebels.

Following the end of the war three years ago families of those who disappeared had sought assistance from the national human rights commission to locate their family members.

The Human Rights Commission regional coordinator in Jaffna, T. Kanagaraj, told Xinhua that information on those reported missing in Jaffna in 2006 had been gathered over the last two years.

Of the information received some 130 people reported missing had returned home while an unspecified number of others were still missing, Kanagaraj said.

He said that a team from the Human Rights Commission main office in Colombo will visit Jaffna next week to conduct the inquiries.

"They will make inquiries at the relevant police stations in Jaffna where complaints were lodged regarding the missing people. The inquiries will be conducted for a one week period," Kanagaraj said.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) more than 15,000 have been reported missing in Sri Lanka by the end of last year.

Human rights groups had been calling on Sri Lanka to investigate reports of missing people in the north as well as other parts of the country.


WikiLeaks: ‘Sri Lankan Military Is Taking Revenge On The ICRC’ – UN

By ColomboTelegraph –September 13, 2012 
Colombo Telegraph“A/S Blake regretted the current state of GSL-ICRC relations, noting the very critical role ICRC had played on human rights and the constructive relationship the GSL had previously had with the ICRC. He asked if Pascoe had raised the ICRC during his visit. Holmes surmised that the Sri Lankan military is taking revenge on the ICRC, which it believes abetted the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) in the past. Holmes and Pascoe had asked the ICRC if it wanted help in retaining its mandate in Sri Lanka, but, as usual, the ICRC preferred to fight its own battles. ICRC has explained to the government what it is in Sri Lankato do; if the government does not want it there, it will leave. It has already lost access to former LTTE combatants. Expelling the ICRC, Holmes said, would be “daft.” Pascoe noted that he told FM Bogollagama earlier on September 29 thatSri Lankais going to need the ICRC to look after the rights of the 10-15,000 LTTE detainees it is presently holding.” US State Department wrote to US Embassy Colombo. 
John Holmes, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Photo: KEYSTONE
A classified diplomatic cable which details a meeting the US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake has had with UN officials on September 29, 2009. The Colombo Telegraph found the related US diplomatic cable from the Secretary of State section of the WikiLeaks database. The cable was classified as “Confidential” signed by Hillary Clinton on September 30 2009.

Fear and loathing in the Eastern elections


TGView Tamil Guardian 12 September 2012
 
     TGView- 12 September 2012

The results from the recently held Eastern provincial council elections have been brandished by Sri Lanka as a sign of wavering Tamil demand for self rule, and more perversely, that Tamils are now content with Sri Lanka’s rule. However, rather than signal a weakening of Tamil aspirations, the elections clearly revealed the true nature of the Sinhala state’s governance in the Tamil homeland; a mixture of violence, threats, intimidation and colonisation.The elections were a far cry from the free and fair expression of Tamil sentiments that they were trumped up to be. Instead, as became clear through the campaign, they were marked by ongoing incidents of violence against candidates and voters with hundreds of government thugs dispatched to the Tamil homeland for the purpose. The well documented and choking colonisation of the East also served its purpose – providing a reliable Sinhala vote base for Rajapakse’s UPFA.

The brazenness of the intimidation during the campaign even prompted R. Sampanthan, the infamously timid leader of the TNA, to appeal to President Rajapaksa for “free and fair” elections to be allowed to take place. The appeal predictably failed and Sampanthan has recently released a statement slamming the “UPFA campaign of terror” and stating that it "violated all norms of democracy and good governance".

The purpose of the Sinhala state’s violent electoral campaign was very clear. Tamil voters were warned of “unpleasant consequences” if they opposed the UPFA and told in no uncertain terms that they voted for the TNA at their own risk.

In spite of this, the UPFA barely managed to secure 6,200 votes more than the TNA across the whole province. In these circumstances, each and every Tamil vote for the TNA must be recognised for what it is, an undeterred act of protest.

As recently stated in the open letter sent by Civil Society leaders from across the North-east to the TNA, the Tamil people fully understand that the provincial councils wield no power, with Colombo dictating all meaningful policy in the North-East. Tamil voters do not expect therefore that the TNA will be able to effectively govern through the councils. Rather, as the Civil Society leaders also noted, the elections were used by the Tamil people “as a vehicle through which they could express their anger and frustration against the oppression being meted out against them”.

This message must be heeded by the TNA; the party should now faithfully reflect the mandate that has been bestowed upon it.

In its attempts to find coalition partners the TNA must not betray the Tamil people’s call for justice. The UNP, for example, is hardly a credible partner in the Tamils’ ongoing struggle. For proof one needs  to look no further than the likes of G.L. Peiris and Milinda Moragoda, senior UNP leaders during the Norwegian mediated peace process who are now enthusiastic cheerleaders for Rajapakse’s policies.

As for the SLMC (Sri Lankan Muslim Congress) - a party in coalition with a regime that has shamelessly overseen the descration of several Muslim shrines and mosques in the past year alone - they are less than reliable to say the least.

The Tamil people deserve a determined leadership, a demand that has been repeatedly made by Civil Society leaders in the Tamil homeland. The TNA must now step up to the crease and deliver.

On the ground, the elections have changed nothing. Nevertheless, the state’s violent campaign to bolster its legitimacy over the North-East has been revealing. The elections have not only provided a clear reflection of how the Sri Lankan state will continue to rule over the Tamil homeland, including its blueprint for the recently announced Northern Provincial Council elections, but also the tenacity of Tamil aspirations that persist amidst escalating Sinhala oppression.

Moreover, yet again, it reveals the Sinhala state’s obstinate unwillingness to reform. The institutions of Sinhala ethnocracy cannot be changed by simply holding elections.

The state will continue to churn out such facades, in the hope of undermining calls for accountability. But until genuine accountability has been reached and justice served, there will be nothing free or fair about elections in Sri Lanka.



WikiLeaks: Nobody Believes GOSL Anymore – Robert Blake

September 13, 2012 
By ColomboTelegraph –September 13, 2012 
Colombo Telegraph“Pascoe, who recently visited Sri Lanka, questioned the credibility of GSL officials; no one believes they can meet their current timetable for moving people out of the camps. A/S Blake agreed, saying he had urged the GSL to demonstrate some real successes on the ground, because nobody believes them anymore. The U.S.has stressed the importance of working with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and others to figure out a way to resettle significant numbers of IDPs. He noted the discussion within the USG on continuing to finance humanitarian assistance to IDPs in closed camps that do not meet international standards for treatment of displaced persons; the U.S.is exploring ways to use food aid and other assistance to support the returns process.” US State Department wrote to US Embassy Colombo. 
Robert Blake
A classified diplomatic cable which details a meeting the US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake has had with UN officials on September 29, 2009. The Colombo Telegraph found the related US diplomatic cable from the Secretary of State section of the WikiLeaks database. The cable was classified as “Confidential” signed by Hillary Clinton on September 30 2009.
“In a September 29 meeting on the margins of the UN General Assembly, UN Under-Secretaries General Pascoe and Holmes questioned the government of Sri Lanka’s credibility, especially on IDP returns, but said top UN officials would continue to press the GSL on the importance of allowing freedom of movement. The UN will not support new closed transit camps, and is urging that screened and low-risk IDPs be given freedom of movement. A/S Blake expressed appreciation that U.S.and UN messages are in synch. Pascoe and Holmes offered to reinforce to GSL officials the importance of retaining the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Sri Lanka, but have been asked by the ICRC to let it fight its own battles. Pascoe doubted that the GSL was prepared to take meaningful steps on accountability in the near-term before elections in early 2010, but suggested that a process for political reconciliation was beginning to take off. Blake briefed on the draft report to Congress on violations of international humanitarian law by both sides during the war. On Nepal, Pascoe noted concern about the government’s lack of urgency to bring the Maoists back into the political process; Indiatoo seemed complacent. The status quo risks a return to violence, he said.” the US State Department wrote further wrote.
Under the subheading ‘POLITICAL RECONCILIATION; ACCOUNTABILITY’ they wrote “Blake previewed for Holmes and Pascoe the report to Congress being prepared by the State Department Office of War Crimes Investigations (S/WCI) on potential violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity committed by both sides during the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka. He asked Holmes and Pascoe if there is discussion within the UN on supporting an accountability process in Sri Lanka.”
“Pascoe observed that the government is not yet prepared to take meaningful steps on accountability, but that political reconciliation is beginning to gain traction. The opposition Tamil National Alliance (TNA), for example, has shown some enthusiasm for engaging with the GSL. The UN continues to push on accountability. It would rather have the Sri Lankan government initiate a process that the UN could assist with, but if the government does not do it, then there are international mechanisms that could. Blake questioned President Rajapaksa’s decision to delay steps toward reconciliation and devolution until after spring 2010 elections, noting that he has already weakened and divided the political opposition; from his political perspective, any loss in nationalist votes would be offset by gains from liberals and Tamils.” US State Department further wrote.

Stagnating India-Sri Lanka Relations: Need for a Diversified Approach


IDSA COMMENT-Gautam Sen-September 13, 2012

India-Sri Lanka relations appear to be reaching a phase of stagnation. While bilateral relations at the political level are still cordial, Colombo does not seem to be interested in or solicitous of Indian advice and suggestions with regard to its constitutional experiments concerning devolution of administrative and financial powers to the provinces. India’s economic and trade relations with Sri Lanka are also not picking up as per their potential. To compound this situation, the inter-party competitive politics among Dravidian political parties in Tamil Nadu over the issue of severing military-to-military linkages and cultural intercourse between India and Sri Lanka, has come into play. This has consequential negative fallout on Indo-Sri Lankan bilateral relations.
The onus for this state of affairs lies more on the failure of Government of India to assert its primacy vis-à-vis the political constituents of the UPA combine and the latter’s local-cum-regional compulsions, than on the Sri Lankan Government’s obduracy towards acceptance of a wider package of devolution for its northern Tamil-inhabited areas. Sufficient damage was done by India being party to the USA sponsored UN Human Rights Council Resolution of March 22, this year, wherein, the progress in implementation of recommendations of Sri Lanka’s own “Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission“was criticised and Sri Lanka Government was advised to take adequate steps for redressal of grievances on human rights and put in place proper institutional arrangements for land dispute resolution, etc.
The UNHRC Resolution has not had any perceptible impact on the Sri Lankan Government. Colombo has not so far adopted any ameliorating measures to satisfy the psyche of the Tamil people or for rehabilitating the Tamils of the northern war zone based on transparent policies, as per international standards. President Mahinda Rajapaksa, in fact, now feels more at ease and justified in cultivating China with a posture of even-handedness while dealing with New Delhi and Beijing.
As the situation stands today in Sri Lanka, President Rajapaksa’s political base among the lower middle class Sinhalas, particularly of the central region and the south of the island, is intact and likely to remain so for some more time. In this context, India’s pressing for devolution under the 13th Amendment of the Sri Lankan Constitution and beyond (popularly termed 13th Amendment ‘Plus‘) does not seem realistic. In fact, there are demands from some sections of the Sinhala intelligentsia1 that given the strong public positions for and against the 13th Amendment (still viewed as coercively imposed by Rajiv Gandhi and his Govt. in 1987 as a virtual concomitant of the India-Sri Lanka Accord on 1987), it is necessary to hold a referendum (Sri Lanka’s Constitution : Article 86 provides for this) and ascertain the views of its citizens on what should be the unit of devolution, i.e., whether devolution should be to the provinces – and that too, to provinces ethnically delineated, or to the districts with the extent of devolution to the northern districts specifically indicated. The progressive and liberal elements among the Sinhala elite, may even be willing to consider some limited power sharing with the Tamils at the central level, but as a trade-off, propose restricted devolution to the northern province with selective powers bestowed on a Government Agent (the equivalent of India’s District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner) directly responsible to Colombo with only a limited array of subjects within the legislative domain of a future provincial assembly.
India’s offering of expertise on constitutional, legal and federal institutional governance to Sri Lanka may not be of significant consequence at this juncture, given the present political will and proclivity of the Rajapaksa regime. The Tamil Nadu factor in Government of India’s decision-making process has already served to constrain the latter’s manoeuvrability vis-à-vis Sri Lanka. It is only in the realms of security and cultural exchanges as well as in the economic domain involving the promotion of entrepreneurial and manufacturing skills of the Sri Lankans through India’s own expertise in the matter, where convergence of Indian and Sri Lankan interests can be possible and bilateral relations strengthened.
India should do its best to bring about a trade balance which is not adverse to Sri Lanka and make the process sustainable. Sri Lanka’s economy is significantly dependent on exports. In 2011, buoyant domestic demand and recovery of exports helped Sri Lanka achieve a GDP growth of more than 6.5 per cent.2 For example, India’s assistance to Sri Lanka in producing designer clothes and high-end jewellery, to mention an example, could be an opportunity to boost Indo-Sri Lanka economic relations with skills available in India but not confined to Tamil Nadu in particular. This will insulate the bilateral relations from the vagaries of Tamil Nadu politics. Moreover, India could help Sri Lanka in diversifying its exports at present substantially dependant on food and beverages and textile and clothing manufactured items.3 This will also open up opportunities for increasing the volume of exports from Sri Lanka to India with consequential impact on the mutual trade balance.
Exchanges on training of Sri Lankan security personnel – both from their defence forces and police – in respect of anti-terrorism and counter-insurgency best practices and inter-operability of forces, in regard to anti-piracy operations, may be centred on the operable milieu in India’s western seaboard and north-east, away from Tamil Nadu. In India, Counter Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School at Vairengte (Mizoram), Army College of Combat at Mhow (near Indore in Madhya Pradesh), the newly set up Officers’ Training School at Gaya (in Bihar), and some of the Army Regimental Centres in north and central India, as well as some of the establishments under Central and Eastern Air Commands, have adequate capacity and physical environment to provide such skills to the Sri Lankan forces. This is not detrimental to India’s own security needs and will not attract local political interventions as had occurred during the recent training of Sri Lankan pilots at Tambaram near Chennai.
Under the canopy of the Nalanda International University project, a strong bond of Indo-Sri Lanka cultural ties could be built. President Rajapaksa, interestingly, has a deep affinity for such Buddhist cultural linkages with India. His faith in Lord Venkateswara of Tirupathi as well as the Sai Baba is no secret. Promotion of such linkages or affinities may pay dividends to India.
While India should continue to provide a high quantum of assistance to Sri Lanka for rehabilitation of its northern war-ravaged area in an organised manner with oversight of Indian representatives to ensure that the benefits accrue to the local inhabitants, pressurising the Sri Lankan Government on devolution should be avoided beyond a point. A multi-party approach on such a sensitive issue may be a more desirable method like the one attempted through the visit of the recent all-party Indian Parliamentary Delegation led by Sushma Swaraj, apart from suitable back-channel dialogues. While the devolution issue cannot be put on the backburner, the Govt of India has to adopt, perforce, a multifaceted approach on the cultural, economic and security fronts for stability of the bilateral relations in the overall interest of India.

Efforts to ensure smooth visits for Sinhalese: CM


PTI
Chief Minister Jayalalithaa inaugurating the various welfare schemes at Government function in Srirangam on Thursday 
Photo: R.M. Rajarathinam.

Return to frontpageChief Minister Jayalalithaa inaugurating the various welfare schemes at Government function in Srirangam on Thursday Photo: R.M. Rajarathinam.Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on Thursday defended her action of sending home a Sri Lankan college football team, indicating that it was a symbolic gesture to express opposition to the delay in Tamils getting justice but said her government is “determined” to ensure that Sinhalese visiting the state as tourists and pilgrims don’t face any difficulty.
“I banned Sri Lankan football players from being trained in Tamil Nadu to express the state’s opposition and sentiments as Lankan Tamils have not received justice so far,” she said claiming this had drawn her praise from Tamils the world over.
“However, my government is determined and working to ensure Sinhalese visiting the state as tourists and pilgrims do not face any difficulty,” she said at a function in Srirangam.
On Sept 3, over 150 Sri Lankan pilgrims on a visit to a holy shrine faced protests from local pro-Tamil outfits who allegedly attacked their convoy, forcing their early return, a day after Ms Jayalalithaa had ordered sending back home a Lankan football team.
Her action came against the backdrop of her consistent opposition to India training Sri Lankan military personnel, saying that nation’s forces had committed war crimes against Tamils.
Ms Jayalalithaa’s arch rival DMK chief M Karunanidhi had flayed her action, saying his party was not averse to India’s cultural and sporting ties with Sri Lanka, but to training of Lankan defence personnel by India.
Taking a dig at Mr Karunanidhi, she said while he had not questioned Centre on matters that were against Tamils, he was, however, slamming her action aimed at Tamils’ welfare.


Response To Prof. HL: Sobitha The Only Horse In The Draw? Of Course Not


By Kumar David -September 13, 2012
Prof. Kumar David
Colombo TelegraphI thank Prof. H.L. Seneviratne for “On Kumar and Nimalka: The Single-Issue Debate” and request space for a brief reply. Yes HL has identified two hurdles facing my single-issue presidential candidacy proposal. It’s not new; I have been in political gatherings where these were discussed.
(a) Can the single-issue candidate be trusted to abolish the Executive Presidency (EP) immediately upon election and not attempt to hang on as the EP? Haven’t we the people been cheated twice before?
(b) Why give abolishing the EP priority when there are a multitude of problems facing the country? Is this all that important when we should be focusing on “the arduous path” of addressing this multitude of issues via a “rainbow coalition”?
A single-issue candidate who will have no choice but do the job can indeed be groomed if the right approach is used. There are three requirements. First, this is where a rainbow coalition is meaningful and attainable, because the task is unique and the demand near universal; disagreement on other policy issues doesn’t matter. HL’s programmatic rainbow, from red to green, Tamil to Sinhalese, capital to labour and god to mammon is wishful thinking; it is naive to the point of absurdity.  The post-EP parliamentary election must and will be a contest of different programmes; nothing will make that reality go away. But a single-issue rainbownow to abolish the EP is eminently doable; it already exists in embryo in the wide attention the proposal in receiving in many quarters.
Second the election manifesto and campaign must be clear-cut; the manifesto must contain only one issue and an outline of the new parliamentary system so that when a mandate is secured the new constitution or amendments can be in place within six months. The propaganda campaign by candidate and rainbow must be similarly focussed.
Third a candidate who solemnly vows to abolish the EP pronto, campaigns accordingly and is widely trusted by the rainbow and the public has to be chosen. Let naming names take a backseat till the concept has been consolidated in political space; I have no deep preferences but I refuse to accept that there exists not one such man or woman across the length and breadth of this land.
In any case requirements one and two above make it impossible for a victor to go back on his/her word. The rainbow will collapse with a thunderclap, the structures of sate will become ungovernable and the streets will go up in flames. I don’t understand why HL doesn’t see this obvious fact of real-politics if the campaign is developed as I detail.
Does HL say that meeting these three requirements is an absurd expectation? That is a degree of pessimism that is unwarranted even before getting started. Certainly this is more doable than his programmatic rainbow where the lion lies down with the lamb.
HL’s second objection is also unacceptable. Abolishing the EP is not only about changing a job description. It is the root and spring of the rot in governance, law and order and judicial independence. It is the source of impunity for a multiplicity of criminal eruptions. Abolishing the EP is about abolishing this vale of tears without which this nation can take not one more step forward. HL’s suggestion to build a rainbow instead, and therefore presumably under a continuing EP system, logically envisages the continuation of the executive presidential system for a further six years or more. Has HL thought this matter through? If he has let him explicitly say that he proposes a rainbow government serving under a Rajapakse presidency because that’s all his “realistic” option adds up to!
Two closing remarks and I am done.  If Mahinda under extreme pressure decides, as a ploy, to abolish the executive presidency will he not attempt subterfuge – say an executive prime ministership with EP like powers? Of course much deception will be on the way. Are those who have linked up with my single-issue campaign so short of grey matter that they not to have thought of these possibilities, is political society not alert and forewarned? Please give folks a little credit; people have thought that far and beyond, but let’s cross that bridge if and when we reach it.  Second point: am I sold on Sobitha, his he the only horse in the draw? Of course not, I used him as an example that can unify a rainbow, defeat Mahinda and keep his word. You think not? OK no problem, let’s find another, but identifying a candidate is still a long way off.
Related pots’
FUTA Press Release on Voluntary Arbitration

FUTA media release issued on 11/09/2012 on voluntary arbitration. 

On the 10th of September, FUTA was requested to attend a meeting at the Ministry of Labour.  At that meeting, FUTA received a letter stating that the ‘industrial dispute’ between FUTA and the University Grants Commission (UGC) will be settled through a process of arbitration.
FUTA was asked to nominate an arbitrator on their behalf for this process.
FUTA is strongly of the opinion that the issues that it has raised through its trade union action cannot be termed an ‘industrial dispute’ between FUTA and the UGC.  The issues raised by FUTA are policy related and need to be addressed through good faith discussions.  We have sought legal opinion on this issue and we have been advised that we need not comply with the request to seek arbitration.
Furthermore, FUTA has been participating in negotiations with Minister Basil Rajapakse as well as Dr P.B. Jayasundera.  At the last meeting with Dr Jayasundera, the Treasury Secretary informed us of a proposal to find a mutually agreeable long term solution to the problems of university academics.  It is extremely puzzling, why less than a w
eek after those discussions, FUTA has been suddenly requested to submit to arbitration.  It suggests confusion and worse still, duplicity on the part of the government.  FUTA engaged in discussions with various government parties in good faith and with the intention of negotiating a settlement to the various problems affecting the education sector.  Instead, through this latest development, the government has demonstrated that it is unable to comprehend the nature of these problems and that its declarations during the negotiation process are worthless.  This raises issues of tremendous concern with regard to the state of governance in this country.
FUTA is of the opinion that this attempt to term the issues FUTA has raised as an ‘industrial dispute’ will only serve to deepen the crisis in the education sector.  FUTA also wishes to inform the public that it will not consent to voluntary arbitration as the issues it is seeking to resolve cannot be settled in this manner.  FUTA requests the government to reveal its position with regard to these issues and to refrain from acting in this contradictory and duplicitous manner.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri
President/FUTA

Wednesday, September 12, 2012


Colombo TelegraphFUTA CITIZEN CHANNEL: Dr. Deepika Udagama Explains Why Arbitration Is Unacceptable

Dr. Deepika Udagama explaining why arbitration is unacceptable in resolving the issues regarding the FUTA trade union action.
September 12, 2012
Related posts;
MOSSAD in Sri Lanka-Article written before the final push and extreme Genocide of Sri Lankan Tamils in 2009.
Sep-12-2012