Midweek Politics: Chief Justice Faces Judgment Day

By Dharisha Bastians -November 1, 2012

Dharisha Bastians

On 18 May 2011, then 53-year-old Supreme Court Justice Shirani Bandaranayake clad in a maroon Kandyan saree and wearing a simple adornment of black pearls, took oaths as Sri Lanka’s first female Chief Justice before President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Her appointment came 15 years after she was appointed to the Supreme Court, blazing a trail then too, as the first female Justice of the country’s highest Court.

She is the senior most Judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and should serve as Chief Justice for 11 more years, potentially making her the longest serving CJ in the country’s history. But as the Judiciary goes to battle against the ruling administration, it is beginning to look as if Chief Justice Bandaranayake’s tenure may come to an abrupt and historic end.

In fact, while the island’s north east may have escaped cyclonic devastation, a political storm of epic proportions has been gathering steam since mid September and finally appears to be coming to a head.
On 4 October, about two weeks after the Judicial Services Commission through its Secretary Manjula Tillekaratne alleged interference with the Judiciary, and followed up with the warning that the lives of senior judicial officers were under threat, President Mahinda Rajapaksa hosted newspaper publishers and electronic media heads to breakfast at Temple Trees. A genial President told his guests that the Government had absolutely no problem with the Judiciary, but claimed his administration was investigating a sexual harassment charge against the JSC Secretary. Three days later, the JSC Secretary was pistol whipped in Mount Lavinia by a group of unidentified assailants operating in broad daylight.

Since then, tensions between the two arms of the state have grown steadily more intense and culminated in a Deputy Minister charging in a late night debate on television on Tuesday that the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was ready to be handed over to the speaker. On Swarnavahini’s Rathu Ira programme, Deputy Minister of Education Vijithamuni Zoysa said he had been among the signatories to the motion.

According to the Government, it had a motion signed by 118 members of the 225-member legislature. For the Speaker of Parliament to entertain a motion of impeachment against a sitting Chief Justice, the motion must be signed by one third of the members of the House, as per the constitution. A motion of impeachment against the Chief Justice only needs to be passed by a simple majority in the House.

GL’s dilemma                                       Read More

The Sword of Damocles over Democratic Governance?

 Impeachment of the Chief Justice                      

Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu-THURSDAY, 01 NOVEMBER 2012
Accounts, claiming varying degrees of authenticity abound of the impending impeachment of the Chief Justice.  This is not the first time this has been attempted. Denizens of Hulftsdorf within its ranks stopped the UNF government in its tracks from attempting to do this.  A third of the members of parliament are required to sign a motion to this effect, which once entertained by the speaker will go to a select committee. The findings of that committee are reported back to parliament, which votes after a debate on whether to impeach the Chief Justice. All that is required is a simple majority.

There is considerable speculation as to why the Rajapaksa regime would want to even consider this and as to the charges that will be made in the impeachment motion.  The consensus in general public discourse is that this has everything to do with the initial Supreme Court determination on the Divineguma Bill by which it was required to be first submitted to all provincial councils and speculation with regard to the Court’s determination on the Bill thereafter on the validity of the Northern Governor’s consent to the Bill in the absence of an elected council, as well as its substantive provisions.  The argument here is that the regime and its supporters see the Chief Justice as being too disposed towards the Thirteenth Amendment and devolution and accordingly insufficiently protective of the unitary state.  Underpinning all of this, it is mooted, is the desire of the regime to control everything within its reach and neuter the Thirteenth Amendment if not kill it off altogether, so as to deprive the north of an effective, elected council controlled by an opposition political formation - the only one in that event, in the country.   The abolitionists outing calling for the jettisoning of the Thirteenth Amendment, which involved the Defence Secretary stepping egregiously out of line yet again to make pronouncement on government policy, must be seen in this context.  He is after all, if not the most powerful man in the land, one of three or four.  He is also known to be quite blunt and frank.

There is additional speculation and argument about the spouse of the Chief Justice, the investigations into his financial transactions, the behaviour of the Secretary to the Judicial Services Commission and even salacious gossip being disseminated about personal relationships.  All in all, very Sri Lankan - a country like no other in which truth will always be stranger than fiction, be it the private realm or the public.  One point needs to be stressed here and that is as to why appointments in particular are being questioned now and taken exception to, when they were made by and concurred with by those leading the charge to impeach.

Another school of thought maintains that along with investigations into the dealings of her spouse, impeachment is being used as a threat, a form of intimidation to ensure that the Court’s determination on the Divineguma Bill and any others thereafter, is favourable to the regime.  Alternatively that her position will become so untenable that she will have to resign. The point here is that if the Lady is not for turning and sticks to her position and to the constitution, stubbornly protecting her independence and their other Lordships too, the regime will surely have to go through with impeaching her or risk serious embarrassment and loss of political clout in the eyes of the public.  

Impeaching the Chief Justice on the eve of the UPR of Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council and with impending revisiting of the Council resolution on Sri Lanka in March 2013, followed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in a year’s time, begs the question of a regime obsessed with control and not giving a damn as to the fall-out.  The latter is considerable, not just in international terms but in terms of the basic tenets of democratic governance, the integrity and independence of institutions in this country pivotal to its sustenance as a functioning democracy.

The personal issues aside, this is what the public needs to focus on and this is what resistance to the populist authoritarianism of the regime needs to galvanize against. The fundamental relationships between the three arms of the state - the executive, legislature and the judiciary are under grave threat. This is not the first time, yet taken in context and as integral to the regime’s systematic erosion of democratic institutions and processes, checks and balances on its exercise of executive power, this time it is especially dangerous.  There really is no effective structure of government or governance now in this country. What we have is a structure of power to consolidate dynastic rule and underpinned by militarization, populist authoritarianism and majoritarian triumphalism.  

Let us not forget too that the bona fides of the regime regarding respect of and for the constitution are manifestly suspect.  At the first UPR of Sri Lanka in 2008, the regime voluntarily pledged to implement the Thirteenth and Seventeenth Amendments!   The former has been in effect, subjected to a prolonged process of extra judicial killing and the latter gutted and consigned to history.   Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Charge of the Hela Brigade assisted by Brevet Colonels Weerawansa and Ranawaka has only, if Keheliya Rambukwella’s statement on the regime’s position is to be believed, been halted for the time being.  Did India have to tell him and his that they were talking out of turn and way out of line?

Apart from a few, seen by the regime and its apparatchik chorus as traitors and LTTE sympathisers, the public at large were unmoved by the dismantling of the Seventeenth Amendment and its unseemly replacement by the Eighteenth.  The slow death of the Thirteenth is very much on the agenda and now the possibility if not the probability of a frontal assault on founding principles of democratic governance - the separation of power and the independence of the judiciary.
It has been argued that the public -at- large is unmoved by constitutional issues or indeed any outside the cost of living that directly impacts their daily lives.  The regime knows this and through its extensive apparatus of propaganda, coercion and intimidation it will have its way.  

L’ etat, c’est moi, - The state, it is I.

It is time to show the regime otherwise and that time is surely now!

In Geneva, Sri Lanka Spins LLRC But Sent Silva to UN, Burying Petrie Report

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 1 -- When Sri Lanka appeared Thursday for its Universal Periodic Review in Geneva, countries that asked to speak were given 72 seconds each. 

  Defenders of Sri Lanka included Belarus, North Korea, Iran and Turkey -- this last on the theory that it takes toughness to fight terrorism.

  But killing 40,000 civilians? That's the figure cited by the UN, most recently by the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions Christof Heyns when Inner City Press asked him last week about his action on videos depicting executions of prisoners by the Sri Lankan military.

   During the speed-speeches there are contradictions and ironies everywhere. Qatar, which so loudly calls for accountability in Syria, didn't bring it up on Sri Lanka.

  Sudan said it sympathizes with Sri Lanka on armed conflict. But Sudanese president Omar al Bashir was indicted by the International Criminal Court for Darfur. The Security Council never official met on, much less about an ICC referral, about Sri Lanka.

  The most vehement defense of Sri Lanka came from Belarus, which called High Commissioner Navi Pillay's work "unbalanced." Sri Lanka intervened to say it has invited Pillay to visit. Why has she not yet gone?

  The United States, which is known to have pushed to limit Pillay to one term, then got Ban Ki-moon to cut her second term in half, had its Geneva Ambassador Eileen Donahoe cite the need for freedom of expression and judicial independence, citing the day's move to impeach the country's chief judge.

  But Donahoe seemed to rely to the Rajapaksa's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, under which not a single military official has been indicted, much less imprisoned.

  Instead in a move that literally says it all, military official Shavendra Silva, whose division is depicted in the UN's own report as engaged in war crimes, was sent to the UN in New York as Sri Lanka's Deputy Permanent Representative. The US issued a letter that Silva is covered by immunity.

   Then, emboldened, Sri Lanka got Shavendra Silva placed on Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations. 

  Despite some grumbling, he has not been removed from the SAG, and Ban's spokespeople have refused to confirm to Inner City Press that Silva's name will not be on the SAG report.

   The Sri Lanka delegation claimed to be protecting the rights of internally displaced people. But when Inner City Press last week asked the UN system's Special Rapporteur on IDPs, he said he had concerns and analogized Sri Lanka to Cote d'Ivoire, where IDPs have been killed.

   Near the end of the speeches -- the report will be prepared by India, Spain and Benin by November 5 -- Switzerland called on Sri Lanka to follow up on the UN Panel of Experts recommendations. 

  But some say Ban Ki-moon himself has not followed up.Click here for Inner City Press' October 16 coverage of Ban's meeting with Sri Lankan Minister Samarasinghe.

   Where, for example, is the report into the UN's own actions and inactions during the final stages of the conflict, which was assigned to Thoraya Obaid and then quietly not done, then re-assigned to Charles Petrie who now works in Myanmar? 

  Inner City Press has asked, repeatedly, about the report. The UN won't even say it will be public. Watch this site.

Sri Lanka pressed at U.N. to prosecute wartime crimes

Stephanie Nebehay-CDT, November 1, 2012

 Lanka was in the dock at the United Nations Human Rights Council, a Geneva-based forum that regularly examines the records of all U.N. member states and issues recommendations.

U.S. ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe said Sri Lanka must "end impunity for human rights violations and fulfill legal obligations regarding accountability by initiating independent and transparent investigations...into alleged violations of international law and hold those found culpable to account".

"Former conflict zones remain militarized and the military continues to encroach upon daily civilian and economic affairs," she said, while torture, extra-judicial killings, disappearances, and threats to freedom of expression persist.

British ambassador Karen Pearce said there should be no impunity for attacks on journalists, rights defenders and lawyers "nor reprisals against any individual including for cooperating with U.N. mechanisms".

International investigators, whose findings have been rejected by the Sri Lankan authorities, have said the army committed large-scale abuses and was responsible for many civilian deaths in the final stages of the war against Tamil Tiger rebels.

Mahinda Samarasinghe, special envoy of President Mahinda Rajapaksa on human rights, defended his government's record and work of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).

"Protection of civilian life was a key factor in the formulation of government policy for carrying out military operations and the deliberate targeting of civilians formed no part of that strategy," Samarasinghe told the U.N. forum.

"If reliable evidence is available in respect of any contravention of the law, the domestic legal process will be set in motion," he said.

A court of inquiry is investigating more than 50 incidents referred to in the LLRC report issued a year ago, he said. "Investigations cover whether or not any attacks were carried out by the Army on civilians, on hospitals or in the no-fire zones," he said.

The government was probing thousands of cases of missing persons. "Outstanding allegations must and will be thoroughly investigated and any offenders brought to book," he said.

Former combatants, including Tamil child soldiers, have been rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, while demining of farm land continued, Samarasinghe said. "If this is not clear progress, I fail to understand what is," he said.

Referring to attacks on activists, he said: "I must state with the utmost firmness that these alleged attacks are no part of government policy to stifle criticism, activism or dissent".

A Geneva-based body that monitors legal matters, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), said earlier on Thursday that Sri Lanka's government had made it all but impossible for victims of rights abuses to get justice.

President Rajapaksa's ruling party moved a motion in parliament on Thursday to impeach the chief justice for violating the constitution, signaling a deepening rift between the government and the judiciary.

U.S. ambassador Donahoe said that especially in light of the news of the efforts to impeach Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, Sri Lanka must "strengthen judicial independence by ending government interference with the judicial process".

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Stephen Powell)

US At The UPR Of Sri Lanka: We Remain Concerned By The Consolidation Of Executive Power

By Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe -November 1, 2012 

Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe

Note: An abbreviated version of this text was delivered at the Universal Periodic Review due to time constraints.

The United States welcomes H.E. Mr. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy of H.E. The President on Human Rights. and the Sri Lankan delegation to the UPR Working Group.

We note steps taken by the government of Sri Lanka to resettle IDPs, foster economic growth, improve infrastructure, and develop a National Action Plan for implementing a number of recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).

We remain concerned by the consolidation of executive power, including the passage of the 18^th amendment, and that no agreement has been reached on political devolution.  Former conflict zones remain militarized, and the military continues to encroach upon daily civilian and economic affairs. The Ministry of Defense has controlled the NGO secretariat since 2010.

Serious human rights violations continue, including disappearances, torture, extra-judicial killings, and threats to freedom of expression.  Opposition figures have been harassed, detained, and prosecuted.  There have been no credible investigations or prosecutions for attacks on journalists and media outlets.  In the past 30 days, a judge who questioned executive interference in the judiciary was severely beaten in broad daylight by multiple assailants and derogatory posters appeared in Colombo threatening the director of an NGO challenging a government bill that would weaken provincial councils.  No arrests have been made.

Bearing in mind these concerns, the United States makes the following recommendations:

1. Implement the constructive recommendations of the LLRC, including the removal of the military from civilian functions; creation of mechanisms to address cases of the missing and detained; issuance of death certificates; land reform; devolution of power; and disarming paramilitaries.
2. Transfer NGO oversight to a civilian institution and protect freedom of expression and space for civil society to operate, by inter alia investigating and prosecuting attacks on media personnel and human rights defenders.
3. End impunity for human rights violations and fulfill legal obligations regarding accountability by initiating independent and transparent investigations, which meet international best practices, into alleged violations of international law and hold those found culpable to account.
4. Especially in light of today’s news of the efforts to impeach the Chief Justice, strengthen judicial independence by ending government interference with the judicial process, protecting members of the judiciary from attacks, and restoring a fair, independent, and transparent mechanism to oversee judicial appointments

Restrictions and intimidation on journalists covering resettlement process in the Vanni

Restrictions and intimidation on journalists covering resettlement process in the Vanni

From Lines Magazine

 Groundviews

“The Government should ensure the freedom of movement of media personnel in the North and East, as it would help in the exchange of information contributing to reconciliation” (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, recommendation 9.115-d)

After more than 11 months of the LLRC report being handed over to the President, the above recommendation remains far from reality, despite the National Action Plan to Implement Recommendations of the LLRC reaffirming it by committing to identify and remove impediments to free movement of media personnel in the North and East.

A few days ago, I accompanied a crew from a local TV station to the Mullativu district to do a story on the life of the last batches of people who left Menik Farm before its closure in late September 2012.

First, our team met the Government Agent for Mullativu, who told us we could go and film the resettlement and relocation areas, and in fact, encouraged us to give maximum coverage to avoid misrepresentation of facts. Considering restrictions imposed by the military on journalists who had visited before[1], our team asked whether the GA could give us a letter granting us permission to go to Seeniyamottai[2]. He however told us that there were no restrictions, no necessity to obtain approval, and hence, no requirement for any letters.

Continue reading »

Sri Lanka war on words continues

Page last updated at 13:47 GMT, Wednesday, 24 June 2009 14:47 UK

The issue of Sri Lankan press freedom has triggered protests at home and around the world

One month after Tamil Tigers rebels were defeated in Sri Lanka with the death of their leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, the working environment for journalists shows no sign of improving, as this correspondent, who prefers to remain unnamed, reports from Colombo.

Independent journalists in Sri Lanka say they still feel threatened and intimidated.

A journalist union leader was recently abducted and assaulted on his way home in Colombo within weeks of the government announcing the end of combat operations against the Tamil Tigers on 19 May.

State run media, particularly the Sinhala language electronic media, have continuously accused those who criticised human rights violations and other excesses during the last stages of war as either supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or being paid by them.

Those accusations have not diminished with the end of the fighting.                                                  

Full Story>>>

A window of opportunity to take on Sri Lanka

By Bob Dietz/CPJ Asia Program Coordinator

If you've been watching the attempts to silence media in Sri Lanka through attacks,disappearances, legal harassment, and government policies aimed at restricting free speech and the right to information, take the time to speak out with others around the world today. An opportunity like this only comes around every four years.

Sri Lanka's human rights record came under review at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva today. The Council investigates every country's human rights record, and November 1 is Sri Lanka's turn.

CPJ and other media support organizations have submitted documentation to the Council addressing all of the issues above, and more.  In all, 45 human rights organizations have made written submissions, all of which are available here. After today's debate a report will be written up by the Council and presented publicly via a one-hour debate on November 5. Then, some human rights organizations will be allowed to speak, but only for a total of 20 minutes. But between then and now, you can make your voice heard through a variety of social media platforms.

You can be sure the government of Sri Lanka will be doing its best to play down the deserved criticisms coming its way, so make the best use of the coming days to counter its denials. The two official hashtags are #UPR14 and #UPRLKA , but below is a list of other addresses that you can use to make yourself and your organizations heard. (All also have a presence on Facebook).

A bargain in Geneva

Nov 02, 2012

India’s major concern in Geneva centres on the fact that despite having won the war against the LTTE, Colombo is yet to fully secure the peace

Neena Gopal

As the UN Human Rights Commi-ssion starts sessions in Gen-eva from November 1 to access Sri Lanka’s human rights record, one of the three countries tasked with formulating a report will be India — which is chairing the committee — with the two others being Spain and Benin.

Delhi, in fact, has the toughest call of the three. It cannot afford to alienate one of its friendlier faces in the neighbourhood in the hitherto pro-India leaning Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse. Equally, it cannot be seen as not being fair and just, while examining the serious charges levelled against the Rajapakse government on its treatment of the minority Tamils, both during the final and brutal end of the Tigers in May 2009, and well after the conflict ended.
The questions raised by the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands as well as pro-Colombo Pakistan and China focus on the continued military presence in the North, the failure to hold Northern Provincial Council elections — due only in September 2013 — the disappearance of cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda and the
continued intolerance of journalists, NGOs and individuals critical of the government.
India’s major concern, however, continues to centre on the fact that despite having decisively won the war against the Tamil Tigers, Colombo is yet to fully secure the peace. Not just with the displaced, but more critically, with the Tamil GenNext.
The Tamil diaspora remain a vocal, well-heeled, highly educated and potent force, scattered across Canada, the US, Europe and Southeast Asia. They may lack the charisma and the ability to resurrect the Liberation Tigers for Tamil Eelam, no doubt, but they are demonstrably capable of generating enough heat to put Colombo on the proverbial UN mat on its less than equitable handling of the Tamil dispossessed.
In India last week, for a quiet tete-a-tete was Sri Lanka’s powerful defence minister Gotabaya Rajapakse, when India’s concerns over the continued feet-dragging by the Sri Lankan government on implementing the 13th Amendment was conveyed. More so in the light of voices from the entrenched Sinhala Right-wing against the move, which many in Delhi believe to be orchestrated at the behest of the Rajapakse government, unwilling to hand over power to provincial councils that could be dominated by former Tamil Tiger proxies, like members of the Tamil National Alliance who are keen on joining the mainstream.
These include Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation, People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam, the Tamil United Liberation Front, and R. Sampanthan’s Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi, all of whom must navigate the shoals very carefully indeed as they make the transition into independent and bona fide political parties, rather than their earlier avatars as the voice of the slain separatist leader.
The 13th Amendment, a holdover from the India-Sri Lanka Agreement, would see a devolution of power to the north and east which India, for one, believes would go some way towards assuaging the alienation of the Tamil people.
Colombo’s denials notwithstanding, there is growing concern in the Sri Lankan business community and among the moderates over the effect sanctions could have on a less than booming economy, trying to shake off the ill-effects of over 30 years of war and the prohibitive costs of a standing army that numbers close to a lakh, even in peace time.
The Rajapakse government is understood to have sent a power-packed delegation to field the UN’s questions at Geneva. But India’s earlier vote against Sri Lanka on its human rights record has no doubt rankled, even as it signalled that India was moving to the next rung, its position as an emerging leader in the South Asia region reinforced. Just as it had engaged with Burmese generals in moving forward on jailed and now freed leader Aun San Suu Kyi, Delhi is hoping it can persuade the Rajapakse government not to go back on its word on full implementation of the 13th Amendment, with the Geneva meet and a less than harsh report as a possible bailout, emerging as a quid pro quo. One source close to developments pointed to the visit of the Spanish king Juan Carlos to Delhi as being no coincidence.
Theories abound on how India had given enough indication to the previous Chandrika Kumaratunge government that it was willing to turn a blind eye if Colombo moved on the Tigers and how she had baulked despite coming close to destroying the top leadership of the Tigers twice, which then paved the way for the surprise rise to power of Mr Rajapakse, who reading the signals correctly — India sent its national security adviser and its foreign secretary to say it would not interfere or step in — finally did the job.
But post-2009, the Sri Lankan leadership has been bogged down by its inability to find middle ground. That is, rehabilitate the Tamils without giving them the muscle to wield power in the provinces in the mistaken belief that empowering the Tamil political parties to run governments and handle security vis-à-vis police in Tamil majority areas where Muslims are also a force; concerned, it would only prepare the ground for the resurgence of another LTTE.
Some Western diplomats, who have served in Colombo, say a watered-down version of the 13th Amendment should be explored which does not wholly and completely hand over power to the provincial councils. Instead, it should examine the Indian Constitution on Centre-state relations where barring defence and matters of national security, the state — or in the case of Sri Lanka, the provincial council — is empowered to govern.
Mr Rajapakse, some say, is committed to ensuring the Tamil minority are no longer treated like second-class citizens, discriminated over language and ethnicity. But in his unstated intent to enforce a unitary form of government, the assimilation of the Tamils into
Sri Lankan society is unlikely in the immediate future.
Mr Rajapakse, not due to face the electorate till 2016 and therefore unwilling to go beyond his own vote bank, may yet see reason. Unless Geneva, where a high-level delegation led by Mr Rajapakse’s special envoy on human rights Mahinda Samarasinghe is unable to swing things Sri Lanka’s way, and forces his hand.

Opening Statement To UPR: I Look Forward To A Very Constructive Review

By Mahinda Samarasinghe -November 1, 2012

Mahinda Samarasinghe

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Sri Lanka took place this afternoon at the United Nations Headquarters in Geneva, amidst Member States and Observers of the Human Rights Council. The country’s opening Statement was delivered to the Council by Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Plantation Industries, Special Envoy of the President on Human Rights and Leader of the Sri Lanka Delegation.

Madam President,

Excellencies,

Distinguished Delegates,

It is my privilege and pleasure to share with the 14^th Session of the UPR Working Group information and perspectives on the action taken to promote and protect human rights in Sri Lanka in the period since our first review in 2008. It has been our consistently articulated position that, in the particular circumstances and context of the Sri Lankan situation, the UPR process provides the best opportunity to raise questions and seek clarifications about the evolving situation in the country.

What we had hoped for earlier this year was time and space forSri Lankato complete the work of its domestic process that was in train in the post-conflict phase. In March, we stated that the upcoming UPR would prove to be the ideal platform to discuss all aspects of interest and concern, and today we appear before you to fulfill that pledge. A country’s human rights situation cannot be assessed in isolation and should be examined in the context of the realities on the ground. We are ready, prepared and equipped to brief the Working Group and to engage in a cordial and productive dialogue, in a spirit of candour and openness, as to the promotion and protection of human rights inSri Lanka. We will also engage with the Working Group on our plans and expectations to achieve incremental improvements in the human rights situation in the context of post-conflict peace-building, reconciliation and the achievement of normality for all our people.

We appreciate the level of interest shown in the present developments in Sri Lankan– exemplified by the 99 countries that have subscribed to the list of speakers and the 20 countries that have sent in questions in advance. As much as we are here to put forth our perspectives, we hope that, through this dialogue, a greater understanding of the realities in  Sri Lanka will be forged. I appreciate Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ethiopia, Germany, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, People’s Republic of China, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, who have indicated their interest by presenting questions that permit a more focused discussion.

In the course of my presentation and those of my fellow delegates, we will respond to these questions. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce my delegation so that those of our peers participating in this interactive dialogue would be assured that the right people are available to authoritatively answer any question.I look forward to receiving the recommendations that countries may propose and assure you that we will give them our serious consideration.

Madam President,                             Read More

The Mahatma Gandhi Oration: Is Gandhi relevant today?

The Mahatma Gandhi Oration: Is Gandhi relevant today?

Groundviews

1 Nov, 2012 Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy

In November last year the New York Metropolitan Opera showcased its production of Gandhi- an opera by Philip Glass on Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle in South Africa. Though there were mixed reviews about Glass’s western classical rendition of the Bhaghavad Gita, the Met’s opera production was quite extraordinary. Every time the opera was performed, there was a small group of protestors from the Occupy Wall Street movement seated outside the Opera house repeating Gandhian slogans that they felt had relevance to their struggle. Since they were denied the use of loudspeakers, they just repeated what the main speaker had to say in a loud chorus. Even in those cold autumn days in a weary New York City, hard hit by the financial crisis, the Mahatma was remembered. His message will have a continuing relevance for all those who wish to change or transform society through the power of non violence.

In recent years the Mahatma has been receiving a bad press. Biographies and films have revealed that perhaps the Mahatma had a more unusual private life and a more complex family life than earlier imagined. These stories must come out and Gandhi must be judged only after we know the whole truth about him but his message to the world will continue to thrive despite his own personal shortcomings. This message which exalts non violence as a means as well as an end and which asks that politics be based on Sat or truth is a universal message that has found resonance in diverse cultures. His belief that sacrifice and moral action releases the forces of good, enabling transformation of self and society is summed up in the term satyagraha, a foundational belief of his political movement. It questioned the practice among politicians and government officials alike that politics is about manipulation and realist preoccupation with a balance of power. His ideas of non violence, of not humiliating the enemy, of social justice and of self sacrifice have inspired successive generations. It is a philosophy that values human beings and bases human interaction in a bond of mutual self respect.

Continue reading »

World Bank pulls out due to lack of transparency

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2012

The World Bank has withdrawn its assistance for capacity development of the parliamentary oversight committees – the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on the basis that the government has not agreed to bring about necessary changes in the legal structure, informed sources said yesterday.
The World Bank had agreed to provide a financial assistance package of US$494,000 to strengthen these two committees and to develop the capacity of the parliamentary secretariat dealing with them.

The project proposals included foreign training programmes for members of these two committees. The project was aimed at bringing about amendments to the laws and regulations governing public finances.

The PAC exercises oversight in the financial performance of government institutions. COPE has been established to ensure the observance of financial discipline in Public Corporations and other semigovernmental bodies. A COPE member who wished to be unnamed said the World Bank withdrew the project because certain government members had not agreed to introduce necessary changes to ensure transparency in the use and disbursement of public finances. “At the time the WB withdrew, we had spent only ten per cent of the assistance package. We lost the rest. The project that started in 2008 is to have been completed last year,” he said.

“The World Bank has proposed to amend the Finance Act for effective monitoring of public finances by Parliament. But unfortunately it did not happen,” he said.
BY KELUM BANDARA -Source: Daily Mirror - Sri Lanka

Jaffna: Development Without Trust

By Namini Wijedasa -November 1, 2012

Namini Wijedasa

A crowd lingers in darkness on the veranda of an old house at Temple Road,Jaffna. The fluorescent bulbs come on, throwing light on their anxious faces: Men and women of all ages, waiting to meet one of the president’s point men in the peninsula.

They are here most days, often till nightfall, with their worn files, crumpled polythene bags and brown paper envelopes. The house—a typicalJaffnaabode with a garden in the middle—is the office of Angajan Ramanathan, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party’sJaffnadistrict organiser.

Ramanathan, 29, is at his desk. Above his head are portraits of PresidentMahinda Rajapakse, Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapakse andNamal Rajapakse, MP. Further away is a shrine with images of Lord Ganesha, Lord Buddha and Jesus.

“Politicians inJaffna,” he says, “are always talking about rights. Nobody is here to talk about daily problems.” Problems like road construction, garbage collection, pension and relief payments, resettlement issues, education and jobs, security challenges and so on.

Jobs, and more jobs

The crowd enters Ramanathan’s room. Many want employment. One man shows him an application for position of trainee banking assistant. There is a woman, a volunteer teacher, who asks when she would be made permanent. And there are graduates who are registered with a job bank Ramanathan has created, inquiring whether anything new has come up.

Jaffnadoes not have enough jobs for young people who eschew the traditional farming and fisheries sectors. This is just one of the challenges the government faces, in a district that many educated middle class residents insist, is still simmering. There is considerable frustration among young people which, if not managed, could further complicate post-war reconciliation.

Ramanathan is evidently tasked with soothing at least some of these tensions. An old boy of Mahajana College, Tellippilai, andSt. Thomas’ College,Mount Lavinia, he earned a master’s degree in engineering from Australia. But these are ancillary to his most attractive “qualifications”. This man has access to President Rajapakse through Namal, good relations with Basil and even claims he can meet Defence SecretaryGotabhaya Rajapakse directly to discuss security matters.

They are privileges other parties, ostensibly the Tamil National Alliance, are deliberately deprived of. On that, Ramanathan—the mouthpiece of the SLFP—is clear. Any political party is free to work in Jaffna as long as it is “a national party that does not play the communal card”. This places the TNA clearly outside of the equation. In contrast, the United National Party is welcome, Ramanathan said, because they did not practice communal politics.

What about political rights for Tamils? Ramanathan does not dwell on these. He speaks instead about how Jaffna needs an educated workforce. The graduates who come to him for jobs “can’t even do a proper resume,” he says. And he laments that Jaffna people are not proactive—they wait for government jobs to land at their feet without out seeking out employment in the private sector.

“Basically, they are funded by diaspora,” he analyses. “Each family has two or three relations abroad. They have money coming, and Tommy t-shirts, motorbikes and perfumes. What else have they got to say other than, ‘I want rights’?

Three years, still nothing                              Read More