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, November 8, 2012

Sports cars for playboys, taxes for the poor, UNP rejects budget


              
......................................................................................................................................


Sports cars for playboys, taxes for the poor, UNP rejects budget

article_image
by Zacki Jabbar-November 8, 2012,

Since the Budget presented by President Mahinda Rajapaksa yesterday has no tangible proposals to reduce the high Cost of Living,the UNP will be voting against it,Chief Opposition Whip, John Ameratunga said.

He told The Island that the 2013 budget had failed to address the unprecedented percentage rise in the prices of essential goods and services ,which was the most important issue as far as the poor were concerned.

Public servants who had been agitating for a Rs.10,000 salary increase, which was a realistic figure in the current context,have been fooled once again. They are to be given a camouflaged Rs.1,500 monthly allowance, of which only Rs.750 would be paid in the first six months of next year,the MP noted.

Ameratunga, said that Rajapaksa’s 2005 Presidential Election pledge of a Rs.2,500 wage hike for public servants was yet to be implemented.

The biggest joke,he said was the tax concessions given for the import of racing cars,when the vast majority of people were struggling to find three square meals a day.

The “Mahinda Chintana” has transmogrified itself into a playground for rich playboys.The people were now demanding to know the identity of the ‘boys’ who will benefit by the cheaper import of high tech sports vehicles,Amertunga noted.

He,said that the increase in Revenue Licence Fees, will impact directly on the rising Cost of Living,since businesses will recover the percentage increase from consumers.

The prices of essential goods and services were increased prior to the budget and further shocks will follow after the Budget had been passed.In the interim the government will claim that the Appropriation Bill was pro poor ,the MP noted.

To be or not to be Sri Lankan? ... That is the question!

by Theruni Sebastiampillai
Sri Lanka Guardian( November 8, 2012, Paris, Sri Lanka Guardian) How do I define my identity? At first glance, the answer would be simple and clear: I am a French citizen with Sri Lankan origins. This would be enough for any administrative paperwork. But in daily life, the reality is quite different depending on the situations that we are facing. 

The first question would be:
Am I French or Sri Lankan? I was born in France, I studied in France, I live and work in France. So what could be more natural than to feel French?

Let’s take the example at school. I did not have to worry about my origins. It was not an obstacle. We were in a French school regardless of our origins. We were learning French and consequently its traditions. Of course, my roots have always been a topic of discussion. All my friends were curious to know which country I was from, curious about its traditions and lifestyles. Talking about my Sri Lankan origins, mostly allowed me to stand out from others but it never made me question my “French-ness”.

However, after I completed my higher education and started my professional life, I was faced with an overwhelming question of my identity. My current job at the Embassy of Sri Lanka in Paris is the ideal place for me to showcase my Sri Lankan origins all the while being French and also act as an intermediary between the Embassy i.e. Sri Lanka and the various French actors and authorities, i.e. France.  But how many times have I heard people asking me, after meetings or interviews with French representatives, "How is it that your French is perfect? How is it that you do not have any accent?” I was surprised when I was first asked this. My only answer was, "Maybe because I was born and I live here..."

However, in my particular context; I work for the Embassy of Sri Lanka in France and am of Sri Lankan origin. So people might not guess straight-away that I could be French. It is then more or less normal that people would ask these questions. Now, this question would not have probably arisen, had I been working for a French company.

This is when I realized that my roots do take an important place in my life and in my identity. But it is up to me to modulate the importance that I would give to my origins and to my nationality.

The second question which comes to my mind would be: Am I Sri Lankan or just belonging to an ethnic group? My mother is Sinhalese and my father is Tamil. For some, I could be seen as an ideal fusion and proof that different communities can live together in harmony in one country and for others, I could be seen as an atypical fusion and will not really belong to one or the other communities or would not even be a "Sri Lankan".

Throughout my life and my experiences, I have come to realize that being a Sri Lankan was not the most important fact to know. People will inevitably be curious to know if you are from Sri Lanka, but in reality they will be really curious about your ethnicity. “Really? Are you Sri Lankan? Sinhalese or Tamil?” (Note that generally Muslims and Burghers are not even mentioned). Some will go straight to the point and ask to which ethnic group we belong to, while others will be more subtle by asking from which region in Sri Lanka we or our parents come from and then come to their own conclusions. Either way they still want to know your ethnicity. It is hard to believe that ethnicity is such an important criterion for any relationship to begin!

People consider us first as Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim or Burgher and then maybe with a bit of luck as Sri Lankan.

However, the reverse situation can also occur. A Sinhalese only considers you as "Sri Lankan" if you are from the Sinhalese community whereas people from other communities will be only recognized in relation to their ethnicity and not as a Sri Lankan; the same goes from a Tamil’s point of view.

I have an anecdote which comes to my mind. While waiting for an oral exam during my A- levels, I saw a young girl. She seemed to be from India or Sri Lanka. Later on, she came to me and asked from where I was from. I answered “I am from Sri Lanka and you?”. She replied “Me too. Are you Tamil or Sinhalese?” I told her that I was Tamil and Sinhalese and she said very spontaneously: “Oh! So you are not Sri Lankan!”…Did I miss something? The only thing I could say is “Oh really! I did not know! That is actually something new! Well, my parents are Sri Lankan and have lived there, so I think it would be quite natural to feel Sri Lankan!”

At first we may think that this girl has made a huge misuse of language, but if we look at it a little closer, the problem is much deeper. One of the many reasons that could explain this type of reaction would be the environment in which the girl grew. We may assume that her parents are both Sri Lankan Tamils and therefore this girl may have lived with the belief that only Sri Lankan Tamils ​​are Sri Lankans and the others are simply Sinhalese, Muslims or Burghers. This may have been the kind of message that her parents, her entourage or even the media transmitted to her, either during discussions or while watching news or even reading the newspaper.

This emphasizes the crucial role that parents have to play in the search for identity of their children. Of course this is not the only factor, but children and young adults will behave, have notions of certain things, and form their identity, which will be heavily influenced by their parents.  The role of the school, the environment that surrounds us, but also our own analysis and openness, will help us shape our identity.

The Sri Lankan Diaspora has, I think, a specific role. Amin Maalouf, Lebanese author who has been living in France says in his book In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to belong: “Their role is to act as bridges, go-betweens, mediators between the various communities and cultures.” And I think this is what we should really keep in mind.

Finally, I would say that individual identity is not fixed. Indeed, our environment, the people around us change every day. We will therefore necessarily observe, analyze and try to adapt to each changing situation; which brings us to constantly challenge ourselves on our “affiliation”, our beliefs and principles.

Now, if I have to self-assess and describe my identity, I would say that I am both French and Sri Lankan, regardless of my ethnicity. In some situations, I would highlight my “affiliation” to France and its values more than the other and vice versa. In any case, I think the balance will occur naturally.

I would like to conclude with another quote from Amin Maalouf which has helped me clear my many doubts. I also feel it would ultimately support the arguments which I put forward in this presentation and might make others reflect on:

"How many times […], have people asked, with the best intentions in the world, whether I felt “more French” or “more Lebanese”? And I always give the same answer: “Both!” I say it, not in the interests of fairness or balance, but because any other answers would be a lie. What makes me myself rather than anyone else is the very fact that I am poised between two countries, two or three languages and several cultural traditions. It is precisely this that defines my identity. Would I exist more authentically if I cut off a part of myself?”
 [Theruni Sebastiampillai holds a Master in International Business Management from the European Business School, in Paris.]
13th Amendment, a time bomb-Fate of Divineguma Bill shows its dangerous impact

Ishara MUDUGAMUWA
Daily News OnlineThe National Freedom Front (NFF) and the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) called on all Sri Lankans to join them to pressure the government to abolish the Provincial Council system.
Addressing the media at the Library Services Board Auditorium yesterday, NFF leader and Construction, Engineering Services, Housing and Common Amenities Minister Wimal Weerawansa said the government has so far not decided whether or not to abolish the Provincial Council system.
The fate of the Divineguma
Bill goes to prove the negative aspect of the Provincial Council system, he said.
“The 13th amendment to the constitution, which introduced the Provincial Councils to the country is not a suitable system for Sri Lanka. It was a system forced on us by coercion and PCs were set up in an undemocratic manner,” the minister said.
Weerawansa said the 13th amendment to the constitution is a time bomb waiting to explode.
He requested the public not to let it explode.
“The 13th amendment to the constitution and the establishment of the Provincial Council system were done under pressure from India following the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement to establish peace and normality in Sri Lanka. But that purpose has not been fulfilled,” the minister said.
Weerawansa said the 13th amendment would be a great threat to national security and would result in a federal governing structure where powers are devolved to the provinces.
Therefore, the government has to take a firm decision to abolish the 13th amendment, he said.
JHU leader and Power and Energy Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka said the Provincial Council system created a harmful impact on national security, threatened the unitary character of the country and retarded the development effort. He said the 13th amendment was introduced without any lengthy dialogue on the issue and as a result of the absence of an in depth analysis of the system, many serious problems cropped up.
“The international community cannot take decisions on behalf of the people of this country. The Tamil National Alliance is refusing to participate in the Parliamentary Select Committee proposed by the government to devolve power. They are taking the problem before the international community without holding discussions with the country’s leaders,” he said The minister said the government was now implementing a programme to decentralize power to the grassroots level.


Breaking News: Chief Justice Replies The Most Serious Four Charges On Her Finances And Bank Accounts

Colombo TelegraphBy Colombo Telegraph -November 8, 2012
The Lawyers for Chief Justice Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake replied to allegations related to her bank accounts in the impeachment motion. It replies the most serious four charges on finances. According her lawyers  all operative bank accounts have been declared by her. Only accounts not declared are those which are closed or with zero balances- so there are no assets. The much talked of apartment is bought by her sister and brother in law- engineers in Australia who have sent all monies through the Bank. 
Her Lawyers  Neelakandan and Neelakandan wrote to three major media companies re the allegations. We below publish the letter wrote to MTV and MBC .
The News Director
MTV/ MBC
No.4413, Braybrook Street
Colombo 02.
Dear Sir,
We are the Lawyers for Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake.
Publicity has been given in various newspapers regarding allegations against our  Client
At present, we bring the following facts regarding her bank accounts and remittances  to your attention and through you, to the Public.  Our Client has been banking exclusively with the National Development Bank (NBD)  since  2010. Our  Client  has declared  all  operative  accounts  that have assets in  her  declaration of assets and liabilities. The Bank has informed our Client that there are a  few non-operative accounts which contain zero balances. There may be non-operative  accounts in  other banks which  our Client operated prior to 30th October 1996, which  our Client believes have been closed.  Our Client was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court on 30th October 1996. Since  then no money whatsoever has been remitted to our Client from abroad or from this  country save and  except from her immediate family (inclusive of her sister) and her  official remuneration.  Our Client’s sister and her husband, who  are employed  as professional  engineers in  Australia, reserved an apartment (for purchase by them) when they were in Sri Lanka.
Thereafter from  time  to  time,  our  Client’s sister  (through her  Australian  bank)  remitted sums of Australian dollars for the purchase of the Apartment. This was later  converted to Sri Lankan Rupees by NDB. In Sri Lankan Rupees it was approximately  Rs.27 Million. Our Client, by cheques, directly remitted to the seller in installments a  sum of approximately Rs 27 Million. The Bank has confirmed these transactions.
The sum of Rs.34 Million mentioned in your news item is not accurate. The sum of  Rs.19  Million approximately  mentioned in  your  news item is  a part of  the  aforementioned purchase consideration of approximately Rs.27  million. There  was  never a remittance of Rs 34 Million into our Client’s account.
In the circumstances, in summary:
(a)  our Client has declared all her operative bank  accounts having assets in her  declaration of assets and liabilities; and
(b)  after her appointment  as  a judge of  the  Supreme Court our Client  has  not  received any remittances from anyone in Sri Lanka or abroad save and except  the remuneration as a judge and the remittances from her immediate family.
Thus clearly there has been no financial impropriety on her part.  Our Client totally denies the other allegations and can easily refute them.  Our Client instructs us to state that she will, as always, continue to duly and properly  discharges her duties without fear or favour; she will do so, independently, impartially  and fearlessly in accordance with the Law.
Read the original text sent to MTV here
Read the original text sent to ’The Island’ Newspaper here
Read the original text sent to ’Ceylon Today’ Newspaper here
At UN on Genocide, Burying Sri Lanka Report, Rwanda's French Connection

Inner City PressBy Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, November 7 -- It was a snowy Wednesday evening when the UN held a screening and panel discussion entitled "The Holocaust by Bullets: Uncovering the Reality of Genocide." 
  The event was sponsored by the French Mission to the UN; the short but moving films were on Holocaust killings of Jews in Ukraine and of Roma.
  After the first film, UN official Gillian Kitley told the snow-limited audience that the UN's now combined Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect advises Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of development in which mass killing may become possible.
  Inner City Press asked Ms. Kitley, what happened with Sri Lanka in 2008 and 2009, when the UN pulled its workers out of northern Sri Lanka, then concealed and denied casualty figures -- Inner City Press got and published a leaked OCHA count of over 2000 civilians killed in a short period -- and then didn't even call for a ceasefire.
  Ms. Kitley replied, "I understand there's been a very thorough investigation" into the UN's actions and inaction in Sri Lanka during that period, and that she'd be very interested to see it. But what about the public, to try to ensure that the UN does a better job in future cases?
  Inner City Press asked Ms. Kitley to have her Office and Adama Dieng, the Under Secretary General for Genocide Prevention (USG for R2P Ed Luck appears to have rather quietly left for an academic job in San Diego) inquire andurge Ban Ki-moon to make the so-called Petrie report on the UN in Sri Lanka public.
  Ms. Kitley did not answer the plea, and the event moved on.Video here, from Minute 1:03:11.
  Alongside the Holocaust, Rwanda in 1994 was repeatedly mentioned (though France's role in supporting the genocidal government, including in the Security Council where currentUN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous was then France's Deputy Permanant Representative) -- and Syria was mentioned, by Ms. Kitley.
  Earlier on Wednesday Inner City Press was told by a Sri Lankan diplomat that its close coverage, for example of its recent Universal Periodic Review (#UPRLKA) is not fair, in that it took the richer UK 30 years to deal with its "Irish troubles." We report this in fairness; duly noted. But it is also worth comparing responses to events in Syria and Sri Lanka. We'll have more on this.

Midweek Politics: Game On!

By Dharisha Bastians -November 8, 2012 
Dharisha Bastians
Colombo Telegraph“The Chief Justice of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is making a stand: which side you take will define who we are as Sri Lankans,” announced Shaveen Bandaranayake, son of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, on his Facebook page, the same day that an impeachment motion against her was handed over to the Speaker of Parliament at an auspiciously chosen time.
Since then, with the publicity his impassioned plea received, Shaveen’s social network page has turned activist, gathering opinion from across the spectrum about the manifest threats to Sri Lanka’s judicial system.
“I may come and I may go. Others will come and others will go. It is immaterial who comes and goes. All that matters is that the judiciary remains for many generations to come and that it remains independent,” Shaveen posted on 3 November, quoting his mother.
As a senior judicial officer, Shirani Bandaranayake has no public voice and sources close to the Chief Justice say all her personal calls are taken by her secretary, even as an avalanche of support from all quarters has begun to come her way.
As the head of the country’s court system, she has no legal redress or any mechanism through which she can answer her detractors or appeal her case if she is found guilty. Her only child is trying to fill that gap, by advocating on her behalf. Whether his actions will help or hinder her case, remains to be seen.
It is certainly a world of contradictions. On Tuesday, thousands of miles away American citizens went to the polls to elect the next leader of the free world in what is a traditionally stunning display of democracy at work. Here at home, on the same day, the Sri Lankan Government took the process to impeach the Head of the Judiciary, one step further by tabling the motion in the 225-member Parliament, a move which critics say strikes a death blow to judicial independence and democracy.                Read More
World Tamil Conference calls for an international investigation into crimes of genocide
Tamil Guardian 07 November 2012

TNPF leader Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam addresses World Tamil Conference
Gathering at the 2012 World Tamil Conference, Tamil activists and politicians from the North-East and the diaspora, together with British parliamentarians and Tamil Nadu politicians and civil society activists, made a united call for an international, independentinvestigation into the allegations war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide by the Sri Lankan state against the Tamil nation.
The event, organised by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils (APPGT) andBritish Tamils Forum (BTF), was held on Wednesday, inside the British Houses of Parliament in Westminster, London.
Follow us on Twitter @TamilGuardian to see our live coverage of today's event.
 

In a proposed resolution delegates from Tamil political parties and organisations worldwide urged:

1) Take immediate steps to provide for space for free flow of information that would bring to light as to the ground realities prevailing in the North and East of the Island of Sri Lanka.
2) To stop decimation of the Tamil Nation by the Sri Lankan State.
3) To stop Sinhalisation of the Tamil traditional Homeland.
4) To demilitarise the Tamil People’s Homeland for the people to exercise their democratic rights free from fear of persecution.
See here for full text of proposed resolution.

Addressing the event, the leader of the Tamil National People's Front (TNPF), Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, asserted that the genocide of Tamils was nothing short of "a systematic dismantelling of the existence of the Tamils as a nation in the island of Sri Lanka", and though the international community may hestitate in recognising it to be so, the Tamil nation must never hesitate in articulating it.

"If you've seen the recent dialogue that's been taking place internationally, that dialogue has been very specific. The international community has only been interested in talking about war crimes that have been taking place, only in the last stages of the war, that is from January 2009 to May 2009."
"Whilst those crimes were being committed, and whilst we as former members of parliament, and members of parliament at that time, engaged with the international community, we were given two assurances. One was that if there was a blood bath, the Tamils were given assurances that there would be very serious consequences for the Sri Lankan state. The second assurance that was given, was that the LTTE - in the eyes of the international community being a terrorist organisation - once that organisation is taken out of the picture, the Tamil people's struggle for their rights will be recognised and that there would be peace."
"I think both these assurances today, have to be called into question. Firstly what we know is that purely focusing on war crimes is actually really counter productive. Three years after the war finished where there is no war, so obviously there is no war crimes, crimes are still being committed against the Tamil people."
"Today [Tamils in the Vanni] are in fact telling us that they rather.. they feel that they rather should have died in Mullivaikkal, than live the life they are living today. Such are the crimes that are being perpetrated against those people today. So talking about war crimes, is actually, immaterial in today's context. Whilst we must certainly address the most heinous crimes that took place during the war, if we don't widen our ambit, we will be failing by those people today, who are still being massacred, who are being destroyed, their livelihoods are being destroyed, their very existence is being called into question."
"We must also understand what that genocide is. It is not a genocide against a religious group, it is not a genocide against some other ordinary group, it is a genocide in that it is a systematic dismantelling of the existence of the Tamils as a nation in the island of Sri Lanka. It is nothing else. Though the international community might not want to accept it as a genocide firstly, secondly, theinternational community will hesitate in recognising that we are a nation in our own right, but that does not mean that we should not say what is actually happening."
Speaking to the Tamil Guardian on the sidelines of the conference, TNA MP Suresh Premachandran said:
"There are two matters. One there is no democratic space in the North-East specifically in the North. People can't express their own views. We are totally under army occupation, and the military intelligence in every nook and corner of that area. So definitely the people do not have the freedom to say whatever they want. So that is number one."
"Number two is the political settlement, that in Sri Lanka when we say political settlement they normally mean talks about talks, or they are interpreting as devolution or power sharing. Here the president and his siblings - very clearly they said - we are against the 13th Amendment (that is where the powers were devolved through that part of the constitution)... The President said, I'm not going to give the land powers or the police powers... Now, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa the defence secretary says, we have to abolish the 13th Amendment, so which clearly shows the government's attitude."
"So definitely, yeah I don't think there is any chance for a proper dialogue with the government because the government is simply against the power sharing method. So on that basis, what's the point in talking.. what's the point in with the government unless otherwise the government comes forward with a proper – how do say – proposal, for a proper settlement, which we can't expect from the Sri Lankangovernment."
"So I think this is the time for the international community to understand these things and come forward, maybe to investigate the whole thing, that is the war crimes, and the genocide, and the crimes against humanity and all these things. Then only, there might be a chance for reconciliation, as well as for a political settlement. So I think simply that is the situation in Sri Lanka."
The call for an international, investigation into allegations of crimes of genocide was endorsed by the Tamil Nadu politicians present:
M.K. Stalin of the DMK, Thirumavalavan of the VCK, G.K Mani of the PMK and D. Rajaof the CPI.
Photograph Tamilwin

See TamilNet for photographs and details of Tamil Nadu delegates.
The event was also addressed by Tamil Nadu civil society activists includingThirumurugan Gandhi of the May 17 Movement.
The host, and chair of the APPG-T, Conservative MP, Lee Scott, reiterated the need for true justice when speaking, and was accompanied by British parliamentarians from all three main political parties including Robert HalfonSimon HughesGavin BarwellSiobhain McDonagh and Gareth Thomas.

In the evening, as delegates attended a chandelier shrouded gala dinner, TNA MPsSreetharan and Appathurai Vinayagamoorthy addressed the conference, highlighting the overwhelming militarisation of the North-East. Speaking in Tamil, Sreetharan described how the military is every where you look, with over 30,000 military personnel for just 6000 civilians in the Kilinochchi district.

During the dinner, Tamil Nadu civil society activists from groups such as Pasumai Thayagam, and the Sinhalese academic Jude Lal Fernando also spoke, and stressed that the persecution of the Tamil nation is nothing short of a genocide.
The conference is due to continue on Thursday.

Impeachment: Yes. Arbitrary Impeachment: No.

By Rohan Samarajiva -November 8, 2012
Dr. Rohan Samarajiva
Colombo TelegraphI advise governments on infrastructure regulation.  In the interest of effective regulation that is shielded from government interference and manipulation by regulated companies, especially those that are still controlled by government, it is commonplace to establish statutory safeguards to ensure regulatory independence.  In the process, some legislative designers weaken the procedures for ensuring accountability by the regulatory agencies.  For example, it was found in 1999 that it was not possible to hold accountable the seven full time members of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.  The law had to be changed.
In the drafting of the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka Act of 2002, it was suggested that provisions for removal of members of the PUCSL not be included.  I argued that provisions for removal were included because independence must be balanced with accountability.  My argument won.  The provisions mirrored those applicable to Justices of the Supreme Court.
I state these facts to support my claim that no one, not the President, not the Speaker of Parliament, not the judges of the superior courts, should be insulated from accountability.  Impeachment is the procedure for holding both the President and the judges of the superior courts accountable.  Impeachment is a procedure that is needed in a law-governed society.
However, it is tragic when an instrument essential for good governance is used in an arbitrary manner for purposes inimical to good governance.
People talk about the effort to impeach the first Chief Justice under the 1978 Constitution, Justice Neville Samarakoon.  But what is more relevant is a discussion of the non-impeachment of former Chief JusticeSarath Nanda Silva.
In multiple articles supported by evidence I have documented the malfeasance of the former Chief Justice.  This is no occasion to reiterate the case against him.  One example will suffice:
As I documented in an article published in the Financial Times of 27th November 2008 (while he was still Chief Justice), a bench headed by the then Chief Justice Silva decided on the 21st of July 2008 (CS/FR 209/2007) a matter that only came up for argument on the 27th of November 2008 before a different bench.  No mistakes; no typos.  Then Chief Justice Silva gave a decision four months prior to the case coming up for hearing.
On two occasions, President Kumaratunge intervened to protect the then Chief Justice from impeachment.  The current President and the ruling coalition that he heads took no action to impeach Sarath Silva even when he was engaging in the most egregious violations of the law, including the abuse of judicial power described above.  The yet not fully disclosed charges against the current Chief Justice pale against Sarath Silva’s abuses of power.
Yet, not only was he allowed to retire gracefully after doing untold damage to the Sri Lankan polity and economy, he is still greeted as a friend by the President.  This proves that the present move to impeach the Chief Justice is arbitrary.  Members of the government coalition who care for Sri Lanka’s future as a law-governed country must cast their votes against it.

CJ denies allegations against her


 
article_image
Attorneys-at-law and Notaries Public Neelakandan and Neelakandan, referring to allegations against their client Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, published in The Island, said yesterday that there had been no financial impropriety on her part and she had declared all her operative bank accounts having assets, in her declaration of assets and liabilities, and after her appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court on Oct. 30, 1996, she had not received any remittances from anyone in Sri Lanka or abroad save and except the remuneration as a judge and the remittances from her immediate family.

Dr. Bandaranayake’s sister and her husband, working as engineers in Australia, had reserved an apartment when they were in Sri Lanka and had, from time to time, remitted Australian dollars for the purchase thereof, the lawyers for Dr. Bandaranayake said, adding that the money had been converted to Sri Lankan rupees (approximately Rs. 27 million) and remitted by cheque directly to the seller in installments, and the National Development Bank had confirmed those transactions. The sum of Rs. 34 million mentioned by The Island was not accurate, the lawyers said.

Dr. Bandaranayake’s lawyers said she totally denied allegations against her and could easily refute them.


Cast The First stone?

By Ravi Perera -November 8, 2012 
Ravi Perera
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her “
Colombo TelegraphMost Sri Lankans first made aware of the news of the impending impeachment motion against the Chief Justice, appointed by this very government only a few years back, would be struck by disbelief. Judges are not removed from office for their integrity or independence. If the Chief Justice is to go, the lack thereof needs to be shown. It cannot be based on a judgment; as such pronouncements are usually made by a bench of judges who are free to act independently in their judicial functions. The Chief Justice is just one among them. Up to now the issues that led to this historical action remain outside of the public domain. As far as the people are concerned, there has been no inquiry into the allegations against her, by the police or any other legitimate investigator.
When impeachment motions were contemplated against Presidents Nixon and later Bill Clinton, the issues were very public, the facts, the various legalities and the ethics involved were widely discussed. In the case of a judge there is no reason why this should not be so. After all, a judge is said to exercise judicial powers on behalf of the public.
On the other hand, there is a sense of satisfaction among the public that however elevated a person, he or she is ultimately responsible to them and when in public office could be called to a code of conduct, based on both legal and moral considerations. After all this  is  a country where the average person has an income of about Rs 15,000 per month, his diet barely sufficient to function effectively, his transport agonizingly uncomfortable, his health services rudimentary and erratic and  the  standard of the education available to his children is  falling rapidly. Meanwhile,   the average politician and some public servants appear   to be living a life of enviable luxury. These so called servants of the people travel in chauffer driven limousines, sometimes in convoys. Their children invariably study in foreign schools and universities. For medical attention it is always Singapore or some other Developed country like the US or Australia for them.
One strange thing about our country is that no one, including the judiciary, has asked these persons how they could afford all this luxury. While drawing fairly basic government salaries these so called servants of the people are maintaining life styles which can only be enjoyed by the very wealthy. It is now considered an impolite thing to raise questions about wealth accumulation by such people and could even amount to anti-national conduct.
Coming back to the impeachment motion,   it is obvious that in any country, even   the contemplation of impeaching the head of the judiciary is a serious matter.  Apart from the constitutional and legal   issues which are inevitable, such a move is replete with political and social implications with the potential for   far reaching repercussions. It is not a course of action to be taken on a whim or impelled by partisan considerations. To have any credibility, the alleged wrongdoing by the judge must be clear and unambiguous and on a reasonable basis such a motion   ought to be able to command even bi-partisan support in the legislature, although constitutionally    it is not so required.
Mere dissention with government policy does not amount to judicial misconduct. The role that the judiciary is called upon to play often impels it to take a stand or express views which may not win the favour of the government of the day. If the rule of law is to mean something, the courts   cannot bend to every wish of the government. A government is elected by a legal process and has legitimacy only as long as it operates within the confines of the law. If governments were to ignore the law and act as they wish, that country could soon descend into anarchy. By and large it is the function of the judges to interpret the law.
In practice, the power of the State is divided by definition into three discernible arms, the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary. Very often the distinction between the Executive and the Legislature is blurred because control of both these institutions may well end up in the same hands. For example today in Sri Lanka the same party, in the form of the PA, controls both the Executive and the Legislature. Given the prevalent culture of the country it maybe more accurate to say that the Rajapakses dominate both these institutions.  Sometime back when the UNP formed the majority in the Parliament, Chandrika Bandaranaikewho was then President had to cope with a situation of a recalcitrant legislature.  In the United States we often see the President having to work with a Congress dominated by the opposite political party. Handling such situations call for much political maturity.
The Judiciary on the other hand, is an institution whose legitimacy depends very much on its perceived independence. Whether the case is between the State and a citizen or between two citizens, the courts must judge evenly and independently. The heat of changing passions of day to day politics has no bearing on the process of judging. The judiciary is an arm of the State functioning   independently, on behalf of the people.
It is also a sad fact that we cannot ignore that from about two decades ago our judiciary and other legal offices began to change their fundamental character. Not that there were no political and compliant judges before. But around about that time a few leading individuals began to even legitimize such conduct. They argued that it was the function of these offices to toe the line. It was their function to exonerate friends of the government while punishing their opponents.
Such thinking invariably led to more grotesque manifestations of patronage of the judges by the political establishment. It became acceptable to plead for jobs and perks for spouses and children. Even in oath takings privileges were accorded to the kith and kin of politicians.   Judges who were said to be holding the scales of justice evenly between the State and a citizen, on retirement walked into Ambassadorships and sinecures.
The people looking for inspiration for good governance and even personal conduct were left confused and directionless. Institutions lost their value and now are merely functional without the spirit and glamour that actuated them. Institutions led by such persons remind us of the famous quotation from Jonathan Swift, particularly if we swap the word “riches” for “office”.
“If Heaven had looked upon riches to be a valuable thing, it would not have given them to such a scoundrel “Jonathan Swift (1667-1734)
*The writer is an Attorney-at Law and a freelance contributor to several newspapers/magazines