Insight: Sri Lanka's "people's dynasty" - help or harm for growth?

By Frank Jack Daniel

JAFFNA, Sri Lanka | Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:21pm EST

(Reuters) - From foreign hotel towers sprouting on Colombo's seafront to the new motorbikes and mobile phones buzzing in war-ravaged Jaffna, at first glance, Sri Lanka seems to be living up to its claim as Asia's latest frontier market.But private businesses are not investing enough, threatening the boom that has swept the island since the end of a long ethnic conflict, while President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his family are tightening their grip on the economy and institutions with what critics see as an unusually personalized system of government.

The global economy may be in poor shape, but with 17 percent growth since the war ended in 2009 and an eye-popping 200 percent rise in the stock market, investors should be flocking to Sri Lanka's palm-fringed shores.

Instead, even home-grown businesses are shy.

The government reported $1 billion of foreign direct investment (FDI) last year, a record, but even officials accept that is not enough. More worrying, because it raises questions about the reliability of official data, the United Nations put FDI at just $300 million last year, its lowest level since 2005.

There are several possible explanations, but critics say that by making Sri Lanka something of a personal fiefdom and dragging his feet on reconciliation between the ethnic minority Tamil-dominated north and the majority Sinhalese Buddhist population, Rajapaksa shoulders some of the blame.

The president and his brothers control ministries and departments accounting for about 70 percent of the budget, including finance and defense. His elder son is an elected legislator and his eldest brother is the speaker of parliament, where the president holds a more-than two-thirds majority.

"A handful of people seems to have captured both political authority and the economy," said Harsha de Silva, spokesman on economic affairs for the main opposition United National Party.

"Almost four years after the end of the war, we are yet to see any established investors setting up businesses, apart for some big hotel chains."

One Rajapaksa brother, Economic Affairs Minister Basil Rajapaksa, justified the system, telling Reuters that politics was a family affair everywhere from the United States to India and pointing out that he and his relatives were elected parliamentarians.

"It is a dynasty, but by people's choice, a people's dynasty," he said in an interview, and suggested that more, rather than less, concentration of decision-making would help investment in a country where multiple permits slow start-ups.

"In other countries who are successful, they were successful because immediately one person he takes the decisions. In Sri Lanka, the main problem is that that is not there, more decisions have to be centralized."

Opponents say the extensive control of commerce by the president and his family is at the root of the country's problems.

"Half of all the ministries which are engaged in businesses are controlled by Rajapaksa family under his ruling. That is the main problem we are facing today," said Sunil Handunnetti, an opposition parliamentarian with the Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, which used to support the president.

INDIANS AND CHINESE

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the argument, the investment shortfall is a problem for President Rajapaksa, whose goal of 8 percent annual economic growth largely rests on foreign inflows in the form of debt from multilateral lenders and friends like China.

Economists say this is not sustainable in the long run.

The president's model of rapid infrastructure development has helped Sri Lanka bounce back more successfully than most post-war countries, but economists and businesses are wary.

With Sri Lanka tipped as the top destination of 2013 by the Lonely Planet travel publisher and visitors up 30 percent last year, global hotel brands are lining up. But few are investing heavily, preferring to tie up with local players, some of which have links with the government.

Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal said negative reports about human rights violations during and after the war had a chilling affect on foreign direct investment, particularly from the West. The United Nations has urged the government to investigate reports of serious abuses during the war.

"Asian investors understand Asia better, as far as the ground situation is concerned, so you can see, the Indian investors are here, the Chinese investors are here," he said.

But de Silva said old problems worried people looking to do business.

"Investors will come only when they see stability. The stability will come with genuine peace. There is no cohesiveness. There is no position of the government for the devolution of power," de Silva said.

The Pathfinder Foundation economic think-tank warns that Sri Lanka is showing signs of "opportunistic state capitalism", with the government cherry-picking opportunities and creating confusion about the roles of the private and public sectors.

Luxman Siriwardena, Pathfinder's executive director, says Sri Lanka's investment rate of 30 percent of gross domestic product leaves a shortfall of about $3 billion needed to attain the government's target of 8 percent growth.

"There is also need for greater clarity regarding the respective roles of the private and state sectors, including the military, in economic activity," he said.

"NOT CONFIDENT"

Jaffna, in the north where Tamils dominate, was once the second city and a major industrial hub. It is just emerging from isolation as an epicenter of the war that began in 1983. Up to 40,000 civilians may have been killed in the government's remorseless final offensive, according to the United Nations.

Public works and an appetite for consumer goods fuelled by remittances from exiles have spurred growth in a town of bombed out buildings, but businesses are gloomy about the future.

The seaside city was virtually cut off from the rest of the country during the war that pitted largely Hindu Tamils against mostly Buddhist Sinhalese. It could take months for people in the area to get permission from the army to travel south.

Now, buses run daily and two domestic airlines fly there with small prop aircraft.

The most successful is Helitours, which flies passengers for half the price of its rival, Expo Air. Helitours is able to do so because it is part of the air force and has lower overheads.

Helitours also flies tourists to a golf course at an armed forces resort in another former war zone in the east - part of a network of military businesses that extends from private security and farming to catering and whale-watching.

Some Jaffna residents complain the military controls too much land seized in the war. Others warn that government foot-dragging on local elections and easing ethnic tension has deterred both locals and wealthy overseas Tamils from investing.

Young Tamil businessman V. Kandappa came back from Britain at the end of the war to set up a business in his parent's bomb-damaged home - a rare returned exile. He builds homes for members of the diaspora who dream of coming back. Almost half the population left Jaffna during the war.

"The private sector is still not confident about what is going to happen on the ethnic front, people are scared to invest their money in the north and eastern provinces," Kandappa said.

FAMILY TIES

Back in Colombo, a striking feature of the Sri Lankan model is how heavily it depends on the president, his family and aides, who have ties to businesses such as hotels and aviation.

Take the Hyatt Regency, a 43-floor tower being built by developer Sinolanka Hotels and Spa (Pvt) Ltd. Sinolanka is partly owned by the state insurance company, which is the main funder of the project. The insurer and Sinolanka are both headed by senior presidential aide Gamini Senerath.

The land was expropriated last year by Basil Rajapaksa's ministry from a developer that ran out of cash. The land belongs to the Urban Development Authority which comes under the Defense Ministry, where the top civil servant is another brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who runs the military.

Or the airlines. The government runs two more commercial carriers along with the air force's Helitours. One is loss-maker Mihin Lanka, named after the president. Defense Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the head of the air force helped set up Mihin five years ago as a budget airline.

National carrier Sri Lankan Airlines is also fully state owned, since partner Emirates was bought out following an argument over seats for the president.

The airline in now run by Rajapaksa's brother-in-law and last year lost $147 million because of high fuel costs and low ticket prices, the central bank said.

Officially, government investment only accounts for 6 percent of total investment, but economists and diplomats privately say the number is higher because projects such as Mihin or the Hyatt get counted as private investment.

Basil Rajapaksa said the rapid development of power, telecoms and road networks since the war ended prove the success of the so-called Mahinda's Vision model. He said the government's role was partly to break private monopolies.

"In some sectors that are important to the people, the government has a responsibility to regulate, and if by regulating we can't control, we have to break the monopoly."

(Editing by John Chalmers and Robert Birsel)

Shipping executive found with throat slit

By Norman Palihawadana-November 18, 2012,

The wife of the victim speaks with police officers at the scene of the crime.
Victim’s vehicle (Pics by Sajith Jayasekera)

A manager of a shipping company was found with his throat slit, inside his car, an Elite hatchback, on the Marine Drive around noon yesterday.

Senior Superintendent of Police Colombo South, Premalal Ranagala, who launched an immediate investigation, said they had ample evidence to apprehend the killer.

The victim was identified by a relative as Ranjith Costa (47) of Kirilapone and an employee of Asian Shipping Company of Kollupitiya. The victim’s wife, who rushed to the scene with a relative, spoke to the police at the scene. Subsequently, her statement was recorded.

She told the police that her husband had left home early morning saying that he had to conduct a lecture.SSP Ranagala said all that they needed to find out was where the lecture was to be held.

The vehicle, WP KU 5368, was found with the victim slumped backward in the driving seat and its parking lights on.

Answering a question posed by SSP Ranagala, the victim’s wife said she did not know whether her husband had any enemies and when he left home he did not carry any significant amount of money. The car, the husband was using, had been purchased only a few months back.

A Deeply Flawed Impeachment Process

By Friday Forum -November 19, 2012

Prof. Savitri Goonesekere and Dr. Jayantha Dhanapala

The Friday Forum, in a statement issued several weeks ago, referred to the gradual erosion of judicial independence in Sri Lanka, through acts of commission and omission on the part of successive governments. The recent initiative by members of Parliament seeking to impeach the Chief Justice, Dr Shirani Bandaranayaka, coincided with the conclusion of the second case filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Divineguma Bill.  The timing of the impeachment creates an impression that the government is subverting the right and duty of the Supreme Court under our Constitution, to review and determine the validity of proposed legislation, without interference from the legislative and executive branches of government.  The impeachment motion can therefore be perceived as an attack on an institution that is expected to function independently in the public interest.

The impeachment of a Chief Justice or judge of the Supreme Court is a serious matter, when these persons are guaranteed security of tenure in order to ensure impartial administration of justice.  In an unprecedented initiative, an impeachment motion has been presented in Parliament against the presiding judge of Courts consisting of three Supreme Court judges that determined each of the Divineguma Bill cases. The motion of impeachment was presented in Parliament even before the second court order was sent to the speaker.  The selective manner in which the government has initiated these impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice, gives rise to grave concern about Parliament’s exercise of its powers of impeachment.

The Friday Forum in its earlier statement referred to the deplorable manner in which the executive has given political appointments to family members of the Supreme Court, creating serious problems of conflict of interests.  Ironically one of the charges in the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice refers to the alleged conflict of interest created by a political appointment given to Justice Bandaranayaka’s husband, immediately prior to her appointment as Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court of this country has in recent years pronounced judgments that have been criticized for their failure to protect the sovereignty and rights of the People.  The determination in the 18^th Amendment case, which contributed to the removal of the limits on the term of office of the Executive President, and the elimination of the 17^th Amendment procedures for appointing the Police, Public Service and other independent commissions, was one such decision. Earlier decisions of the Courts have provided the basis for the obnoxious practice of members of parliament elected from one political party, crossing over to the government and retaining their seats in parliament.  In the past, they were unseated when they crossed over, since they no longer represented the voters that elected them.  This jurisprudence has contributed to the government acquiring a 2/3 majority, which the voters of this country did not give the ruling party.

The norms of democratic governance under our Constitution demand that the government accepts judicial decisions that they disapprove of without rancour.  Judicial decisions remain the law of the land until they are overruled or revised by another court, or changed by legislation enacted lawfully by Parliament.  This cardinal principle of good governance is violated when a government approves of judicial decisions that conform with its agenda, and responds with an impeachment motion against the presiding judge, in particular cases decided by the Supreme Court.  In acting in this manner the government interferes with the exercise of judicial authority by an individual judge, as well as by a lawfully constituted Court of Justice.

During the attempted impeachment of Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon it was argued vigorously and cogently that the investigation and determination by a Select Committee of Parliament of the allegations against him was unconstitutional. Our Constitution, it was pointed out, provides in Article 4(c) that

“The judicial power of the people shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized, by the Constitution, or created and established by law, except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its Members, wherein the judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law.”

The only exception to Parliament exercising judicial power is as regards its own privileges, immunities and powers. Investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge it is argued does not come within this exception.  Therefore, when Article 107 states that Parliament shall by law or by Standing Order  provide for all matters relating to an address of parliament on the removal of a judge, including investigation and proof, it could not have envisaged enabling trial by a Select Committee of Parliament.

Quite apart from the above legal argument, it is crystal clear that the process is deeply flawed in principle. The current Select Committee procedure does not provide for the investigation and determination of the allegations by an independent judicial body. It permits Parliament to be a judge in its own cause at every stage of the impeachment proceedings. It has been the subject of repeated criticism ever since the 1984 proceedings against Chief Justice Samarakoon.

The need for change was recognized in the draft Constitution of 2000 which provided for a hearing, in the case of allegations against a Chief Justice, by three persons who hold or have held office as judges of the highest Court of a Commonwealth country. In the case of other superior court judges, it provided for the hearing to be by three persons who hold or have held office as judges of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal. That draft Constitution was proposed by a government of the same party as the present President, who was then one of its Cabinet Ministers. Although it was not proceeded with, the above provision in the draft Constitution on impeachment was never a matter of controversy. It is incumbent on the government to abandon its present course and to stand by its welcome commitment embodied in the draft constitution of 2000.

Dr Jayantha Dhanapala        and                   Professor Savitri Goonesekere

On behalf of Friday Forum, the Group of Concerned Citizens

Jayantha Dhanapala, Professor Savitri Goonesekere, Rt. Rev. Duleep de Chickera, Professor Arjuna Aluwihare, Anne Abeysekera, Dr. Jayampathy Wickremaratne, Tissa Jayatillaka, Professor Ranjini Obeysekere, Shanthi Dias, Damaris Wickremasekera, Dr. Deepika Udagama, Sithie Tiruchelvam,       Lanka Nesiah, Dr. A.C.Visvalingam, Dr. Camena Gunaratne, Suriya Wickremasinghe, D Wijayanandana,    Radhika Coomaraswamy, Faiz-ur Rahman, Manouri Muttetuwegama,  Daneshan Casie Chetty,             Rev. Dr. Jayasiri Peiris, J. C. Weliamuna, Dr U.Pethiyagoda, Ranjit Fernando, Dr. Devanesan Nesiah, Ahilan Kadirgamar, Javid Yusf, Chandra Jayaratne

Impeachment procedure is against the “International convention on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR)”

(Lanka-e-News -19.Nov.2012, 11.30AM) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Sri Lanka ratified the treaty on June 11, 1980. 

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a international and multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966 and in force from March 23, 1976.

The intension of the treaty is to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial.

As of March 2012, the Covenant had 74 signatories and 167 parties. 

The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).[2]

Procedural fairness and rights of the accused

Main articles: Rights of the accused and Right to a fair trial

Article 14 recognizes and protects a right to justice and a fair trial. 

1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. 

These obligations apply to both criminal and civil hearings, and to all courts and tribunals. 

The rest of the article imposes specific and detailed obligations around the process of criminal trials in order to protect the rights of the accused and the right to a fair trial.

It establishes the Presumption of innocence and forbids double jeopardy. It requires that those convicted of a crime be allowed to appeal to a higher tribunal, and requires victims of a Miscarriage of justice to be compensated. It establishes rights to a speedy trial, to counsel, against self-incrimination, and for the accused to be present and call and examine witnesses.

Impeachment Motion is against the said convention. 

If the President Rajapakse removes the Chief Justice Bandaranayake without giving her a fair hearing, that decision null and void as it is a clear violation of the said convention. 

Chief Justice Bandaranayaka can request from the United Nations to safe guard her right to a fair trial. 

Sri Lankan Parliament converts it’s proceedings to a tribunal. It has the power to call witnesses, testify before the proceedings and to conclude whether the allegations are true or false.
Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. 
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: 
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; 

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; 

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 

Question: We all should ask from the speaker whether he respects the UN convention, if so whether he has given a fair hearing to the Chief Justice Bandaranayake? 
By -Premalal Ranasinghe: New York

Justice Must Be Served: An Appeal By Lawyers On Impeachment Process

By Lawyers for Democracy -November 19, 2012 

Lawyers for Democracy (LfD), raises serious concerns with the process that has commenced to impeach the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, Hon. Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. The impeachment follows in the wake of several other attempts in recent times to interfere and intimidate the judiciary, most recent incident being the attack against the Secretary of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) in October 2012. These incidents, now culminated with the attempt to impeach are a direct attack against maintaining an independent judiciary, a fundamental element in a functioning democracy. LfD urges that the process to impeach meets basic principles of rule of law and natural justice and ensure that the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka be provided with a due process and there be justice.

Chief Justice Bandaranayake

LfD is also dismayed with the recent developments in the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) which has been appointed to inquire into the 14 charges brought against her by 116 Members of Parliament (MPs). While desisting from commenting on the charges and terms of the PSC at this present moment, LfD is though concerned with reports indicating that the PSC is to exercise judicial powers in its deliberation in the impeachment process. Based on the limited information publicly available, LfD believes that the impeachment procedure  provided by Standing Order 78 of Parliament contravene natural justice and  is incompatible with the Constitution of Sri Lanka.  LfD therefore supports and aligns itself with the view of the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, that the present procedure to impeach the Chief Justice is incompatible with both the principle of separation of power and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

LfD wishes to point out at the outset that with a two third majority, the government has caused a Motion for impeachment to be forwarded, signed by 117 of members of Parliament, all from the government side. This process begins with this Motion and ends when the Parliament takes a vote to decide on the Chief Justice’s fate on a simple majority. Therefore the ‘proof’ of any misconduct has to be decided by a body that can look at the allegations objectively, impartially and not politically. But the composition of the Parliamentary Select Committee is also lop-sided with 7 members for the government and 4 members for the opposition,  raising a fundamental  issue of bias and fairness.

In addition to the political dimension of the impeachment and irreparable damage such an exercise will have on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Sri Lanka, LfD is also alarmed with developments in the PSC last week. Media reports have highlighted the speed with which the PSC has commenced its sitting, with the Speaker appointing 11 MPs (7 Government MPs and 4 Opposition MPs) to the PSC at 10.00am on 14^th November 2012 and having its first sitting on the same day at 4.30pm. At 6.00 pm on the same day, the Chief Justice was personally served with the resolution containing the 14 charges. While such efficiency is to be applauded in any inquiry and investigation, it is unfortunate that such speed is not evident in other such processes. The unprecedented speed in constituting the PSC and commencing proceedings is also evident in the extremely short time of one week provided to the Chief Justice to show cause for the 14 charges. Such speed within the first few days of commencing proceedings begs the question whether the Chief Justice and her counsel will be provided sufficient time to adequately prepare and respond to charges made against her.

LfD is also dismayed with the lack of due respect shown towards the highest sitting justice in Sri Lanka. Reports indicate that the PSC has attempted to limit legal representation for the Chief Justice to one counsel, a limitation not provided in any known law nor the Constitution. LfD was also informed that although the Chief Justice through her counsel had requested for a six week period to respond to the charges, at the time of issuing this statement, this was not agreed to by the PSC, with correspondence informing her of her need to personally present herself at the PSC on 23^rd November.

As practicing lawyers in Sri Lanka, we hold that the general practice is for court to grant approximately six weeks or more for any Respondent to reply to allegations. Further, disciplinary inquiries against public officials are conducted generally after a preliminary inquiry is completed. LfD also notes that there is no limitation regarding the number of counsel that can appear for a client in a court of law. LfD is dismayed that the present PSC did not examine previous PSCs, in particular the one established to investigate into allegations made against the then Chief Justice Hon. N.D.M Samarakoon Q.C., where several counsel marked appearance. LfD is shocked that the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka is not provided with basic legal protections, raising further concern of independence and impartiality of the entire impeachment process.

On behalf of LfD

Singed by

Lal Wijenayaka, Chandrapala Kumarage, E. Viwekanandan , K.S. Ratnavale, J.C. Weliamuna, Sudath Netthisinghe ,Sudarshana Gunawardana, Lakshan Dias , Sunil Jayaratne, Harin Gomas, S.G. Punchihewa

FRIDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2012 

India is not a friend of Sri Lanka; Somawansa

Leader of the JVP, Somawansa Amerasinghe spoke to the Daily Mirror on the resurgent debate on the 13th Amendment, the prison riot, and the impeachment motion.

Sri Lanka Is Becoming The New Myammar Of Asia

By Mangala Samaraweera -November 18, 2012 

Mangala Samaraweera MP

Mr. Speaker,

Nearly four years ago, when the LTTE was conclusively defeated, many Sri Lankans, even those who did not agree with the government on the way the war was conducted in the final stages, were optimistic and hopeful that our country could, at last achieve the economic prosperity which has eluded our people since independence. A window of opportunity presented itself to our war ravaged nation to leave the mistakes of the past behind us and move forward to harness the bright and prosperous future our people have been demanding for generations.

However, as we debate the fourth budget of the Rajapaksa regime since the end of the war, Sri Lanka is a country in crisis; an unprecedented economic crisis looming in the horizon as a result of the rampant corruption and economic mismanagement; the systematic dismantling of the rule of law while trying to subjugate the independence of our institutions from Hulftsdorf to Welikada to suit the agenda of the executive and the international isolation because of the government’s refusal to honour its commitments by the international community has turned Sri Lanka into a virtual time bomb.

The peace dividend anticipated by our people has yet to materialize for 99.9% of our population while a small group of family members, political cronies and a handpicked group of ‘tenderpreneurs’ are reaping the benefits of the peace dividends making virtual paupers into Dollar Millionaires overnight.. Advertising executives with limited incomes are now boasting that they are ‘billionaires’ while Naval officers with the right family connections along with their siblings are listed as top shareholders in various companies.

(I would like to refer to these documents tabled in this house last week).

The chosen place of play for this .1% is the stock market and the chosen sphere of Business for this select group is land speculation – government land speculation. Their chosen mode of travel are, of course flashy racing cars like Lamborghinis, Ferraris and Aston Martins. In a classic Marie Antoinette gesture, the Finance Minister was audacious enough to grant a duty waiver to luxury racing cars while increasing the duty of normal vehicles.

In the face of such ostentation the billion dollar question asked by many people is: where is all this money coming from?

Mr. Speaker,

As I said on the floor of this house last week, during the adjournment debate on KP Pathmanathan there are reasonable grounds to believe that part of the black money which has flooded into the stock market in Colombo as well as some of the FDI in Colombo is LTTE blood money.

In fact, it was after the arrest of KP, the only surviving member of the inner circle of Prabhakaran and therefore the only living person privy to the assets of the multibillion dollar empire of the LTTE, that black money flowing into Sri Lanka became a deluge. Today Sri Lanka has earned the dubious distinction of being one of the principal centers for money laundering east of Suez.

The other source of the black money, according to informed sources are the commissions from the Chinese loans. In the web site called Chinese loan conditions: www. china-powercontractor. cn/government-finance.html) it is claimed that “you as agent can earn million US$ commissions as others have achieved during the past.” It also says that suitable agents ” should have high profile connection with Government officials such as National President, Minister of Finance or related Minister to the projects.”

(Quote and table document.)

Rajeev Sharma, a New Delhi based journalist and a strategic analyst, claims that US $ 1.2 – 1.8 Billion have been given as commissions for Chinese projects since 2005 and also says that the first family stands to receive in commissions anywhere between US$1.2 billion – 1.8 billion during 2005 – 2015. It also says that an intricate web of front companies is in place to receive and disburse the commissions.

(1. Quote and table)

While opening our doors to the robber barons of the world the robber kings of our own country are laundering their own Ill gotten wealth within our own country. Unlike kleptocrats of the past who hid their wealth in Swiss Accounts, the new robber kings feel that their money invested within their own countries is safer; The stringent anti laundering laws In the west as well as the recent experiences during the Arab spring when billions of dollars worth of assets belonging to Mubarak and Gadaffi were frozen and seized , have made many corrupt leaders in Africa and elsewhere to launder their wealth within their own countries.

Mr. Speaker,

Money laundering at its simplest, is the act of making money that come from Source A look like it comes from source B. In practice, criminals are trying to disguise the origins of money through illegal activities so it looks like it was obtained through legal sources. There are many methods of money laundering but the most commonly used method by the robber barons and kings of Sri Lanka is called ‘Round-tripping’.

“Round tripping: Money is deposited in a controlled foreign corporation offshore, preferably in a tax haven where minimal records are kept and then shipped back as a Foreign Direct investment, exempt from taxation.” According to the STAR initiative (Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative) of the world bank forming Shell Companies are a common method used by money launderers. She’ll Companies are defined by the OECD in ‘Behind the corporate veil’ (2001) as:

” ……companies which are entities established not to pursue any legitimate business activity but solely to obscure the identity of their beneficial owners and controllers.”

In fact, I must take this opportunity to all members of this house to read the world bank publication , ” The Puppet Masters: How the corrupt use legal structures to hide stolen assets and what to do about it.”

As well known multi nationals are reluctant to invest in Sri Lanka because of serious human rights/ war crimes allegations, most of the FDIs which have come into Sri Lanka over the past few years have been from such ‘shell companies’. In fact, as Rajeev Sharma writes, the Mitchell Consortium of Australia which was given the contract to set up a heavy industry zone in Sampur could be also a paper company.

All Chinese funded projects are handled by 5 companies and the shell companies behind them are all linked to the very top. In fact Dilshan Wickramesinghe, son of the Chairman Sri Lankan Airlines of Rolex fame is a key player in some of these companies along with Prabath Nannayakkara, whose “meteoric rise ran parallel to President Rajapakse’s ascent to power.”

(Table article)

In fact, Sri Lanka is now becoming the destination of choice for some Indian robber barons who are finding it more and more difficult to operate in India because of its anti corruption laws and the freedom of information act. The Krissh Square deal is good case in point where Indian investors (in India they are called racketeers) with a dubious record has been allocated prime Colombo land. One of the front men for this project is a man called D.R. Kaytal from Bhivadhi in Rajasthan. He used his close links with the Chief Minister of Hariyana Bhopindha Singh Hoodha to do a condominium development project in Gurgoman in New Delhi. However, he left many of those who paid advances for the apartments in the lurch when he decided to resell the land at a huge profit.

In fact the reputation of Lord Billimoria is even worse. (Quote)

It is also reported that Salman Khan flew to Sri Lanka in his private jet to discuss details with the father son duo before the Krissh deal was finalized and sources in Bombay claim that Bollywood and Medamulana are now working hand in glove in this money laundering scam.

Mr. Speaker,

This new Rajapaksa economy, based on black money has deprived the people to prosper in life within a level playing field. In fact, as the UNPs radical statement, to be presented to the UNP convention on 1st December says, rejects “the Colombo Stock Market Capitalism based on the primacy of markets. We have again reiterated our belief in a highly competitive social market economy………..Therefore, the radical statement upholds the primacy of politics where the principles relating to the market economy is determined by the political process which is committed to providing opportunity for all.”

Today, under the new crony capitalist economy of this regime, the universal values of fairness has been sacrificed to the greed of a few. Joseph Stiglitz’s famous caption, “of the 1%, for the 1%, by the 1%” describes the situation in Sri Lanka today where 0.1% of racketeers, tenderpreneurs and corrupt politicians have hijacked our economy to become dollar billionaires overnight while 99.9% of the population ( including the legitimate private sector) are facing hardships as never before and most of our citizens are seeing their Standard of living erode.

As the Rajapakse government stands condemned and isolated (other than for a few like minded megalomaniacs from Africa and elsewhere) courting economic ruin for our country, the UNP believes that it is time to reposition our policies and values and start investing in our people.

Mr. Speaker,

Sri Lanka, today, is not only a country in crisis, but also rapidly becoming the new Myammar of Asia. The UN report released a few days ago refocuses on the alleged human rights violations and possible war crimes during the concluding days of the war while the recent massacre of prisoners at Welikada again highlighted the break-down of the rule of law in the country. The constitutional witch hunt initiated by the executive against the Chief Justice has further eroded Sri Lanka’s credentials as a civilized, functioning democracy.

UN as well as many other members of the International community have expressed their deep concern about the impeachment motion against the CJ.

In a statement issued in GENEVA (14 November 2012) – The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, today expressed serious concerns about reported intimidation and attacks against judges and judicial officers, and warned that they might form part of a pattern of attacks, threats, reprisals and interference in the independence of the justice system in Sri Lanka.”

“I urge the Sri Lanka Government to take immediate and adequate measures to ensure the physical and mental integrity of members of the judiciary and to allow them to perform their professional duties without any restrictions, improper influences, pressures, threats or interferences, in line with the country’s international human rights obligations,” Ms. Knaul said.

In fact, as she correctly points out, the misuse of disciplinary proceedings as a reprisal mechanism against independent judges is unacceptable. It is not a secret that the ruling powers perceive the Chief Justice and the judiciary as major stumbling block to their autocratic dynastic agenda and this is why this shoddy charge sheet full of factual errors has been rushed to Parliament with its docile and obliging majority. From this charge sheet, it is also obvious that the law of the jungle is also prevailing in the banking sector: some of the charges are based on information taken from banks in violation of banking secrecy laws. The officials of the NDB, who are accomplices to this constitutional witch hunt must be firmly dealt with by the law.

In proceeding with this motion, the onus is now on the Speaker, who is also the current chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Union to ensure that the proceedings are in line with the Latimer House Commonwealth Principles on the three branches of government.

However, the government has already violated some of the criteria agreed upon by all Commonwealth countries including Sri Lanka.

In the Lattimer House guidelines, it says ” In case where a judge is at risk of removal, the judge must have the right to be fully informed of the charges to be presented at the hearing, to make a full Defence by an independent and impartial tribunal.”

The tribunal appointed for the purpose of examining the motion is far from impartial and heavily loaded in governments favour: far from being independent and impartial, many of those appointed by the government are akin to the fanatical inquisitors of the dark ages.

As, Shaveen Bandaranayake, the son of the CJ wrote recently, the time has come for each and every one of us to take a stand: a stand not merely to support Shiranee Bandaranayake, the person but a stand for the independence of the judiciary and a democratic society.

In conclusion, I would like to quote from this article – excellent for someone so young – and I table the full article to be included in the Hansard.

“An individual can live his/her life seeing the injustice around them, show a blind eye and die a forgotten entity or you can stand up against tyranny and make a stand. The Chief Justice of Sri Lanka is taking a stand. Which side, you the citizens take defines who we are as Sri Lankans.”

*Speech made by Mangala Samaraweera M.P. in Parliament on 17th November 2012.