Sinhalese Army Harasses Tamil Students: Reconciliation Or Repression In Jaffna University?

By Kumar David -December 29, 2012

Prof Kumar David

Let there be no doubt about it; the military entering Jaffna University, framing allegations and incarcerating Tamil students is intended to send a chilling and brutal message to all Tamil dissent. “We have crushed you once, don’t dare raise your heads again; we will do it again. Learn your place as second class citizens of Lanka; a new social order has been defined. Live with it!”  The reconciliation and rebuilding covenant that Rajapakse tried to sell to the international community has caved in; the age of another round of ethnic conflict is opening up.

Let’s get the facts on the table as far as known; and I rely on sources that are credible. It all started when Tamil students in the University decided to commemorate their war dead which undoubtedly included many LTTE cadres – so what! – and chose to do so on Heroes Day. The military intervened and broke up the commemoration, not because there was any disturbance of the peace, but because Tamils were commemorating their war dead and LTTE cadres were among the fallen. So the Sinhala-Buddhist state is going to lay down to the Tamil people who and what they are allowed to commemorate! This is the quintessential definition of racial oppression.

I am tired of explaining that I am not and have never been a LTTE member or sympathiser, despite Sinhala chauvinists attempting to pigeon hole me thus, most recently subtly assisted by Vasudeva Nanayakkara, but that I am most vehemently opposed to the Sinhala-Buddhist state laying down how the Tamils should conduct their lives, I have never hidden. This is the essence of what has happened on Jaffna Campus; the Sinhalese will decide who and what the Tamils are allowed to commemorate or celebrate. It’s just one step short of the army deciding how the Tamils should think.

The defence establishment is now arm twisting the staff to commence lectures although students are on strike till their colleagues in detention are released. The defence establishment (I do not want to quote names until I am able to get verification) has decided that detained students must undergo rehabilitation. This was not decided by a court of law, this was a unilateral decision of the military without sanction of any judicial process. The Rajapakse government is quite prepared to play fast and loose with due process whether it be impeachment of a Chief Justice or forced indoctrination of university students with no process in law to justify its arbitrary actions in either case. It is palpably clear that Tamils will not be allowed to conduct their affairs, in their areas of domicile, free of military coercion and a Sinhalese dictate, for many more years and for so long as the Rajapakse regime rules Sri Lanka.

The chauvinism of the government and the military repression are taken as given, but what to my mind is most disturbing is the neglect and indifference of the Sinhalese public and the English language and Sinhalese media, without exception. This is where the roots of future ethnic dynamite lie dormant, but for how much longer? The same has to said about the fires of anti-Muslim pogroms being stoked by dark forces, while press and public play blind-man’s-buff. Even the SLMC is more interested in protecting its cabinet posts and perks than in what may happen to the Muslim people, so it won’t make trouble for Rajapakse or make a fuss about the issue.

Letter from over 100 lecturers

About 120 lecturers of the University of Jaffna have sent an open letter to President Rajapakse titled “Grave and dangerous plight of students of the University of Jaffna”. Unsurprisingly, it has got no coverage in the press so far as I am aware (this is being written on Christmas Day). I am reproducing parts of it, considerably abridged, below.

It began with the Army entering the students’ hostels on 27^th November, ostensibly to prevent the lighting of flames. The occasion had a political association that has polarized society and the community needs space to discuss its significance and to sort out its own differences. Default on the part of the Government through continued presence of the military without tangible moves towards a political settlement, has helped the mobilisation of youthful feelings to turn it into a day of defiance, where its original association becomes less important. The Army entering the halls, separating the Sinhalese from the Tamil students and showing hostility to and even threatening the latter has serious implications for the future.

The demonstration on the following day, 28^th, was a protest carrying slogans that were well within the norms of democratic protest. If the students had been allowed to walk the short distance from the main entrance on Parameswara Road and re-enter by the Science Faculty entrance nothing untoward would have happened. Rather than calm the situation matters were made worse by the Police physically attacking the students.

The same night a petrol bomb exploded at the Sri-TELO camp behind the University. Security around the university, including by several agents in mufti, had been very tight and we find it puzzling that the perpetrators got away scot-free. Even more remarkable is that Kopay Police was able to come up with names of four persons to arrest over the incident, which evidently no one had given them. We are confident that these students had nothing to do with bomb throwing. Two were arrested at their homes before the night was out and two were handed over by the University authorities the following day. They were all detained under the PTA and taken to Vavuniya.

There were several acts of harassment in the University by persons in mufti and the interrogation of an assistant lecturer over the phone over his casual reference to heroes’ day in response to a text query by a Sinhalese student. These reveal an attempt to tackle a political question through heavy handed intimidation. Instead of putting an end to the insanity, more followed.

On the morning of 6^th December, the university administration was given a list containing names of ten persons to be produced at the Jaffna Police Station, without any intimation of the reasons or the charges against them. The news shocked the university community and parents were distraught. A study of the list convinced us that all these students were wanted only because they were well known as prominent in student activities.

The war is long over and the PTA is most inappropriate to deal with questions that are political in nature. To see terrorism in political gestures and political opinion that do not take recourse to violence and to respond to them by an overwhelming show of force, is both illogical and counter-productive. There is now no anti-state terrorism in Jaffna. An important part of consolidating peace is for the State to conduct itself in a manner that induces respect for the rule of law. Of immediate concern to the University is that in 2011 student leaders were twice attacked and grievously injured by men wielding metal rods. The reasons were entirely political and they had not committed any crime. The Police showed no interest in arresting the culprits. Now using the petrol bomb explosion as a pretext the Police seem determined to detain and harass student leaders and those active who had nothing to do with the bomb.

The result is to cause considerable fear, anxiety and trauma among the students. More importantly dragging innocent students through police stations and police cells, as happened in the 1970s and 1980s, hardens them and breeds contempt for the law and for the officers entrusted to uphold it. Where there should be trust and co-operation there is fear, resentment, and then defiance. Surely, we do not want the consequences of that again.

The purpose of reproducing portions of this letter is not because I suffer from illusions that the political leadership or the military authorities will take any notice of it. It is the hope that some sections at least of Sinhalese opinion will respond that motivates me.

Correction: Tissa Jayatilaka has pointed out that a quote I attributed to Macbeth in my CT piece of 15 December (“The Pakse Authoritarian Project”) in from Hamlet Act III, Sc.3. The slip up and my irreversible aging are regretted.

Terrorism Prevention unit call Gajendrakumar for inquiries.

Saturday , 29 December 2012

Tamil National People’s Front Leader and former parliament member Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam who is also one of the organizers for the Alliance Front functioning to release the arrested Jaffna university students was called by the Terrorism Investigation unit two days back for inquiries.

 

A notification was issued to his residence in Colombo two days back that he should report to the head office located in Colombo today at 11.00 a.m for inquiries.

 

This notice had been issued two days back in the evening, however on that particular day night, Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam had left abroad.

 

Concerning this, Gajendran who has gone abroad stated, a telephone call was given to my residence in Colombo two days back in the morning. My mother responded the call.

 

One person identified that he is from the Terrorism Investigation unit and have requested my full name and address stating Inspector General of Police needs it.

 

The caller had further wanted a report is prepared in regard to the  Jaffna university students and it should be handed over to him.

 

Later my mother gave my full name and address to the said officer. In this situation, two days back in the evening a notification had been sent to my residence. According to the notice I had been called for inquiries on 29th Saturday at 11.00 a.m in the morning to Colombo head office.

 

I left abroad two days back, and after I return, I will examine the call and will take action was mentioned by Gajendrakumar.

Sri Lanka, Double Standards Of Western Countries, Conspiracy Theories And Dictators

Sri Lanka, Double Standards Of Western Countries, Conspiracy Theories And Dictators

By Mahendra De Silva -

Dictators and their supporters throughout the world always complain of the double standards of Western Countries when it comes to human rights violations.

Dictators and their supporters throughout the world always complain of the double standards of Western Countries when it comes to human rights violations.  Was it correct for Americans and Western Countries to tolerate human rights violations of dictators who were supporting them such as Pervez Musharraf, Hosni Mubarak, Marcos and many others and also encouraging overthrowing of regimes that opposed them even though these regimes have been elected by people? It is no secret that Americans helped the coup against Salvador Allende who was elected by Chilean people and they supported the ruthless military dictator Augusto Pinochet, who took power after Allende. Was it correct for America and allies to invade Iraq, by making false charges of holding the weapons of mass destructions?  Is it correct for America to try 9/11 terrorists in,Guantanamo Bay detection camp, subjecting them to an inferior standard of justice than what is in America. Is it correct for America and Western Countries to support Israel, irrespective of its track record of violating human rights of Palestinian people?  The record of America and Western Countries with regard to most of the above issues has been condemned by Human rights Activist and Amnesty international regularly. It is no secret that self-interest of these countries comes first than the interest of other countries. However criticism by their own media and the unpopularity within these countries is compelling them to take more realistic and just approaches recently.  They were compelled  withdraw support for their own man  former Egyptian  President  Hosni Mubarak, which brought in to power Mohamed Morse, whose policies are not in the good books of Western Countries. In future they would have to continue support popular uprisings, irrespective of the regime taking over is favourable to them. Question remains whether some bad acts of Western Countries would take away their right to preach human rights to third world countries or dictatorial regimes in the world.

The main difference of Western World and Dictatorial regimes in the world is comparatively higher standards in Rule of Law and good governance and free media in the Western World. No one in America or in Western democracies will question the validity of their elections. Misuse of power by Politicians or their attempt to interfere with public service or judiciary, is minimum. Even if it happens due to high media scrutiny they get exposed in a short time.  In the Western World, media will not dare to condemn or expose any wrong acts or scandal of any politician irrespective of the position a person holds. Infamous Watergate scandal made President Nixon to resign in 1974. This was first exposed by New York Times.  Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal resulted in impeachment of President Clinton. Executive power vested with American or French Presidents are comparatively high compared to other democracies. But there are Senate and Congress in American system which could apply brakes on whatever the President wants to do. President Obama, who was elected by popular vote last year, is struggling hard to get through his Fiscal policies and other progressive proposals go through the Congress led by opposition Republicans. But he will never dream of amending the constitution or doing something drastic that will be against the constitution or accepted traditions. Every day President is being bombarded with very vicious campaigns by Fox news agency and other conservative media institutions.  Even if President wants to supress media who attacks him, he knows Americans will not tolerate him in the position even for a day if he resorts to anti-democratic moves. The democratic standards in Australia, Canada and European countries are even higher. Main Radio and TV stations like BBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corp, Australian Broadcasting Corp are funded by government.. But that does not bother them in exposing corruption in the government or having an independent line of reporting. Former Tory cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken in UK was investigated by the Guardian and World in Action for corrupt deals with leading Saudi Arabians. In 1999 he was jailed for perjury and perverting the course of justice. Then there is the scandal of MPs’ expenses. The Daily Telegraph exposed a massive culture of claim abuse that ripped off the taxpayer’s .Former British Defence Secretary Liam Fox was forced to resign due to the exposure of his links to his friend who posed as a government adviser while foreign donors funded his trips with the minister.

All of this is proof that we need free media to investigate and keep the public well informed. This is vital for the continuation of democracy in any country. In a dictatorship which controls the media, people would be compelled to read news, current affairs and everything which is only favourable to the government. This is what is happening in most of the totalitarian states in the world like North Korea, China, Iran etc. In Sri Lanka we can see the news which favors only the ruling party in the government owned newspapers published by Lake House. With regard to privately owned newspapers, government controls the publication of news which is adverse to them by using its influence through the owners of the newspapers and also by threatening to reduce the government advertisements. The media is scared to expose large scale corruptions or scandals of the politicians and as a result corruption could continue to grow. In North Korea government propaganda are very similar to the messages portrayed by other communist countries. North Korean propaganda focus on military might, Utopian society and devotion to the state, and the leader’s personality. They are used to depict the opposite of what is really happening in the country to the outside world.  Kim Jung IL is credited with using propaganda art and posters to make the Kim family’s identity inseparable from the state. The country’s supreme leaders have had hymns dedicated to them that served as their signature tune and were repetitively broadcast by the state media: The Korean government also runs a film industry that promotes movie depicting the glory of North Korean life, and the atrocities of Western Imperialism. The people in such totalitarian states become prisoners of their own government.

In Western World, media is mostly owned by private companies which may be having their own interests and agendas. However there is competition to inform the correct news responsibly. People have the choice of getting the news from various sources legally allowed to operate in the country. In most of the Western Countries, even Al Jazeera and other news agencies which are generally against western foreign policies and Israel are also allowed to operate.. The chances of anyone carrying distorted news is less under this environment. That does not mean this environment is in anyway perfect. There were allegations against conduct of BBC itself. There were allegations that BBC and most of the Western media highlighted the human right violations of Sri Lankan forces more than the human right violations of Tamil Tigers. There were allegations that Tamil Diaspora was active in influencing the Western media.

Too much of freedom in the western countries have its own problems. People have too many choices to think and in the process very often people get selfish, not caring for other beings. Chasing after more and more pleasure could end up with unrest and depression. It has led to more violence and drug and alcohol addiction. There are hidden racial discriminations in some sections of the society. Bringing up children in such a society which has different cultural values is a challenge for a parents coming from an Asian cultural background. Despite all the short comings l people from third world countries, who have lived in the past with fear of arbitrary arrests or unfair treatment, would consider it as a privilege  to live in this part of the world, where there is  higher standard in freedom of expression, rule of law, good governance and respect of human rights,

Any right thinking man would agree that despite all the bad things, Western countries have a  much  more superior  track record of  democracy than  rough States like Burma, Iran, North Korea or any other third world country including Sri Lanka. Therefore they still could speak of improving the standards of human rights in other countries. The other reason is that they provide most of the aid to third world countries and it is quite correct in linking aid with improvements in human right standards. The people under the suppression of dictators in many third world countries have only hope that UN and Western countries would apply pressure on dictators to do more to improve human rights and good governance and fairness. The pressure applied by Western governments has worked marvelously in Burma and even in China. These countries are opening up more and more to improve their horrible human rights record over the years.  Even in Sri Lanka, if Western countries had ignored all the violations of human rights and misuse of power and did not apply pressure on rulers, our country would have been a totally dictatorial regime a long time ago.

Another tactic used by Dictators and their supporters to deviate the public anger against them on human right violations, is to make allegations that that those who speak up for human rights and media freedom are funded by Western countries or organizations who want to destroy the achievements of the country. Often NGOs and human right activists are branded as traitors to the nation. Iran, North Korea and many dictators of third world countries including Sri Lanka do this regularly. It is a fact that most of the NGOs are funded by Western countries and they sometimes have their own agendas in addition to protection of human rights.  But that does not mean that all human right activists and NGOs are working for an unholy purpose. Most of the people involved do this with genuine desire to see the standard of human rights and rule of law improvements in the country in addition to improvements in living standards of the poorest people.

Sri Lankan government and state sponsored media often claim that Tamil diaspora is behind all bad publicity received by Sri Lanka internationally. There is no doubt that Tamil Tigers are the greatest benefactor of the present bad publicity Sri Lanka is receiving worldwide. However much a government tries to hide in what is happening in the country, in an era where globalization is the order of the day; news will pass through internet easily and quickly throughout the world.  Tamil Tigers who have not given up their goal of Tamil Elam would be very happy that Sri Lanka is going in to chaos and more and more misuse of power and deterioration of democracy, law and order are coming to light. This will help them to justify their claim and prove to the world that expecting fairness within the country for their people is impossible. Right minded Sinhalese should think whether the real traitors of the nation are the Sri Lankans who demand more reforms in Human Rights, Rule of Law and Good Governance  in the country or those who blindly endorse and support the rulers to misuse power and do all the undemocratic acts and human right violations in the country.

Conclusion:

There are no perfect democracies in the world. Western countries have their flaws and setbacks in their human rights performances.  But the standard of democracy practiced within their countries is far more superiors to that of third world countries or regimes run by dictators. There is strong media and public opinion together with the alertness of the public with regard to their rights which makes it difficult for corrupt politicians to deceive and exploit the country for a long time. On the other hand in dictatorial regimes, dictators suppress the media and public opinion effectively so that they could exploit the country continuously without any obstacles. The argument that western countries do not have any right to criticize or interfere with regard to human rights violations of the dictators is baseless and made by dictators themselves or their supporters. The civilians of a country suppressed by unjust rule of dictators will have no escape unless International Community cooperate to rescue them  by applying pressure on such regimes  by way of isolation or trade embargos. Basic human rights are universal and do not differentiate between countries. It is the duty of all intelligent citizens to demand improvements in Human Rights and Rule of Law in the country.

Questions reg.Prabakaran not queried from four university students. Statement of Hathurusingha incorrect. Students explain.

Friday , 28 December 2012

Students from the Jaffna university said, the inquiries conducted by the Terrorism Investigation Department did not raise any questions about Liberation tiger movement Leader Velupillai Pirabakaran and there were no discussions whether he is alive or not.

 

Recently the Jaffna university administration officials, Lecturers, Professors and parents of students were called to the Palaly forces headquarters by Jaffna District Commanding Chief and regarding the statement made by him, the students explained their state.

 

“Some of the four students, who are detained at the Welikanda rehabilitation center, still believe that the leader Pirabakanran is living was mentioned by the Commanding Chief Major General Mahinda Hathurusinghe.

 

“They believe Pirabakaran is still living, and the four students are still adopting the policy that Tamil Eelam will be granted, hence tell them to forget that, if it so they will soon release”.

 

Such statements were said by  Mahinda Hathurusinghe to the students mothers that the detained students had told  that Pirabakaran is living and they are in the  policy of getting Tamil Eelam which has been informed to him by the Intelligent personnel.

 

In this state, Jaffna University Deans and some Lecturers visited the rehabilitation center and had met the four students who are serving detention. Students’ informed the Deans concerning Leader Pirabakaran, there were no questions asked.

 

Science faculty Prof.Kanthasamy, Arts faculty Prof.B.V.Sivanathan, Management Deputy Dean Mrs.Aloysius, Prof.Manickavasagar and Senior Lecturer S.Devaranjini met the students and had a discussion. Parents of these students also accompanied them.

 

Students had informed those visited them, that they are expecting a speedy release. Camp officials informed the Professors, they would be released, if Colombo hierarchies give orders.

 

University student union leader Bawananthan, Secretary P.Tharshanth, union members Jeyamejayath, S.Solaman were arrested in the final   week of November and are detained at the Rehabilitation camp under terrorism prevention law.

 

Relations said that permission was granted yesterday to provide food and books to learn for the detained students.

Perceived Judicial Bias, Disqualification And Duplicity On The Part Of CJ Tendered To The SC

By Nihal Sri Ameresekere -December 29, 2012 

Nihal Sri Ameresekere

Written Submission as far back as February 9, 2012 on perceived judicial bias and disqualification, and duplicity on the part of Chief Justice tendered to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court declines to entertain same and returns the same being taken off the Court Record, on making the following Minute s by Justices N.G. Amaratunga, R.K.S. Sureshchandra and Sathya Hettige. 

“All papers submitted  by the Petitioner in supporting this application to assist the Bench is returned to the Petitioner and those papers shall not form a part of  record in this case.

The record consists only of the Petition and the amended petition filed by the Petitioner and no other material is to be considered as a part of the record.”

Further to the earlier Oral Submissions, with Written Submissions thereon, the Petitioner, in the national and public interest, most respectfully tenders these additional Submissions, arising from the dicta in the given facts and circumstances disclosed by the Judgments of the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords inre – Pinochet cited in the said earlier Submissions.

On the persuasive submissions by the Queens Counsel appearing for Senator Pinochet, contending that,although there was no exact precedent, the House of Lords must have jurisdiction to set aside its own Orders, where they have been improperly made, since there is no other Court, which could correct such impropriety, another Committee of the House of Lords entertained the Petition of Appeal by Senator Pinochet for review of their own Judgment, whilst unanimously holding that they have jurisdiction to rescind or vary an earlier order to correct an injustice caused – viz: dicta of Lord Browne-Wilkinson, with the other Lords agreeing: (Copies of Judgments attached  marked “A”, with relevant paragraphs highlighted, with emphasis added)

“Jurisdiction

As I have said, the respondents to the petition do not dispute that your Lordships have jurisdiction in appropriate cases to rescind or vary an earlier order of this House. In my judgment, that concession was rightly made both in principle and on authority.

In principle it must be that your Lordships, as the ultimate court of appeal, have power to correct any injustice caused by an earlier order of this House. There is no relevant statutory limitation on the jurisdiction of the House in this regard and therefore its inherent jurisdiction remains unfettered.

However, it should be made clear that the House will not reopen any appeal save in circumstances where, through no fault of a party, he or she has been subjected to an unfair procedure. Where an order has been made by the House in a particular case there can be no question of that decision being varied or rescinded by a later order made in the same case just because it is thought that the first order is wrong. “

1. In the public interest, the Petitioner is reluctantly compelled to most respectfully place the following, asadditional grounds warranting the exercise of the inherent powers of the Supreme Court, to set aside or rescind or rectify the Determination No. 2/2011 of 24.10.2011 on the Bill titled – “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government identified Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets” .

2. A 5 Member Committee of the House of Lords delivered Judgment on 25.11.1998 allowing an Appeal by a majority 3 to 2 verdict, against the quashing by the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court of an arrest warrant against former Head of State of Chile, Senator Pinochet, to be extradited from the UK; against whom there had been allegations of crimes against humanity, for the prosecution of which, the Spanish Supreme Court had issued international warrants for his arrest.

3. Thereafter, upon discovery, that one of the Lords, who allowed such Appeal, namely, Lord  Hoffmann and his wife, Lady Hoffmann, had links with Amnesty International, who had intervened in the Application for the arrest and extradition of Senator Pinochet, his Lawyers in such circumstances, proffered a Petition to the House of Lords to review their own Judgment.

4. The foregoing discoveries were consequent to squealing, whistleblowing and media exposures, resulting in Amnesty International’s Solicitors by Letters dated 1.12.1998 and 7.12.1998 admitting that Lady Hoffmann had been working at the International Secretariat of Amnesty International in UK, mainly in administrative positions; and further admitting that Lord Hoffmann had been Director and Chairman of Amnesty International Charity Ltd., UK, which carried out some aspects of work of Amnesty International Ltd., UK, both being functionaries of Amnesty International. Lord Hoffmann had no financial interest and had not received any remuneration from these institutions.

5. The new 5 Member Committee of the House of Lords, who entertained the Petition of Appeal by Senator Pinochet for review of the Judgment of 25.11.1998 by a 5 Member Committee of the House of Lords, delivered on 17.12.1998 the Judgment of Their Lords of Appeal, with reasons given on 15.1.1999, setting aside the previous Judgment of the House of Lords of 25.11.1998, and directing a re-hearing by a differently constituted Committee, without any of Their Lords, who had heard the matter.

6. The kind attention of the Supreme Court is very respectfully drawn to the paragraphs highlighted with emphasis added in the Judgments of the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords annexed marked “A”

7. SC Special Determination No. 2/2011 of 24.10.2011 on the Bill titled – “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government identified Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets”,  was delivered by a 3 Judge Bench, presided by Her Ladyship the Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, with His Lordship Justice, P.A. Ratnayake and Ladyship Justice, Chandra Ekanayake.

8. In the Judgment delivered on 4.6.2009 in SC (FR) Application No. 158/2007 by the Supreme  Court,annulling the privatization of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., (SLICL), as wrongful, unlawful and illegal, the Supreme Court, inter-alia, made the following Order:                                Read More

A call for popular outrage

Saturday, 29. December 2012 

Some people are angry that no real protest develops in the streets of Lanka. The incidents that have taken place thus far ought to have awakened the just wrath of the people, they say. Enough has taken place to rouse the masses to practical actions against tyranny. Some go to the edge of pessimism and say that Lankans have rulers of this nature at the helm, because they deserve them. Others, alienated from the suffering of the people, wait patiently, fiddling and smacking their lips: They could be waiting for their chance to do the same as the Rajapaksas. 
It is also very common to blame the opposition for inaction. They ask whether any of the present representatives of the people will come out to join the public to protest. In the end, they blame Ranil for inaction. 
Clearly these opinions are far from the truth. It is true that Lankan society was totally submerged in chauvinism and irrational faith in the Mahinda regime for the last three years. The government got away with many mistakes and corrupt practices due to this particular situation. People were tolerant of the man who claimed to have defeated evil and promised to drive the country towards prosperity and success. Even the urban, working class that usually mistrusts promises of the bourgeoisie was prepared to accept this version of the regime and to follow a non-confrontational policy towards the government. 
It is true that if the public fails, there is no point in blaming this one and that one. Under the dopamine of chauvinism, almost all our parliamentarians (government and opposition) have become insincere, selfish, greedy and unsympathetic hypocrites. Continuous adherence to or tolerance of false stories have reduced these welfare workers to become complete hypocrites.

Self-impeachment
They are responsible in union for the transposition of Parliament into a kangaroo-court that is carrying out a foolish inquisition violating every tenet of natural justice. The latter act represents the ultimate degradation of Parliament that is supposed to represent the people. MPs must be servants of the people but under the current, irrational chauvinist ideology they have become masters, feared rather than respected; despised rather than loved. Even in the developing world such bumptious arrogance and indifference is rare. In this situation whether the tyranny of Parliament can be disposed by an election has become a common question! 
So, while the regime is evil, the public mood is turning hostile not only towards government parliamentarians but also to the chauvinist section of the opposition as well. On the other hand, it is now obvious that the Mahinda regime, in trying to impeach the chief justice, has impeached itself. It is now up to the public to give to the regime the verdict that it deserves.

A stoic alliance
If the public fails, there is no point in blaming the liberal opposition. There is only one alliance in the opposition that is free from chauvinism and has won the confidence of the minorities in addition to attracting the angry radical masses in general. That is the Protest of the Opposition – VV. It is not an electoral alliance confined to a short term electoral victory; it is far from it. As indicated, it is an alliance for the common struggle. It has a track record of facing all sorts of obstacles and criticism. We have to go forward.
This can only mean one thing: Greater mobilisation in democratic chambers and forums, the press, publications, protests, slogans and demonstrations. And electoral mobilisation too, of course, but not confined to that only. In fact, in elections, alliance parties can contest separately with the common enemy in mind. Truly they can march separately while striking together. The implied call is for mass intervention, democratic but forceful, using a wide range of tools. This vision is the most important. This is the best way to short-circuit these “bumptious, arrogant, conceited, and vain, hypocrites.” Nor will we need to “wait till the messiah comes.”

Sri Lankan Psyche – Our Short Attention Span

By Lilani Jayatilaka -December 29, 2012 

Lilani Jayatilaka

Some years ago while on a visit from abroad, my niece was entertained and perhaps a little shocked when she overheard comments broadcast over the loudspeaker from a nearby school.

It was the day of their annual sports meet and a teacher, obviously short-tempered, screamed into the microphone at some hapless students, “Magay yakaawe aussande epaa”. When translated into English, “Don’t rouse the devil in me” it loses colour and pith but in its original Sinhala form, her words and tone of voice, packed quite a punch.

Reading the newspapers today, I am reminded of the words of that teacher. It seems that it takes very little to raise the sleeping devil in the Sri Lankan psyche. Any hint of criticism directed at our fragile egos and we are ready and willing to take umbrage. Is this part of our Sri Lankan psyche? If so, it does us a disservice.

Some of these thoughts on the Sri Lankan psyche ran through my mind when I attended a seminar on Wednesday 12 December, on the all- but- forgotten Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) Report. Interestingly, I learned that there was a measure of dissatisfaction with the report among some hard—line Tamils in the North as much as there was among many Sinhalese in the South, though for different reasons. The Tamils feel that due to the narrowness of its scope, the report fails to address the root causes for the war of 30 years, a crucial and significant omission. The hard- line Sinhala stance is in line with that of the government, and this is not to re-revisit the events that took place in May 2009, but instead to assert its confidence in the armed forces, the acknowledged heroes of the nation who saved the day. Leave alone rooting among the debris for evidence of war crimes, such hard liners find themselves unable even to consider the relatively mild and non threatening recommendations of the LLRC. In the meanwhile, the government is in the unenviable position of having commissioned a report which is a veritable Pandora’s box in its hands.

For instance, Chapter 3 of the report focuses on how the war was conducted during those last crucial days, while among its many recommendations at the end of the report, the commission also emphasizes the need for an independent body to investigate the channel 4 videos, the killings of 5 teenage boys in Trincomalee, the murder of 23 Aid workers in Muttur and the people who went missing during the course of the war. Rumour has it, that these disappearances and killings could be connected to the echelons of power and privilege. What does a government do with a report it commissioned to stave off mounting international pressure, but which could prove to be a powder keg in its possession? What it has done so far has been exactly what previous governments too have done with embarrassing facts, and that is, to sit it out. This brings me to the second significant aspect of the Sri Lankan psyche – our short attention span. We flog an issue to death on the streets and in our homes as long as it is “hot hot” but a few months down the line, we forget about it and focus on the next sensation.

Read More

'Inflammable liquid used in Kachcheri fire' SATURDAY, 29 DECEMBER 2012  Colombo Kachcheri building had been kept on fire with a highly inflammable liquid, Police said citing the Govt. Analyst’s report. Govt. Analyst’s final report on the Colombo Kachcheri building fire of November 27 was handed over to the Colombo District DIG yesterday (28). The fire had broken out at the right side of the upper floor of the Kachcheri building, according to the report, Police further said. No one was taken into custody on the incident yet and the investigations were being conducted to take culprits in to the book, Police said. Police also said a lot of important information was revealed according to the report and the investigations had taken a new trend. The Kachcheri fire broke out on November 27. Due to the fire a lot of important documents and equipment at Accounts Division, Administrative Division and Planning Division were destroyed. Colombo Distract Secretary Kamal Padmasiri said that at the moment the field inspections were finished and therefore the building could be used again. (Sujith Hewajuli

Judicial Independence Is Limited To Hearing Cases Says Minister Rajitha

By Basil Fernando -December 29, 2012 

Basil Fernando

In a morning programme on SLBC today (29^th December) Minister Rajitha Senaratne was interviewed. Here are some of the basic points from what he stated in this interview:

That the independence of the judiciary recognized within the 1978 constitutionis only for the purpose of hearing cases; citing articles of the constitution, he took time to explain that the only independence that this constitution recognizes is for hearing cases, where no one can interfere with the powers of the judges to hear and determine cases. Besides that, there is no other independence. The implication of the statement was that universally recognized principles relating to the independence of the judiciary, which include, among other things, that the removal of judges should be done only on the rarest grounds and that it should only be after fair inquiry by competent tribunal, are not recognized by Sri Lankan constitution. This way the objections that have been raised locally and internationally – that the hearing by the PSC did not amount to inquiry by free and fair tribunal – was made out to be irrelevant in terms of the 1978 constitution. This also implies that judges have no right to interpret the constitution.

That those who did not raise objections to the standing orders under section 107(3) have no right to raise those objections now; he said that there were 28 years to raise these objections, and if they failed to raise those objections then, they have no right to raise them now.

That, according to the provisions of the constitution, the president controls all the matters relating to judges and that therefore the president also has the power over the dismissal of judges. This is similar to the position earlier taken up by Dr. Nath Amarakoon, that the Chief Justice is an employee of executive and therefore should behave accordingly.

That what is important is not the process but the substance of the charges. He then went on to demonstrate how gravely wrong the issues in terms of substance are. Going into process without talking about substantive issues was described as not entering into the field but talking about it from outside. According to this argument, if a man is charged with a gruesome murder, nobody is should be talking about providing a fair trial for such a person as the substance of what he has done is gravely wrong. Also implied is that there is no presumption of innocence when you are charged on matters that are grave.

That, according to the constitution, the parliament has all the powers and once the parliament decides on any matter there is no right for court to issue writs or summons to members of parliament regarding such matters. That, he said, is the tradition in England.

That the opposition to the impeachment arose due to the people being unprepared when the impeachment motion was filed. As the people were ignorant of the charges, they were surprised. He has in fact told the president that all these problems arose due to people not being aware of the charges beforehand. Had they been given the time of one month before filing the motion for impeachment, none of these problems would have arisen.

As these matters mentioned above are so important, this broadcast will be aired again in the afternoon, said the chairman of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, who was the moderator of the programme.

By way of comment, it may be said that the government is now very clearly indicating that it will not recognize any independence of the judiciary other than the right of judges to hear and determine cases. In essence, this is a complete rejection of the recognition that the judiciary is an independence branch of government. The argument is that the concept of the separation of powers as recognized within a democracy is not what is found in the 1978 constitution.

A similar view was expressed in the English counterpart of this programme, under the inappropriate title ‘Peoples Power’, which also stated that the issue of process is irrelevant as everything was done according to the book, meaning the 1978 constitution. What is blatantly expressed is that the ‘democracy’ in Sri Lanka is a very unique one as defined by 1978 constitution and it should not be criticized on the basis of other principles that are recognized in other democratic countries. This also implies that even the right to a fair trial is not a substantive part of Sri Lankan law.

In my previous article, “Why People Oppose The Undermining Of The Judiciary”, I mentioned how Cambodians used to do things by their book and how in Myanmar the book that Ne Win gave was followed. Now, the constitutional tomfoolery that JR Jayawardene did with the Sri Lankan constitution has become Sri Lanka’s book. The government’s argument is that, if this book was okay for the last 28 years, it is also okay for the future.

Impeachment: Three types of opponents

Should Shirani Bandaranayake enter politics?-Saturday, 29. December 2012 

The anti-impeachment mobilisation consists of three, not two conceptual orientations. First there are those who hold that Chief Justice Bandaranayake (CJ-B) is not guilty of any form of turpitude and is a victim of a frame-up. Second there are those who reserve judgment on that matter, but declare that process infringed natural justice (2a) and/or is in violation of the Constitution (2b); these are two variants within the second camp. Most of those who reject the Rajapaksa witch-hunt hold more than one of these views. There is no contradiction in holding one, two or all three of these positions. 
The third orientation is made up of people like me who think it unlikely that the CJ-B is guilty of misconduct as construed in the 14 allegations and recognise that we will never know the truth because the regime has so muddied the waters with its own, far more egregious, misconduct. (We will have to bring judges from abroad or from the planet Mars for a fair trial). Hence we are agnostic on the first issue. On 2b we are prepared to await the opinion of the Courts before forming our conclusion regarding constitutionality of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC). However, neither of these is our main concern.
We agree that the proceedings of the PSC were flagrantly biased and an unconscionable violation of natural justice (2a); but here comes the punch line and this is what we hold to be most important. We hold that 2a and the behaviour of the Executive, the government party majority and the PSC is part of a larger process developing in Lanka since the end of the war. The underlying logic of these happenings is a drive by the Rajapaksa siblings to install an autocratic state, modelled on Corporatism, in Lanka. All else is strategic or tactical. The underlying reality is an attempt to enhance dictatorial muscle; otherwise why on earth try to frame CJ-B? Because a CJ who may not play ball in the future is a risk when crisises develop, as they inevitably will, on the path to despotism. The central concern for us is the drive to autocracy; the impeachment saga is one element in this larger picture.

Does the difference matter?
Do these shades of difference among participants in the anti-impeachment movement matter? Not at this time and it is heartening that adherents of different views are collaborating smoothly to give the regime a bloody nose. But the differences could matter at a later stage. For example, if the procedures were straightened, those who are solely concerned about 2b will be mollified. Or if personal injustice to the CJ is eliminated – say a deal was struck and she is bought off with an ambassadorship or some such perk – those who are only concerned about personal injustice (2a) would probably quieten down. 
But none of this will be any good in the eyes of those who see the main threat as an accumulating trend to dictatorship. In fact if critics fall by the wayside it would be a harmful distraction. Dictatorship is dictatorship, even if the road is lined with correct procedures. Dictatorship is dictatorship, even if someone is bought off on the way – the whole cabinet is a massive bribe given by the Executive, at public expense, to suck-up to its power, is it not? Therefore, we fight not for CJ-B per se, nor for correct procedures per se, but in addition we desire to build a mass movement to halt the slide to dictatorship. The battles of today are just engagements in a larger war.

Should the lady enter the political arena?
Taking it as given that Rajakapsa will get rid of the CJ by some artifice or deceit the next question is what type of activity should, Shirani Bandaranayake (Mrs. S; I think she would abhor the abbreviation Mrs. SB, and Mrs. B is already taken), engage in thereafter? I am afraid the choice of going home, relaxing with the grandkids (sorry if I am aging her prematurely), cooking Sunday lunch for the family, and disengaging from public life is not available. She is the eye of a storm and giving as good. She cannot cut, run and drop the matter after the lynching. 
In fact if the lynching goes through, it becomes more important for Mrs. S to continue the fight in her post-judicial new after-life. The good lady has clearly projected herself as not only fighting for her own job, as not only fighting for her own good name, but also as epitomising the struggle for and on behalf of the public good. Proof of that will come only if, and in the manner in which she continues the struggle after her very likely eviction.
Clambering on the political platform with Ranil, General Fonseka, Somawansa, Bahu and so on is inappropriate. She should play a different oppositional role; that of educating the petty-bourgeoisie about the dangerous road down which the Rajapaksa siblings are taking the country. An ex-CJ is well positioned to explain how bad governance and rampant abuse of power are contributing to the erosion of law and order; to explain how the road to dictatorship is paved by subordinating, first the Legislature (already a done deed), and next the Judiciary, to the wilful excesses of an executive drunk on power. 
It is useless if the discourse is confined to the English speaking elite and the chattering classes of Colombo; there are plenty of NGO’s and Justice Wigneswaran doing the job of converting the converted – no disrespect implied. What is needed is to go into the Sinhala speaking world. The JVP and the Peratugami may, perhaps, if they can overcome their congenital sectarianism, be helpful in arranging venues. Nor must the importance of going among the Tamils, the Muslims and the Catholics be neglected. The minorities stood shoulder to shoulder with her during the fight; she must repay that debt by conducting educational seminars and meetings among them on topics that build social and political awareness. 
I do admire the dignity and courage CJ-B has shown so far and the poise with which she has carried herself in what must be very difficult times. But I also have my criticisms; it is difficult to forgive her for lubricating the passage of the 18th Amendment. She will have to admit a mistake and seek a pardon from the public – everyone makes mistakes – otherwise there will be nagging doubts about her role as a teacher of the public at large.