'North-East demands international investigation' - Interview with MK Shivajilingam

Photograph:eKuruvi

23 February 2014

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) member of the Northern Provincial Council, MK Shivajilingam has said the people of the North-East have now demonstrated to the international community their demands for a international independent investigation, with the unanimous passing of a Northern Provincial Council (NPC) resolution.

'North-East Demands International Investigation' - Interview With MK Shivajilingam by nelvely

Diplomats fear Australia will wreck UN probe into Sri Lankan war crimes

Co-operation: The Abbott government has given patrol boats to Sri Lanka. Photo: Supplied

Bianca Hall and David Wroe-February 24, 2014

Diplomats preparing for the UN Human Rights Council next month have expressed concern Australia is working to ''actively undermine'' a push for an international inquiry into human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, because of Australia's eagerness to co-operate with the country's leaders on asylum seekers.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced in November his government would give Sri Lanka two Bay-class patrol boats, at a cost of $2 million, to help the country stem the flow of asylum seekers to Australia.

It is part of a wider agreement between the two countries, which has led to the Sri Lankan navy, with Australia's help, intercepting boats trying to depart the Sri Lankan coast and returning them.

Well-placed sources involved in the preparations for the UN meeting have told Fairfax there is ''deep concern'' among US and British officials at Australia's position.

The US will sponsor a resolution at the March meeting criticising Sri Lanka's human rights record, with reports it could call for an international investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the dying days of Sri Lanka's civil war in 2009. It is estimated between 40,000 and 70,000 civilians lost their lives in the final phase of the war, particularly as government forces advanced on the Tamil Tigers in the country's north.

Australia has supported the US resolutions on Sri Lanka in the past. However, Australia was accused by some officials of undermining discussions last year, while publicly backing calls for an investigation into possible war crimes.

''[They] are concerned that Australia may spring a nasty surprise this year and not only fail to co-sponsor it but work to weaken or defeat it,'' one source said.

''If that was the case, it would have Australia joining forces with such human rights pariah states as Russia, China and Cuba and working against traditional allies such as the US, UK, Canada, Norway and France.''

In November, when Mr Abbott visited Sri Lanka for the Commonwealth heads of government summit, he made clear he would not follow the lead of Britain and Canada's leaders and publicly raise concerns, saying: ''I don't propose to lecture the Sri Lankans on human rights.''

He also appeared to brush aside concerns about human rights abuses, saying ''sometimes in difficult circumstances, difficult things happen''.

A spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said Australia had raised human rights issues with senior members of the Sri Lankan government, ''in the margins of CHOGM''.

She said Australia would make a final decision on its position on the US resolution on Sri Lanka ''after due consideration of the final text and the balance of issues it raises''.

''We encourage all parties to take a constructive approach and any resolution must be seen to assist the process of reconciliation in Sri Lanka,'' the spokeswoman said.

Move separate resolution against Sri Lanka in UN body: DMK

 

February 21, 2014

DMK today urged the Centre to move a separate resolution against Sri Lanka in a UN body, seeking an independent and credible probe for war crimes in that nation, saying it was only 'logical' that New Delhi adopt such a stand. 

DMK MPs led by its Parliamentary Party Leader T R Baalusubmitted a memorandum to Prime Minister Manmohan Singhin New Delhi in this regard, asking him to "support and facilitate a UN-led independent and international investigation into the war crimes committed during the 2008-09 war in Sri Lanka." 

Having voted for a credible investigation in Sri Lanka at the last two meetings in UN Human Rights Council in 2012 and 2013, "it is only logical for the Indian government to look at escalating this action and looking for a solution away from domestic options," it said. 

"We strongly urge you to show solidarity with the oppressed Tamil people of Sri Lanka and work with the international community to push for an international investigation into war crimes in Sri Lanka," the MPs appealed. 

The memorandum, released by Baalu's office, said previous domestic mechanisms set up by Sri Lanka "have failed" and that there "was no political will" to implement a credible domestic truth-telling or accountability process. 

Colombo had not even accepted the recommendations made by Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), 'which itself was criticised for being too weak,' it added. 

While UN estimates put the civilian casualty at around 40,000, there were serious violations during the war which amounted to 'war crimes' it said, quoting rights group Amnesty International. 

Sri Lanka's elected Northern council had also passed a resolution seeking international investigation into alleged war crimes from 2008-09, it said, adding "India needs to understand the situation and circumstances that prompted elected representatives from the war ravaged north to look for options outside their own country." 

In its separate resolution at the UNHRC meeting on Mar 3, 2014, India should seek "an independent and credible international mechanism under the UN to investigate war crimes committed by Sri Lankan armed forces during the period from September 2008 to May 2009." 

"The UN should also set up a mechanism to monitor the continuing human rights violations in Sri Lanka especially the crackdown on activists and journalists seeking accountability from the state," it said.

Lesson’s from GTF’s Geneva stunner

Sunday, 23 February 2014 

In a worryingly portentous assessment of how things will pan out in Geneva, come the crucial UNHRC vote in March, the Global Tamil Forum (GTF) has claimed, as revealed in Friday's issue of this paper, that 23 countries (all named) would vote for the US sponsored resolution, and that the resolution would be based on the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay.

When one considers the work put in by the GTF to arrive at the conclusion, the emerging picture is that of an organization more attuned and sensitive to the current international thinking and its inexorable trends than a well-organized government, which Sri Lanka claims to be. The Forum's assessment, more a prediction, is supposedly based on scientific data collated from intense campaign results, historical propensities and contemporaneous news and information originating from the world capitals, particularly Geneva, Washington DC and London.

If the GTF assessment holds good, then only the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Kuwait, Maldives, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, China, Congo, Cuba and Venezuela, none of which could be classified as traditionally 'democratic' except perhaps the Philippines and Indonesia, would be voting for Sri Lanka.
We have written about this dismal failure on the part of the Sri Lankan regime to make friends with those countries, which are regularly hailed as not only 'democratic' but also as very open and 'modern'. By no means are we advocating parting of ways with any country, but it wouldn't hurt the country or its image, whatever it is, to make constructive overtures to the so-called unfriendly nations. On the contrary, indulgence in parochial politicking to satisfy the local fringe groups can be irreversibly harmful to the country's image abroad and the repercussions of such short-sighted practices would reflect very badly only when Sri Lankans travel overseas.

Even at this eleventh hour, it is not too late to rebuild the splintering relationship with India, a country that should be our most important international partner. Making an adversary of India is one of the most myopic and imprudent transgressions this regime has committed in its diplomatic dealings. A genuine attempt needs to be made to neutralize that factor, if the giant neighbour is to remain a good friend, if not a staunch ally of Sri Lanka. Even Japan's stance, which the GTF predicts would be abstaining, is a humiliation and indicates the depths to which the sheer inadequacies of diplomats and the External Affairs Ministry.

One can understand the stance adopted by South Africa. A country that showed the world that it has within its reserve an enormous amount of patience, dignity and humility when it displayed unprecedented understanding after gaining independence from the 'Whites' who governed them through the brutal 'apartheid' regime, South Africa today stands as a very distinguished nation having friends on all sides of the fence, North, South, East and West.
Sri Lankan rulers must realize that making enemies is far easier than winning friends, which is extremely hard and requires enormous amounts of reserve, humility and strength of character. The present regime does not seem to possess any of these statesmanship qualities. Stark evidence of this is the manner in which our exalted elected representatives conduct themselves in the House of Parliament.

Being friends with some 'rogue' States is no achievement. To be in the same soup with some well-known human-rights violators is a great insult to the freedom-loving people of Sri Lanka. However, the ruling circles seem to thrive on being castigated with dictatorial regimes and the most astounding feature of the foreign policy the current regime is adopting seems to point towards delusionary politics, to say the least.

Self-deceit is one of the most destructive human failings and when a set of rulers get caught up in such a suffocating web of deceit, lies and hallucinations, the subject people are the ones who suffer inadvertently. Opening the eyes and minds to the vagaries of wrongful governance is something the people of this country need to do, if they don't want to be made fools of, on a regular basis.

Lankan politicians

UK-based pro-LTTE groups demand

By Sujeeva Nivunhella in London -February 22, 2014, 7:04 pm 

Pro-LTTE Tamils in the UK are pushing for a travel ban and the freezing of assets of Sri Lankan government politicians. If they succeed, Sri Lankan parliamentarians may not be able to travel to the UK and perhaps, even to Europe.

This development has emerged in the backdrop of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s proposed visit to Glasgow in Scotland in July to attend the 2014 Commonwealth Games. As the President is the current Chairperson of the Commonwealth, he will be the chief guest at the Commonwealth Games. 

Pro-LTTE groups are already drawing plans for a big protest in the event President Rajapaksa arrives in Glasgow. British High Commissioner in Sri Lanka, John Rankin, in a recent statement, said is the British Government will allow any peaceful demonstration.

In December 2010, President Rajapaksa’s speech at the Oxford University had to be cancelled due to pro-LTTE protests. 

These elements sympathetic towards the LTTE are also pushing the British government to call for an independent international investigation on Sri Lanka and bring war crime charges against the government. They are being helped by Conservative MP for Ilford North, Lee Scott and Labour MP for Mitcham & Morden, Siobhain McDonagh. 

Meanwhile, Conservative Friends of Sri Lanka (CFSL) says that they have met with the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) officials and were assured that no draft resolution has been agreed for the UNHRC meeting. 

"FCO has confirmed that there is no British intention to impose any travel ban or asset seizure on Sri Lankan officials", CFSL said.

You Want To Know What Impunity Means To Poor People In Rural Sri Lanka?

By Emil van der Poorten -February 23, 2014

Emil van der Poorten

Some nights ago, we were provided with very practical proof of what the Rajapaksa regime’s abandonment of anything resembling law and order means to poor people straining every sinew to make a living for themselves and their families.

The “durian refugees” seek protection

As is almost traditional around these parts, those of us who own a few Durian trees that bear fruit, lease those trees out to people from the neighbourhood at fruiting season.  While the net returns are probably far less than what might have been realised by harvesting the crop oneself with paid labour, the challenges of predators of the two- as well as the four-legged varieties are reaching insurmountable proportions and the harvesting is best left to those better able to cope with those circumstances and with, perhaps, more than a little larceny in their veins!  This season has been no exception and a young man from the neighbourhood submitted his successful bid.  He then proceeded to move his wife, three small children, his old father and mother and a young friend into a shack we have on the premises, to gather and safeguard the produce of the trees prior to transportation to a sales point.  Let’s call him “M.”

History proceeded to repeat itself a few nights ago.

M and his father had taken a load of durians for sale in the former’s three-wheel tuk-tuk.  They’d sold their durians, all day,  from the side of the main Kandy-Kurunegala road and, having disposed of the fruit, were returning after nightfall to guard the trees once more.  In the meantime, his young friend who’d remained behind, calls him on his mobile phone, telling him that they had been “invaded.”  We too had heard and seen the headlights of two motorbikes going past our home in the direction of the durian trees which are adjacent to this road but about 400 metres away and significantly beyond sight of where we live.

         Read More

The landmark judgment

 

Editorial-February 22, 2014, 6:48 pm

Memories are notoriously short in this country and former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, unceremoniously and in the perception of many, unfairly and unjustly impeached by Parliament, returned briefly to the public gaze on Friday when a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the determination of a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal that had granted a writ quashing the findings of a Parliamentary Select Committee that sealed her fate. Nobody, least of all Bandaranayake herself, would have expected any other verdict; hence her decision to absent herself from court and be unrepresented. Nevertheless the question that remains unanswered is how was it possible for the Appeal Court decision to be ignored and no less than the Chief Justice of this country summarily dealt with before the Supreme Court had the final say? Should not a determination by an apex court stand until it is vacated by the ultimate authority which is the Supreme Court?

The Attorney General, no doubt impelled by the need to sort out an issue that placed Sri Lanka in a very poor light in legal and judicial circles globally, naturally sought to overturn the Appeal Court determination by invoking a higher jurisdiction. But until the Supreme Court made the final ruling on Friday, should he have not sought a stay order on the Appeal Court judgment delivered just four days before the CJ was removed? The Select Committee findings were flawed, this judgment had ruled, and Parliament was directed to desist from acting on those findings. That, of course, did not happen. Parliament proceeded to impeach Bandaranayake and she had now become an almost forgotten factor in the public discourse. She is in the news only when other matters thrown at her such as her assets declaration comes up at various tribunals.

The Select Committee procedure was concluded in an indecent hurry and whether opposition members of that committee were right or wrong in their decision to walk out of its proceedings in protest against the manner in which its business was being conducted will, no doubt, be subject of debate for a long time to come. There will be those who would say that they should have remained and fought to the last without allowing the government majority in the committee to bulldoze its way and do what it pleased. The government, obviously, would have like the unpleasant business concluded as fast as possible so that the national spotlight could be turned elsewhere. The opposition, to our mind, was duty bound to thwart such an attempt or make it as hard as possible. By walking out, they gave the government a free run which was gleefully seized.

It was former president J.R. Jayewardene who once famously said that Parliament could do anything except turn a man into a woman. The Supremacy of Parliament was the issue that the Attorney General successfully canvassed in this matter. Acknowledging that the Court of Appeal had writ jurisdiction over the lower courts, the Supreme Court has held that under the Constitution, Parliament and its Committees did not fall within that ambit.

There was also the issue of a Supreme Court judgment a few days earlier that had held the impeachment process as unconstitutional and legally unsound. It held that only a court or tribunal or body with power conferred upon it by law had the authority to make findings affecting the rights of a person. This three-judge bench had ruled that a Parliamentary Select Committee appointed in terms of Standing Orders of the House had no legal power to make a finding adversely affecting the legal rights of a judge.

But the broader five-judge bench that heard the Attorney General’s appeal against the Appeal Court determination held that the previous SC judgment was ``altogether erroneous and must not be allowed to stand.’’ It ruled that the Constitution empowered Parliament to provide by law or standing order for all matters relating to the investigation and proof of a judge’s misbehavior or incapacity. The three-judge bench had wrongly ignored the words ``or standing order’’ and that determination had therefore been overruled. Now that the concluding chapter of the previous CJ’s departure has been written, the debate will probably be restricted to learned papers and academic discourse. It is certainly not being even mentioned in the Provincial Council election campaign now getting into its stride.

The bottom line is that legislatures, across political boundaries, will always be jealous of their powers and privileges and will always consider Parliament Supreme. Nobody need have any quarrel on that score although it is imperative that the necessary checks and balances are in place to prevent any tyranny by a parliamentary majority. We have often said in this space that weak oppositions and absolute majorities in parliament is a surefire recipe for bad governance. This is evidenced by the two thirds majority Mrs. Sirima Bandaranaike’s United Front won in 1970 and the five sixths majority of J.R. Jayewardene in 1977. The 1970 government which included the once robust old left parties brutally, though necessarily, suppressed the JVP’s first insurrection of 1971. Worse, it imposed untold hardships on the people that included acute scarcities of bare essentials like rice, flour and sugar for which people had to queue for hours on end. 1977 saw the Executive Presidency and all its negatives including the arrogance of an Executive powered by a sense of invincibility. This has now been enhanced by a government that engineered its two thirds majority through opposition defections and has among other things abolished the two-term limit on the presidency.

Friday’s judgment has no doubt settled the legal issues on Bandaranayake’s impeachment to the satisfaction of the government. But whether this is so with regard to the moral issues thrown up is something for the people to decide.

SC also now retracts its sacrosanct decisions like politicians – swallows its own vomit like dogs
(Lanka-e-News-23.Feb.2014, 10.00PM) The supreme court (SC) that has metamorphosed into ‘MaRa’ court (kangaroo court ), therefore , as anticipated announced a verdict 21st February overturning a decision given earlier by the appeal court that the impeachment motion proceedings against the former chief justice (CJ) is not valid in law, thereby reversing the appeal court verdict most rudely and shockingly. This verdict given today apart from being shocking is also most ludicrous because the appeal delivered its verdict earlier after seeking the SC 's view. In other words , the verdict the SC reversed or rather retracted 21st is its own given earlier founded on none other than its very own views.

When the former CJ Shiranee Bandaranaike requested a writ from the appeal court against the impeachment motion at that time , the SC to whom it was referred to for a direction gave a verdict that the standing order 78 A of the Parliament under which the appointment of a select committee by the speaker is made in this regard is not valid in law ; it is ultra vires the constitution; and a judge of a court cannot be meted out punishment via a Parliament select committee.

This same decision given earlier by the SC itself has been reversed (retracted) by the same court lastday (21) by a panel of five judges while declaring that the Parliament is supreme , and therefore the courts have no powers to give orders to the parliament. The panel comprised justices , Chandra Ekanayake , Sathya Hettige , Eva Wanasundara , Rohini Marasinghe , and Saleem Marsoof (President of the panel) . The justices comprising the panel of the appeal court which delivered its verdict on the 21 st of December 2012 were justices A W .A. Salam , Anil Gunaratne , 
S. Skandharaja (president of the panel). Interestingly and intriguingly , Skandaraja died under sudden and mysterious circumstances recently.

The despotic regime after having sent away the former chief justice Ms. Shiranee Bandaranaike via all the dastardly and diabolic maneuvers , appointed a its shameless stooge and lackey as the chief justice who would abjectly serve its underhand illegal goals . The despotic executive thereby swept all the SC judges (independent judiciary) into his pocket (thereby making the judiciary no longer independent) to pickpocket justice in the country.The present decision of the SC is obviously a necessary corollary of all these dictatorial manipulations and calculations. 

It is worthy of note that the case against the appeal court decision was filed by the Attorney general (AG) , and the AG’s department in its entirety is under the despotic Executive, and the AG too is appointed by the same despot. Need we elaborate more to prove that the present SC when delivering its verdict has only acted as a ventriloquist dummy of the despotic executive. 

This decision being termed a Kekille court decision of eccentric King Kekille is to insult that ancient King for he reportedly intended to do good in spite of his eccentricity. But in the case of the present ‘King Kekiller, ’ he intends to do evil regardless of his eccentricity.

SRI LANKA: The neglect of mass graves ALRC-CWS-25-06-2014 February 21, 2014 HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Twenty fifth session, Agenda Item 3, General Debate A written submission to the UN Human Rights Council by the Asian Legal Resource Centre A mass grave has been found at Thiruketiswaram, Mannar in January 2014. In 2013 a mass grave was also found at Matale and the investigations are still at early stages regarding the body parts found in this grave. The general condition prevailing, relating to both of these mass graves is that the investigations are not being conducted in terms of modern forensic methodologies which are essential for the proper preservation of the findings as well as the prevention of the destruction of the materials found in the mass graves in the course of excavation. Both at Mannar and Matale the mass graves were dug with bulldozers and naturally such manner of excavation is not conducive to proper handling of the human material remains that are found in such graves. There are no guidelines that have been adopted for proper conduct of excavations, for the preservation of the findings as well as for proper conduct of investigations for the determination of the times at which the burials had taken place and other material elements which are needed for proper identification of the remains of persons which will enable the administration of justice relating to the persons whose remains are found in these mass graves. At the mass grave in Matale the remains of over 150 persons were discovered. The crucial issue which came up was regarding the timing of the deaths and burials of the persons found in this grave. Initial inquiries conducted by Sri Lankan forensic archaeologist who examined the site said that it was not due to epidemic or any natural causes and a parallel investigation done by a Judicial Medical Officer said that it was not a regular burial site and both concluded that remains belonged to the period 1986-1990. The period between 1986 and 1990 was marked by a period of armed conflict between the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the Sri Lankan government. Later, after a change of government several commissions regarding involuntary disappearances were appointed by the government and these commissions conducted enquiries regarding enforced disappearances in several provinces in Sri Lanka. In their reports they recorded complaints regarding the disappearances of over 20,000 persons. In the Matale area itself there were complaints of hundreds of disappearances and the complainants identified the names of several officers who were responsible for the abductions of large numbers of persons who subsequently disappeared. A particular army camp was also identified as a place which coordinated such abductions which ended in enforced disappearances. The name of the coordinating officer who was in charge of the camp at the time has also been publically identified. The said coordinating officer and several other identified persons are at present holding high posts in the government. Under these circumstances the move by the government to have the samples of the remains flown to China for the conduct of inquiries into the timing of the deaths of these persons was objected to by the lawyers who appeared for the families of the disappeared persons. Among other grounds the lawyers stated that the facilities for such inquiries in China were not reliable and also that there were questions about the possible interference into such investigations, thus, creating the doubt about the independence of such inquiries. However, the magistrate allowed the remains to be sent to a facility in China. As regards the discovery of bodies of Thiruketiswaram, Mannar, the inquiries are still at a rudimentary stage. The existence of the remains came to the notice of the public when workers constructing a highway came across some of the remains. Thereafter, in the course of excavation the parts of many bodies have been discovered. The problems associated with both of these mass graves as well as some others found earlier point out the absence of clear legal provisions in dealing with excavations and investigations into the findings taken from such mass graves. There are no guidelines, particularly regarding the early stages of excavations and investigations. The methods adopted at present often rely on untrained manual labourers who use pickaxes and other similar tools and also bulldozers for such excavations. These methods are very much prone to the destruction of the remains that are meant to be discovered and preserved for proper scientific investigations. The very methods of excavation need to be scientific. Both from the point of view of the law and procedures as well as the use of equipment and the persons who use such equipment there is much that is not in keeping with the standards required. However, the government has made no attempt to improve the laws relating to these matters and also to provide for the proper methodologies for these purposes. The United Nations Working Group on Enforced Disappearances need to look into these two mass graves at Matale and Mannar and also consult the forensic experts and judicial medical officers regarding the problems associated with the conduct of these investigations. Without interventions from the United Nations Human Rights agencies it is unlikely that there will be the proper development of laws and procedures and the allocation of resources enabling proper excavations and investigations relating to mass graves.

Search For New National Water Policy Smacks Of Old Top Heavy, Top Down Approach

By Rajan Philips -February 23, 2014 

Rajan Philips

It is good that the government is embarking on a new National Water Policy development. But it is not so good that the development of the new policy appears to be following the old top heavy and top down approach.  It is also surprising that the Ministry of Land and Land Development is taking the lead on this matter and has placed full-page newspaper advertisements soliciting public input to the process of policy development. The process itself will apparently be directed by a special committee involving representatives from 16 central government institutions implicated in matters relating to the nation’s water resources and their usage.

Background material has reportedly been prepared based on four workshops among the representatives from the 16 government institutions. According to the Land Ministry Secretary, Asoka Peiris, previous efforts at developing a national water policy were unsuccessful because of administrative conflicts and lack of public consultations. This time the Parliamentary Consultative Committee on the subject decided to develop a national water policy and entrust its implementation to the 16 state institutions that are located in land development, water resources, Mahaweli/irrigation, agriculture, agrarian development, wild life and forest conservation, environment and education. The goal now is to consult with stakeholders including farmers and complete the policy for cabinet approval. 

The intentions are good but the approach appears to be too straightforward for a very complex subject. This is also strange considering the extent and mixed results of the numerous earlier efforts in regard to developing a national water policy and framework for water management. Much has been written on these efforts and there are also considerable professional resources and interests available both within and outside the government. The Sri Lankan version of the International Water Management Institute, its activities and publications are good examples. Madar Sammat’s 2005 paper: “Water Institutional Reforms in Sri Lanka”, provides a comprehensive account of the many efforts at policy making and institutional reform in regard to water management.

                          Read More

Bribery Commission In Question!

By Nirmala Kannangara-Sunday, February 23, 2014

Bribery Commissioner Dhammika Balapatabendi and Sunil Handunnetti, JVP MP

Eyebrows have been raised as to how the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption is covering up suppressing bribery and corruption charges against those who hold high posts in the government including the ruling party politicians.

Bribery Commission in Question! by nelvely

Passengers tell of terrible experience on diverted SriLankan Airlines flight

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Feedback is pouring in on our story last week about SriLankan Airlines flight UL195 that was diverted from New Delhi to Jaipur for refuelling. The aircraft reached its destination three hours past the scheduled time of arrival on February 12.  The New Delhi-bound flight carried some high profile personalities, including Indian High Commission diplomats, a well-known book publisher and a multi-millionaire businessman.

One of the VIP passengers described his experience as “terrible”.  ”We were to land in Delhi, our blankets were collected, our earphones were collected and, then, the pilot announced that he was 15th on the list to land while the airport signboard said the plane was landing at 5.23 pm.” This passenger had a friend waiting in New Delhi to pick him up.

Passengers Tell of Terrible Experience on Diverted SriLankan Airlines Flight by nelvely

Not Keynesianism Or Monetarism; Its About Capitalism

By Kumar David -February 23, 2014 

Prof Kumar David

Chapter 5: “Keynesianism and Monetarism”

Masters of the Universe by Daniel Steadman Jones. Princeton University Press, 2011.

Last week I reviewed, well took the chance to get across my views in the guise of a review, Steadman’s book. Actually I focussed on the first four chapters that tell the story of the rise of neoliberalism as an ideology and a political doctrine from the 1930s to the end of the 1960s. I dealt with the transition chapter, Chapter 5, “Keynesianism and Monetarism”, very lightly and entirely omitted consideration of the final two chapters and the epilogue because they pertain to the post-1970 period when IMF led neoliberal economics came into prominence foreshadowing the Regan-Thatcher dark ages. It will be useful to repeat a just one point from last week: neoliberalism, in the first phase when ideas were created and consolidated, was an ideology, a philosophical world view supporting individualism against all forms of collectivism. It was only afterwards, after 1970, that it became something more crass, materialist and politically reactionary; it became neoliberal economics.

I have decided on second thoughts that the Keynesianism-Monetarism chapter deserves attention, not only for its intrinsic value (the book on the whole, especially chapters 1 to 4, is excellent) but also because this historical debate has a bearing on monetary and economic policy in the US, Europe and Japan right now as global capitalism sputters unsuccessfully to recover from the post-2008 prolonged recession or New Depression.

Keynesianism and Friedman                                               Read More

‘Noon Tide Toll’

IBy Charles Sarvan -February 23, 2014 |

Prof. Charles Sarvan

Romesh Gunesekera has several books to his credit including ‘Reef’ which was shortlisted for the Booker Prize and has been translated into several languages, including Chinese. Not many other Sri Lankan, English-language, literary texts have received such reader and critical attention.

‘Noon Tide Toll’ (hereafter NTT) consists of short stories, vignettes, divided into North and South. The narrator, Vasantha, retired from a state corporation at the age of fifty-five; bought a van and now drives passengers, visitors or residents, all over the Island. Making Vasantha a van-driver enables the author to bring in  different individuals set in different situations and locations. Being “merely” a driver, paid to be of service, no notice is taken of him but Vasantha is a quiet, alert and perceptive student of individuals and situations, even as he is sensitive and responsive to landscape and nature. Seeing while politely pretending not to look; discretely observing in the rear-view mirror, he is the lens through which we glimpse and understand the characters, their relationship, values and aims. With and through him we surmise their past, evaluate their present, and wonder about their future.

An islanded persona, Vasantha is literally with his passengers but not of them: see in this context, Frank O’Connor, ‘The Lonely Voice: A Study of the Short Story’.  With a degree of urgency, he says he must write before “I forget what has happened, what I saw, what I thought, what I believed on all those journeys north and south. The hopes, the aspirations, the secret guilt embedded in our shaken lives” (last page of NTT): cf. Sivanandan’s ‘When Memory Dies’. Vasantha’s father was a self-taught revolutionary who had worked as a barefooted caddie at the expensive, and therefore exclusive, Golf Club. Vasantha too, though lacking in formal education, is an autodidact with a knowledge that his passengers, “superior” in income and class, don’t suspect, much less possess. (Gunesekera employs a similar devise in ‘Reef’ where the narrator is a village boy employed to be a servant to a man from a high, feudal, family. The servant proves to be more resourceful than the master: see, “‘Reef’: a Chekhovian awareness and mood” in Sarvan, ‘Sri Lanka: Literary Essays & Sketches’.)

Read More

Rajapakses wanted me to go for a ceasefire during last phase of war but I rejected –General Fonseka reveals
(Lanka-e-News-23.Feb.2014, 10.00PM) The former army commander general Sarath Fonseka who announced earlier that the Rajapakses are responsible for the alleged war crimes committed during the latter phase of the war made a contradictory statement that the Rajapakses during the latter phase of the war requested him to move for a ceasefire , and he rejected that proposal. Fonseka made this announcement at a meeting with the public on the 17 th at Makola. He went on to say as follows :

"It was during the first 4 ½ months of 2009 that the war was most raging . At that stage the country’s ruler requested me to move for a ceasefire. He told that because of the pressures applied by Europe . As that would give Prabhakaran the best opportunity to escape I declined his request .Even the soldiers on the battlefield expressed their opposition to him. Because of the pressures of the ruler , we had to retreat somewhat . 

On the independence day 2009-02 -04 celebrations , I too were invited. Early morning after having taken a bath I too went and stood there .Owing to our retreat the Tigers had strengthened. While the ruler was bragging on the independence day I was infuriated and panic stricken over the situation in the battle field.

Subsequently , due to the absolute dedication and commitment of the army , navy , air force and the infantry we finally won the war. If we had retreated 3 kilometers heeding the advice of the rulers , Prabahakaran would have got the opportunity to escape . Because of the thousands of soldiers the war could be won, not because of crooked politics." These were the comments made by Fonseka who is himself a politician today.

"It is the family of the rulers today who are enjoying and owning 90 % of this country’s assets. The public are left with only 10 %.. The entire country is over saturated with corruption and profligacy. Nowhere in the world , a leader of a state indulges in such colossal wastage. Believe it or not , there are over 3000 personnel deployed for the security of the country’s ruler. Even the President of America has only 300 security personnel. All these enjoyments and wastages are through the taxation on the people and at their expense . All these destructive wastages are public money," Fonseka observed.

Like the Medamulana Rajapakses , apparently even Fonseka is exploiting the credit of the war victory for political gains. Amidst clear and cogent evidence of war crime charges , they are seeking to keep themselves clear of those charges and accountability. While the Rajapakses are criminally trying to wipe out the war crime charges completely like writings on the sea sand , Fonseka is relatively better in his stance. He says that if an investigation is conducted into the war crimes , then those found guilty ought to be punished according to the law.

The independent monitors say , the battle field leaders who gave commands should before the political leaders take the responsibility in respect of the war crime charges. 

No matter what , when the assurance given to the international community for an investigation into the war crimes nationally amidst acceptable evidence to substantiate them is not being fulfilled , the resolution in favor of an international investigation being adopted seems more likely.