The Smoking Gun Series - Is it time for an Investigation into Drug-Free Kids and their Finances?

Partnership for Drug-Free Kids Gala

Jan-07-2016

Drug overdose deaths in the US which have soared while much money is being made.

(MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.) - In recent years, I have had the good fortune of communicating with Mike White while he headed DirectTV. He impressed me as being a "hands on - take charge" CEO who ran a tight ship.

Earlier this month, Mike became Chairman of Partnership for Drug-Free Kids and my level of concern was peaked. Why would Partnership need the expertise of communications and technology while the country is being ravaged by addiction and death to prescription opioids/heroin?

So let me ask you some questions Mike that you may or may not have answers to. Directly below is a link to drug overdose deaths in the US which have soared. This is also being reported by Reuters and the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

TROUBLING RECORD:

U.S. drug overdose deaths soar past 47,000 in 2014. Drug overdose deaths surged in 14 states last year, pushing the nation to a record count, according to a government report released Friday.

But Partnership doesn't post a "troubling record", but rather posts something that is not misleading, but rather a complete distortion of facts.

It is: Drug Use Declines Among American Youth: Teen Use of Ecstasy, Heroin, Synthetic Marijuana,... The University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future...drugfree.org Partnership doesn't stop there Mike, they promote a program called "Above the Influence" or ATI as a popular and proven-effective drug and alcohol prevention initiative created for American youth.

With an online community of over 1.5 million young people, the program has an active, robust audience. ATI is the only prevention program of its kind that exists in the U.S. for American teens and there is no other initiative that works to prevent substance abuse and addiction on a national level.

I hate to break this to you Mike, but this initiative is not preventing substance abuse and addiction on a national level. Parents are burying their kids in record numbers and for Partnership to focus on words such as "popular and proven-effective" is a disservice to families in all 50 states.

Partnership promotes "parent coaches" and "volunteers" who call themselves employees of Partnership. These parent coaches/volunteers are enjoying the perks of Partnership in staying at the best hotels and eating at the finest restaurants while families looking for rehabilitation treatments for their loved ones are being told in every state -- "there are no beds available." And the loss of life mounts contrary to Partnership focusing on false reporting of numbers dropping in the prescription opioid/heroin health crisis.

On December 8, Partnership held an event called "Winter Wish Gala" at the elegant Gotham Hall on Broadway in New York City. A photo of the elaborate festivities is shown in this article with attendees wearing their finest and employees/parent coaches/volunteers being rewarded with trophies.

Must have cost quite a sum of money to provide all the trappings for this night of recognition -- as the death toll to prescription opioids/heroin mounts out of control.

Kind of hypocritical Mike as parents are burying their children and Partnership celebrates with a "gala". Do you have any idea how many beds could have been provided for in-house treatment for addiction to families of young people dying every day?

By the way, how many kids has Partnership provided in-house addiction treatment for to save their lives? Do you actually think parent coaches/volunteers for Partnership have the qualifications to treat addiction? I think we both know the answer to that.

Recently I received this email from Partnership (condensed):

Dear Marianne,

My two sons Jason and Jared were polite, popular, multi-sport, all-star athletes. They had a wide network of friends, good morals and values, and good grades in school.

Then, my older son Jason suffered a sports injury and was prescribed painkillers. Seemingly overnight, he became one of the hundreds of thousands of teens in our country addicted to prescription (Rx) painkillers.

So many people are addicted to prescription painkillers that drug overdoses are now the leading cause of accidental death in America, surpassing car crashes. And Rx painkiller abuse has led to an increased use of an even more deadly, accessible, and cheaper opiate: heroin.

Please make a tax-deductible gift to the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids today, so that we can put an end to the epidemic of prescription drug abuse and heroin addiction that is gripping our nation.

***

A couple of things, Mike, regarding the email above. Since Partnership is heavily funded by the maker of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, you may not be aware but the word Purdue Pharma focuses on is "abuse".

It takes the focus off the prescription opioid epidemic they created by marketing OxyContin to physicians as less likely to be addictive. Their action has led to the heroin epidemic "gripping our nation." And the word the maker of OxyContin cringes at the sight of is "addiction". So Mike if you're asking for donations to Partnership, why are you not outraged that Purdue Pharma received approval from the FDA to prescribe OxyContin to children? The FDA made this life-threatening decision based on Purdue Pharma's own studies on the use of OxyContin in children.

Would you believe the studies put together by convicted felons? More importantly why hasn't Partnership demanded the FDA rescind their approval of OxyContin for children? And your revenue and expenses Mike -- what exactly has Partnership accomplished in combating this out of control prescription opioid/heroin epidemic? The numbers are rising of deaths and addictions -- just as your revenue is rising. Something smells here Mike and I hope you don't disappoint me in getting to the answers. Galas don't change the soaring numbers of deaths. Tee-shirts and beanies being peddled by Partnership do not change the numbers.

Unqualified parent coaches/volunteers do not change the numbers, but the benefits derived by these individuals certainly keeps them out there pitching erroneous information to naïve parents. Am I convinced an investigation into Partnership for a Drug Free Kids finances is warranted? You bet I am.

Cancer in pregnancy: the uncertainty no mother should have to face

MAIR WALLROTH, 41, WITH HUSBAND PETER, MARTHA MAY, AND THEIR NEWBORN, MERLIN RAY  CREDIT: IAN CAVENEY

•  By-Anna Maxted-
23 DECEMBER 2015 

T

he death of baby Ally Louise Smith, delivered early so her mother could begin treatment for breast cancer, touched many this week.

Her mother, Heidi Loughlin, 32, based in Somerset, discovered she had a fast-spreading form of the disease when she was 13 weeks’ pregnant. Rejecting the option of a termination, which would have been necessary were she to undergo aggressive chemotherapy, she opted instead for a milder form of treatment.

Cancer in Pregnancy the Uncertainty No Mother Should Have to Face by Thavam Ratna

Speaking Frankly About Sri Lanka's President and Wartime Abuses

Taylor Dibbert -01/08/2016

In January 2015, Maithripala Sirisena, unexpectedly thwarted Mahinda Rajapaksa's quest for an unprecedented third presidential term. According to his campaign pledges, Sirisena hoped to address various issues including constitutional reform, anti-corruption and improved governance. The broad coalition that supported his campaign could at least agree on one thing: that Rajapaksa needed to go.

Years from now, how will the election of Sirisena be remembered? And what about healing those wounds of war and finding a lasting political solution to an ethnic conflict that has burned for seven decades?

Here's the deal: war-related matters weren't discussed during either of the country's two big elections in 2015. (Sirisena dissolved parliament last June and a parliamentary election was held last August.) However, in October 2015 the Sirisena administration agreed to co-sponsor a resolution on Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council. In several areas, the resolution lacked clarity, but its passage was still a welcome development. Essentially, Sri Lanka's coalition government has established the broad outlines of what could be a strong transitional justice agenda, although Colombo's been reluctant to implement its purported plans. Without question, the most difficult and controversial part of transitional justice will be accountability for wartime abuses, which could include war crimes.

A former member of Rajapaksa's cabinet, is Sirisena really a man who could lead the way on such controversial issues? As acting defense minister during the bloody end of Sri Lanka's civil war, would Sirisena be interested in the possibility of senior government officials being held accountable for horrific abuses?

Besides, there have already been some questionable appointments of senior military officials under his watch. For example, Sirisena appointed Major General Jagath Dias to chief of staff for the Sri Lanka Army. During the end of the war, Dias commanded the army's 57th division which has been accused of war crimes.

A couple of credible studies (by the International Truth and Justice Project - Sri Lanka and Freedom from Torture) have revealed that torture and sexual violence against Tamils has continued these past twelve months. Moreover, there's no indication that Sirisena is contemplating the security sector reform which is so urgently needed. In that context, one has to wonder whether transitional justice, on any level, is possible in the present context. How would victims and survivors participate freely? How would witness protection be ensured? Could Tamils actually have faith in a process that's managed solely by the Sinhala-dominated state? Over the next twelve months, we should have a much better idea of how serious Sirisena is about meaningful reform and healing the wounds of war.

Follow Taylor Dibbert on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylordibbert

Sri Lankan leader pardons man who attempted to kill him

Ex-Tamil rebel was found guilty of planning to assassinate Sirisena 10 years ago when rebels fought government forces.

President Sirisena has pushed for reconciliation with the Tamil minority since coming to power [Lakruwan Wanniarachchi/AFP]

08 Jan 2016 15

Sri Lanka's President Maithripala Sirisena has pardoned a former Tamil rebel who attempted to assassinate him 10 years ago at a ceremony marking the government's first year in office on Friday.

Former rebel Sivaraja Jenivan was found guilty of targeting then cabinet minister Sirisena's convoy by planting a claymore mine on the roadside in 2005 in Polonnaruwa, 180km northeast of the capital, Colombo.

Jenivan, a former member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) - under the alias Mohommadu Sulthan Cader Mohideen - was sentenced to a 10-year jail term last year after a lengthy trial.

"The president has released him using his executive powers," a senior official of the presidential office told DPA news agency.

Sri Lanka reveals plans for inquiry into war crimes

The pardoning was announced at an official ceremony held in Colombo to mark the first anniversary of the president's time in office.

Jenivan was invited on stage and shook hands with Sirisena before being informed he had been pardoned, live television coverage of the event showed.

Sirisena, who successfully challenged former president Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2015 elections, has survived two other assassination attempts by the banned LTTE - also known as the Tamil Tigers.

Since he came to power last January, Sirisena has pushed the policy of reconciliation with the Tamil minority and promised to investigate war crimes charges committed during the civil war.

The 1983-2009 war ended when government forces finally crushed the Tamil Tigers, who fought to create a separate state for ethnic minority Tamils in Sri Lanka's north.

At least 80,000 people were killed - and possibly many more - in the decades-long war, including as many as 40,000 civilians in the final months, according to UN estimates.

UN blames Sri Lanka government and Tamil Tigers for atrocities

Source: Al Jazeera And DPA

Danger Of Desiring Democracy

By Suren Rāghavan –January 8, 2016

Dr. Suren Rāghavan

A year had gone since what some named as a silent revolution in Sri Lanka. While obviously it is too soon and flowery to use such name tagging, what happened on the 08th January 2015 was certainly a key transformation to dismantle a deepening dictatorship and desire democracy, non-violently. What is politically more important is that such inverse was achieved crucially because of the determined and decisive support given by structurally marginalized ethnic communities, socially concerned face book generation and very vitally, a moderate Sanga leadership. What is achieved during this year is far less than the aspirations of the peoples who architected it. Fundamental nature of realpolitik has not changed. The anti-corruption and law and order on which, the campaign for change was designed has not reached even the minimum level of satisfaction. Those same political pig heads of the former regime are holding key positions now. Not a single major corruption charges proven or punished yet and the continued violence against the unarmed students and civilians by the police are some reflectors the deep democratic deficiency. Yet in a comparative sense and at least at a rhetorical level the new rule has engaged itself in some level of attempts to reach a newer fact of democratic negotiations. Some slow yet solid steps in post war national reconciliation such as the approach to the UN resolution, land releasing in Jaffna (some occupied by the army over two decades) and accepting the TNA as the national opposition, can be considered as signs of a continued commitment.

However the acid test of the Maithri/Ranil rule is at two fundamentally important processes. 1) How it will meet the continuous demand for political autonomy of the minority Tamil nation and of the Muslim community. 2) Immediate economic and Socio-cultural expectations of the majority Sinhalas. These two are at one level mutually interdependent while at another definite centrifugal forces operating in opposite political destinies. The fundamental paradoxical paradigm within which these aspirations start to locate will be the ‘nature of the state structure’ and its post independent political institutionalizing on a premodern notions of State, Ethnicity and Religion (රට, ජාතිය ආගම) within the deepest end of majority Sinhala political psychology. If a genuine democratization process desired by the new rule, it inevitably will have to deal with these historic political archetypes.Read More

The need for a new constitution for Sri Lanka

Featured image courtesy Constitutionnet

by Rohan Edrisinha 

- on 01/08

If Sri Lanka is to consolidate the democratic gains of 2015, it is vital that President Sirisena’s SLFP and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s UNP overcome their differences, rivalries and ideological differences and jointly provide leadership to introduce a Third Republican Constitution. A new Constitution that learns from the mistakes of the 1972 and 1978Constitutions, adapts features from international best practice and which is compatible with basic principles of constitutionalism, is vital for the introduction of good governance, the protection of human rights and national reconciliation and unity.

The Need for a New Constitution for Sri Lanka by Thavam Ratna

Statement on Accountability, Reconciliation and Human Rights in Sri Lanka

(January 8, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) We the undersigned civil society activists and organisations from Sri Lanka, wish to place on record the following observations on human rights, accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the presidential election of 8th January 2015, we note some progress made in the last twelve months. Such progress includes the enactment of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the appointment of independent institutions including the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the release of some lands in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, and symbolic reparations including the Declaration of Peace on 4th February 2015. While welcoming these, we note that much more is needed if Sri Lanka is to experience genuine peace and reconciliation. We therefore urge the Government of Sri Lanka to immediately initiate much needed reforms in 2016.

Statement on Accountability, Reconciliation and Human Rights in Sri Lanka by Thavam Ratna

Distributed responsibility counts in forming a new Constitution: Rhetoric on Tamil-Muslim unity alone won’t work 


2016-01-08
In Constitution making,  Tamil and Muslim leaders’ agreements must be sellable to Sinhalese leaders 

With the government’s move to introduce a new Constitution to the country,President Maithripala Sirisena’s second year in office beginning tomorrow would be vital not only for the government but for the country as well. Interestingly, government has embarked on this exercise at a time when it is increasingly showing signs of failure in its much-publicised anti-corruption drive, good governance and economic development.  

However, in fairness to the leaders of the government it must be accepted that the tenure of President Sirisena thus far had been much better than ex-president Mahinda Rajapaksa’s high-handed, authoritarian and highly corrupt regime that had been a breeding ground for the racist elements. But no-one would dare to give an assurance that the present rulers would not beat their predecessor.  

Adopting a new Constitution would be a critical issue that would either make or break the government’s survival since it involves serious and sensitive issues such as the resolution of the long drawn out ethnic problem. Already, even before the government put in place the mechanism for the constitutional amendment process which is said to be the institution of a Constitutional Assembly, Opposition Parliamentarians like Wimal Weerawansa, Dinesh Gunawardena and Udaya Gammanpila have started to create a fear psychosis among Sinhalese people by talking about a merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces, federalism, unitary state and a place for Buddhism in the Constitution. 

Against this backdrop two main Tamil and Muslim political parties, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) have got together to seek a common ground on issues relevant to the two communities they represent, in order to influence the Constitution making process and thereby win over as much rights as possible for the two communities. Already leaders of both parties have met once last week at the office of the Opposition Leader R.Sampanthan who is also the TNA leader, to lay the groundwork for their negotiations.  

This might have been seen by many Tamils and Muslims, especially in the East as a healthy move by the two leaders while many Sinhalese might have had reservations and suspicion over it. However, this was not the first time Tamil and Muslim leaders had attempted to seek a common ground in the process of resolving the ethnic problem, particularly in the devolution of power. Since the late 1980s Tamil and Muslim leaders had made so many attempts to find a common ground, but all of them had drawn blanks, thanks to the unrealistic and utopian strategies they had evolved to find a solution to the ethnic problem. 
Unless Sampanthan and SLMC leader Rauff Hakeem look back and find out what really went wrong, this time too they would just waste their time and energy but provide enough ammunition to the southern groups that live by stirring communal feelings. 

The first attempt to evolve a Tamil- Muslim joint proposal for the resolution of the ethnic problem was made by the founder leader of the SLMC, the late M.H.M.Ashraff and All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) the late Kumar Ponnambalam in 1988 on the eve of a turbulent Presidential election. They struck a balance between the Tamil demand for the merger of the Northern and the Eastern Provinces and the Muslim demand of the day for a Muslim provincial council in the East. Ponnambalam was the first Tamil leader to accept the right of Muslims to have a separate unit of power under devolved power. 

This plan was accommodated in the first draft of the eight- party coalition, the Democratic People’s Alliance (DPA) formed under the leadership of the then Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) leader Sirima Bandaranaike to face the Presidential election to be held in the same year. Accordingly, it was decided to create a Tamil provincial council incorporating all Tamil dominated areas in the Northern and Eastern Provinces while administratively amalgamating all non-contiguous Muslim areas in the two provinces to form a bizarre Muslim provincial council in line with the formation of the Pondichery Union Territory in South India. However, the SLMC and the ACTC withdrew from the coalition accusing that the SLFP hierarchy had unilaterally changed some of the clauses of the agreement and that was the end of the unique strategy developed by Ashraff and Ponnambalam.Even their parties forgot about it after that. 

In April the same year, another agreement was signed in Madras (Chennai) between another two Tamil and Muslim entities in respect of resolving the ethnic problem. The Muslim United Liberation Front (MULF) led by M.I.M.Mohideen, the second Muslim political party to be formed in Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) were the signatories of the agreement. Under this Muslims’ entitlement to have 30 per cent representation in a future North-East provincial council as well as in its board of ministers and to own certain specific percentage of land in various districts in the two provinces was accepted by the Tigers.  

However, two years later the LTTE chased away the entire Muslim populace from the Northern Province. Weeks after the LTTE-MULF agreement the latter signed, a similar agreement with the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) led by A. Amirthalingam was later forgotten by the very parties with the passage of time.  

With the protest by the LTTE against the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987 and the consequential provincial council system, even those Tamil parties that accepted the accord, except for the EPDP of Douglas Devananda began to find an alternative solution to the ethnic problem within months after the signing of the accord. Thus eight Tamil political parties including the former armed groups sans the LTTE held talks with the SLMC in the mid 1990 and came to an agreement to form two Tamil and Muslim administrative councils in the North and the East with what they called an “Apex Council” above the two ethnic councils. However, when it came to the question of deciding upon the boundaries of the two ethnic councils the whole exercise shattered due to disagreements. 

History was repeated when a parliamentary select committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the then minister Professor G.L.Peiris in 1996 during President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s tenure to find a solution to the ethnic problem. Tamil parties again held talks with the SLMC separately and agreed upon the same two ethnic councils and the apex council formula, but dispersed with the same disagreements over the boundaries of the two ethnic councils. 

The idea for an agreement between the two communities was also mooted in 2012 by Sampanthan, but that too did not materialise.Therefore if an agreement between the Tamil and Muslim leaders is to be realistic they would have to evaluate their past failures. Their  efforts also be transparent in order to allay any suspicions in the minds of the Sinhalese. they should also obtain the views of Sinhalese leaders. After all whatever the agreement the Tamil and Muslim leaders may reach has to be sold to the Sinhalese leaders in the Constitution making process. 

Apith “Sinha le”

Saturday, 9 January 2016

As a student of marketing, I have been pretty impressed at cost-effective marketing solutions afforded by social media to burgeoning entrepreneurs, social reformers, political opportunists and those alike. For good or for worse, online platforms have had the ability to trigger tremendous reach within short periods of time. Social media is doubtless playing the role of a catalyst in revolutionising the information age. How could a theme as “esoteric” as “Sinha le” reach vast audiences across nations and continents sans Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube?

Apith “Sinha Le” by Thavam Ratna

Let Us Focus On Real Issues Instead Of ‘Bra-Issues’

By Muheed Jeeran –January 8, 2016

Muheed Jeeran

It was shocking to hear a public statement made by President Maithripala Sirisena last week in light of an incident which occurred at the Enrique Iglesias concert in Colombo. In his speech President Sirisena suggested that the organizers of the Enrique Iglesias concert in Colombo should be whipped with the tails of toxic stingrays. This is a punishment reserved for hardened criminals (in medieval Sri Lanka) which was a well-known expression of severe castigation.

Never in this civilized world would we expect a statesman to spend his time making serious and at the same time ridiculous statements onsuch silly matters!

Early last year, we backed Sirisena’s campaign during the presidential election as he clearly promised to promote democracy and personal freedom. However, this controversial ideology puts a question mark on his genuine intention of protecting the liberty.

Our local women running on stage to kiss the singer, and throwing their bras, was a matter that in the beginning received little attention except in the social media. It was not widely known in the mainstream media, not at all. But, after the public statement from our President, it is now widely circulated throughout the international media. What was a one-time, low-visibility local incident, has unfortunately been turned into an international incident. This is not good news for the international community, though I assume the President was trying to impress his local media following. Still, I strongly believe this statement should not have been made by the President in the first place.

I was lobbying against the Saudi Government to stop their sentence to stone to death our domestic maid in Saudi Arabia for the crime of adultery. Our government diplomacy was to get the Saudis to reconsider their decision on sympathetic grounds, which was the core reasoning of the appeal. However, we strongly lobbied that the medieval punishment of stoning is not an option in our civilized world. When the punishment for stoning was announced against our domestic maideven our High Commissioner to Saudi Arabia was in agreement with it. This has disappointed many rights activists and our local media. Our domestic maid who was almost in the verge of losing her life is very fortunate because our President’s recent controversial statement has come after the Saudi authorities themselves suspended the barbaric sentence against her.Read More

Reflections on the “Maithri Palanaya” after one year

AP Photo/Sujeewa Kumar, via The Guardian

by Harim Peiris 

- on 01/08/2016 

Saturday 9th January 2016, will mark the completion of one year of the Maithripala Sirisena presidency and it is an opportune time to reflect on the past one year of the Maithri Palanaya.

The first aspect of course about the Maithri presidency is that it occurred at all. Mahinda Rajapakse was deeply entrenched in power and seemingly determined to govern for generations. However the inevitability or unsustainability of a purely mono ethno religious support base, even that of the majority community, caught up with Mahinda Rajapakse. Even the Sinhala people, or at least a significant section of it seems to have tired of their champion, governing Sri Lanka like a personal fiefdom, with family bandyism, rampant corruption and scarce respect for the rule of law.

The inauguration of the Sirisena Presidency created a sharp change in the Sri Lankan presidency and how Sri Lanka was governed, most radically in the area of democratic good governance, the key issue on which the presidential election was fought. Sri Lanka immediately became a freer, tolerant and inclusive society. Roads around Colombo Fort which were blocked off was opened, the country wide deployment of the military under the Public Security Ordinance was discontinued, giving the civilian police force once again the primary responsibility for law and order. Some of the war affected Tamil civilians; living was IDPs in their own country were allowed to return to their hereditary and ancestral lands and the pervasive culture of fear which the Rajapakse’s engendered and exploited was removed. The white van culture was discontinued.

19th Amendment and Independent Commissions

Sri Lankan voters one year ago, had a clear choice, between Rajapakse’s promise of an economic developmental society and Sirisena’s promise of a democratic society, with the implication that democratic good governance was not mutually exclusive with economic development. A majority of Sri Lankan’s opted for a more democratic, pluralist and well governed society to those desiring even more of Rajapakse rule. Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans have basically received the free or freer society they voted for. Undergirding this change was the 19th amendment to the Constitution which limited the powers of the executive presidency, reestablished term limits and essentially  repealed the draconian 18th amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution, which Rajapakse had pushed through to consolidate his iron grip on power. Further subsequent to the 19th amendment and the subsequent parliamentary elections which saw Rajapakse allies and cronies relegated to a rump in Parliament, the independent Commissions were formed, ensuring that Sri Lanka once again become a society governed  by institutions and laws.

Dramatic improvement in Foreign Relations

The field of foreign relations saw a dramatic change around in Sri Lanka’s international relations as a result of the Sirisena Presidency. Sri Lanka, which had become a near international pariah state, due to the attitude, actions and policies of the Rajapakse Administration, suddenly witnessed a sea change in its relations with the outside world. Whether with the UN, the EU and the Western nations or especially with India, relations improved significantly. Sri Lanka which was facing censure and worse at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, was able to co-opt the process and make what was previously an adversarial process, into a cooperative endeavor between Sri Lanka and her friends. The very difficult relationship with our key donors and trading partners, especially the EU, US, India and other western allies were reversed and repaired due to addressing and dealing with their legitimate concerns regarding Sri Lanka’s international law and treaty obligations on human rights and accountability issues.

End to attacks on Mosques and Churches, while reestablishing rule of law

The consequential departure of the former Defense Secretary and some other changes in the defense establishment witnessed a complete and immediate halt to anti Muslim and anti Christian violence by the organized hate groups, patronized by the previous regime. These hate groups still retain their extremism but cannot indulge in violence with impunity.

A crisis for democracy in Sri Lanka was the low depths to which the rule of law and the justice system had sunk to. The ultimate nadir was surely the purported removal of Chief Justice Bandaranaike through a fatally flawed process and the installation of an interloper as Chief Justice. Ending the farce which was the higher judiciary under an interloper was a significant step towards an impartial judiciary.

Looking ahead to a new constitution

The year 2016, promises a new constitution which abolished the executive presidency, changes the electoral system and reforms the Sri Lankan state, so that it accommodates the full diversity of her society, which through devolution of power together with power sharing at the center and greater and guaranteed fundamental, individual democratic freedoms promises to create the platform for a new Sri Lanka in the decade ahead. While a new constitution may not be a panacea for all our ills, if the supremacy of a  new constitution is adopted with the enforcement through a constitutional court, it will certainly form the foundation for addressing the many other developmental and social challenges which Sri Lanka needs to address, for the shared prosperity of all her peoples.

(The writer is the Chairman of the Resettlement Authority. The views expressed are strictly personal)

One year later... what?

One year later... what?

Fragments.

Posted by Uditha Devapriya-01/08/2016

Warren Beatty’s extraordinary film Reds charts the life and career of John Reed, who became the first American to be buried in the Kremlin for his sympathy and support for the Bolsheviks. The movie is extraordinary not so much for its vast, epic canvas as for its depiction of the protagonist’s trysts with idealism and disillusionment.

There’s an interesting scene towards the end of the film. Reed (played by Beatty) is on a train with his “Comrades”. They’re returning from the the Congress of the Peoples of the East held at Baku, Azerbaijan, where he had been amazed at Muslims chanting “Jihad!” as his inaugural speech was being translated. In the train Reed realises the reason: his speech was rewritten, not translated, and in place of “class war”, which was what the Revolution was SUPPOSED to be about, the translator had substituted “Holy War”. He then angrily confronts Grigory Zinoniev, the man who sanctioned the translation.

What unfolds thereafter is a classic argument on the (de)merits of revolution and truth, underscored by Reed’s growing disenchantment with the Bolsheviks. To quote: “When you separate a man from what he loves the most, what you do is purge what’s unique, and when you purge what’s unique in him, you purge dissent. And when you purge dissent, you kill the Revolution.” Which leads to possibly the biggest “truism” nearly every revolution in human history has venerated: “Revolution is Dissent!”

There’s a catch here, of course. Reed probably never had this confrontation. He probably never argued with Comrade Zinoniev the way the film makes us believe he did. It was Beatty who scripted that sequence.

Poetic license notwithstanding however, Beatty’s Reed was spot on there. Revolutions are birthed by idealists. But can these idealists go on without the need to accommodate dissent, without realising that truth can only lead to reconciliation and that the gains of a revolution can only be solidified if (and ONLY if) that reconciliation isn’t fudged or frilled? To be more concise: if revolutionists grow complacent with time, doesn’t that take back the gains of their revolution?

One year ago (we’re told), there was a revolution in Sri Lanka. Commentators today never seem to grow tired of chirping on and on about the overthrow of tyranny that this led to, and about how the world (no less!) can take a leaf out of our book with regard to restoring democracy. I know for a fact that these commentators genuinely believe what they’re harping about: that after more than 10 years of a despotic tyranny, “overthrow” was definitely not that easy to achieve.

Not easy to achieve perhaps, but not impossible either. Those who laud the people for having overthrowing Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime, not surprisingly, are silent over how the people went to the ballot and threw other complacent leaders out in the past.

That is a silent if not forgivable omission on their part, though. What I find unforgivable and laughable, however, is their assessment of the situation AFTER the revolution. Put pithily, there’s discontentment. There’s also happiness. For the most however, there are mixed feelings. And there’s hypocrisy.

Let me come out with it: none of us was happy with the way Mahinda Rajapaksa handled the country. After he passed the 18th Amendment, he embraced a new self, a no-no as far as amity and peace for the country were concerned. He sanctioned acts of theft, violence, quackery, and chicanery on the part of those who, at the last moment, disowned him and “became” lily-white angels. Most horrendously though, he implied that he himself realised this. No other president in this country, after all, has on the verge of an election claimed that the “known devil” is better than the “unknown”.

In comparison, Maithripala Sirisena is way ahead. No other president had the guts to clip his own powers. No other president tried so hard to be simple in behaviour and appearance. I attended functions where he spoke at length, not about his political career but about his personal life. I saw and heard him speak about his schooldays when I attended the 150th Anniversary Day of St Benedict’s College, Kotahena, where he was Chief Guest. His reminiscences, at once poetic and free of frill, moved me.

And I know he’s still trying. There were those who lambast(ed) him over the Budget, his conduct at the UN General Assembly, and his reaction to that disastrous Enrique Iglesias concert. But look closer: he may have committed the gaffe, but it’s someone else who has to take the blame for that gaffe. He is not Mahinda Rajapaksa, at least not to an extent, in this regard.

Yes, we are grateful.

But not being like Mahinda Rajapaksa will neither salvage nor sustain the revolution. The president has been quick to affirm, deny, or apologise, but he has also been quick to trip himself up. He has contradicted himself on various policy issues (most notably his stance on the death penalty, denied by his own Foreign Minister overseas). His stand on nepotism has raised eyebrows. His affirmation of a multiethnic and rational society, where primitivism doesn’t hold sway, has fallen flat on the ground when confronted with the way he lambasted the organisers of the Iglesias concert (and that on the pretext of protecting ourSinhala Buddhist culture!).

There’s more.

A friend of mine once gave his take on revolutions of the sort our president authored: “They are fine for rhetoric. They are fine for those insured against transition. But for those who lose from them, not because they backed the ‘other side’ but because that transition leads to economic instability, the government remains hard to support, harder to sustain.” I think he was being a tad too unfair on the government, but I see his point: at a time when the world’s turbulent enough, revolutions of THIS sort, coupled especially with the sort of policy U-Turns we’ve been seeing soon after the president took oaths last year, need to be handled well.

This government hasn’t handled it well, truth be told. I’ve lost faith in the rupee. I don’t bother keeping a tab on prices. I can’t think of a worse time to save or invest or borrow (except during the war years). I don’t remember whether we even had a Budget last year, given the number of capitulations the Finance Ministry has done with respect to that. And no, I can’t understand why we STILL haven’t apprehended the likes of (Dr) Mervyn Silva (where is he now, I wonder?).

As if this wasn’t bad enough, I have another complaint: I don’t know why the president had to slap democracy in the face and appoint rejects as Ministers last August.

Oh no, I’m not saying we need to go back to the Rajapaksa Regime. But that doesn’t mean those who won on account of their allegiance with the former president should be “punished” by being relegated to the parliament. I remember what another friend of mine said: “We can’t afford five-star democracy when it comes to Mahinda Rajapaksa”. A poor justification of what transpired in August 2015, I believe.

For those still trying to justify what Sirisena did, hence, I have one thing to say: just stop it. Democracy isn’t five-star, it’s unqualifiable. Purely and simply.

And so one year has gone by. Losers are occupying Ministries and they run the show. Some even seem to be behaving as though what they’re doing was and is accepted by the same people who reject them. Crass. Pathetic. Typical.

No wonder we have a de facto “Join Opposition” in addition to (and apart from) the TNA-JVP de jure Opposition! No wonder that Joint Opposition can still play on fears perceived and imagined, for the most revolving around issues of sovereignty, suzerainty, and political quackery. No wonder, also, that racist rhetoric is on the rise, what with a segment of the population virtually unrepresented thanks to a government that refuses to recognise their grievances and demands!

Enough to make you a cynic, right?

When I reflect on all this, I can only grin at the Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, and Wordpress activists who ranted against Mahinda Rajapaksa, who’re now bending over backward to defend the man they elected to power, even in the most ludicrous situation. I can only guffaw at their pathetic attempts at criticising the president’s statements while defending the president himself. And I can only scowl and glare at their EVEN more pathetic attempts at trying to place abuses and misuses of power by this government in a better light than those of the Rajapaksa Regime, and that by using the “relative merits” argument.

No, quackery isn’t relative, folks. Especially when it’s political. I think that’s the biggest lesson we’ve learnt this past year.

And I think we’re done listening to these activists and bloggers trying to tell us otherwise.

PS: In the version of this article I wrote for the Colombo Telegraph, I referred to the "Baku Congress" as the "Fourth Comintern Congress". That was a mistake. An erroneous one. I apologise.

Uditha Devapriya is a freelance writer who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com