Historical, Political & Legal Justification Of Tamils’ Right To Self-Determination

By Thambu Kanagasabai –May 8, 2016

Thambu Kanagasabai

The UN covenant on civil and political rights which came in to effect in 1966, lays down the right and principle of self-determination under Article 1 as follows:-

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that they freely determine their political status and thereby pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

UN adopted this principle bearing in mind the countries whose peoples were ruled by repressive dictators or colonial masters. This provision in addition targets “all peoples”living in all countries offering them the choice to exercise this right without any political hindrance from the rulers of those countries.

The recognition of self-determination rights was first applied successfully in the 1960s to several countries ruled by colonial powers, particularly in Africa. Since then several other countries like East Timor, Kosovo, and South Sudan exercised this right and earned the international endorsement and recognition. As such, this principle now is firmly established as an international legal principle.

This scope of this UN Article thus covers peoples who are victims of state discrimination, racially or religiously massacres, genocide or facing a slow and steady extinction due to overt and/or covert measures of the governments in power.

The non-application or denial of these rights of self-determination to the Tamil people in Sri Lanka who have been subject to an agenda of genocide since independence in February 1948 is deeply disappointing and defies reasoning. This Article goes on to point out the historical, political and legal justification for the Sri Lankan Tamils to exercise this right as a matter of legal principle.

Historical Reasons 

Legends of Sri Lanka mention the ‘Yakshas’ ‘Rakshas’ and Nagas as the original inhabitants of Ceylon [Now Sri Lanka] living in all parts of the country. Chronicles of Sri Lanka however point to the existence of Nagas in the periods before BC 500. Sri Lanka was then called ‘Naga Land’ and in confirmation one can mention names and various places commencing with the alphabets

Read More

SRI LANKA: PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR  MS. MÓNICA PINTO

(Monic Pinto and Mr. Juan E. Méndez at Colombo press conference)

07/05/2016

Preliminary observations and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers — Ms. Mónica Pinto*.

Colombo, 7 May 2016

* This statement should be read in conjunction with the preliminary observations and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Introduction

At the invitation of the government, my colleague, Mr. Juan E. Méndez — the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — and I visited Sri Lanka from 29 April to 7 May 2016 to assess the situation and remaining challenges concerning torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the independence of judges and lawyers. We would like to express our appreciation to the government for extending an invitation to visit the country, for their full cooperation during our visit, and for the efforts displayed, in particular by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to facilitate and organize official meetings. In addition, we would like to thank the United Nations Resident Coordinator and the United Nations Office in Sri Lanka for supporting the preparations of the visit.

Sri Lanka is at a crucial moment in its history. While the armed conflict has ended after more than 30 years, much of the structures of a nation at war remain in place as the fabric of Sri Lankan society was left ravaged. It is now critical and urgent to replace the legal framework that allowed serious human rights violations to happen and set up sound democratic institutions and legal standards that will give effect to and protect the human rights embodied in the constitution or Sri Lanka as well as the international human rights treaties it has voluntarily ratified.

Officials we spoke to identified as the main threats and challenges of the country international terrorism and organized crime, as is the case with most countries in the world today. However, they can never justify the continuation of repressive practices or a normative framework that contributes to violations of fundamental rights and civil liberties.

The elections of January and August 2015 brought an opening in the democratic space and the change in government has led to some promising reforms, such as the re-instatement of the Constitutional Council. Yet, more reforms are expected and necessary before the country can be considered to be on a path to sustainable democratization governed by the rule of law. There is a need to recover the momentum of reform and accelerate the process of positive change within a comprehensive and inclusive framework.

During my visit to Colombo, Anuradhapura, Jaffna and Kandy, I had the opportunity to exchange views with a number of high ranking officials, including representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Law and Order, the Ministry of Prison Reforms, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs, the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, the National Police Commission, the National Human Rights Commission, Governors of the North Central, North and Central Provinces, the Judicial Service Commission, the Judges’ Training Institute, the Legal Aid Commission, as well as judges from different all tiers, the Sri Lanka Bar Association, lawyers, academics and civil society representatives. During his visit, the Special Rapporteur on torture also had the opportunity to visit a large number of detention facilities, including military camps, the details of which can be found in his statement.

Read More

The Supreme Court’s mind on RTI and priorities ahead

Sunday, May 08, 2016

Contrary to what certain media reports excitably proclaimed this week, the Supreme Court’s Determination on the constitutionality of Sri Lanka’s Right to Information (RTI) Bill held little surprises.

In the main, the ruling did not pose formidable challenges to the basic integrity of the Bill. However, it did reflect a degree of judicial conservatism therein.

Conflict brought about by the 19th Amendment

First, let us look at the widening of exemptions to RTI. The RTI Bill had included information constituting contempt of court among the general exclusions. This was on par with standard exclusions in RTI laws despite the considerable disquiet of advocates who disagree with contempt being used to block the right to know.

The Court recommended however that information be also excluded in the interests of “maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.’ To be impeccably fair, the Bench may have considered its hands to be tied in this regard for the 19th Amendment to the Constitution has that very same bar. The Justices cannot therefore be faulted beyond a point for their emphasis on the need to ensure constitutional conformity. Regardless, a wistful expectation persists for a more adventurous judicial view inclining towards contempt alone (surely) being sufficient enough protection for the purpose.

But more to the point, there is a serious issue here regarding the potential conflict between the 19th Amendment’s RTI provision and a pending RTI Bill. This was predicted in this newspaper last year, see the Sunday Times of 19th April 2015 (vide ‘Giving with one hand and taking with the other’ and editorially, ‘19A defeats Government’s well meaning RTI law’). It was observed then that the 19th Amendment’s inclusion of both contempt and a vaguely termed ‘authority and impartiality of the judiciary’ as barriers to RTI disclosure was profoundly unwise amounting to classic double jeopardy

Dangers of hasty constitution drafting

The Court’s Determination this week implicitly bears out this fear. The one saving grace is that the public interest override applies across the board to all exclusions. This must be used effectively to ensure the public transparency of the judicial institution through RTI, particularly as Sri Lanka lacks a Contempt of Court law.

Indeed, we may count ourselves fortunate that the Court confined itself to taking judicial notice of the unwarranted expansiveness of the 19th Amendment in regard to only this instance. This constitutional amendment’s archaic restrictions included information being prohibited to protect the rights and reputations of others and a veritable Victorian bar on withholding information on the ground of the ‘protection of morals.’ If the Court had addressed itself to these other overbroad restrictions and stipulated amendments to the Bill therein, we may well have had to discard the RTI Bill as it would have been completely subverted. .

As warned repeatedly in these column spaces, uninformed and hasty constitutional drafting carries with it dangers that go beyond the term of whatever Government in power for the time being. What we see here is a good example.

Summary dismissal of misinformed critiques

Detailed scrutiny of the Determination is not possible in these limited column spaces. Apart from the correction of technicalities which had probably crept in after the draft changed hands between government and provincial agencies, it was also prescribed by the Supreme Court that higher educational institutions and professional bodies should be subject to RTI disclosure only if they are funded wholly or partly through state or provincial funds.

Interestingly, the Court summarily dismissed the claim that the RTI Bill’s bar on premature disclosure of overseas trade agreements and financial or economic policies offended transparency in government. In doing so, it cannily quoted Indian jurisprudence to the effect that the right to know cannot be absolute. Instead it must be balanced with competing interests. Thus, there would be certain classes of documents requiring protection, including pending trade negotiations or exchange rates and the regulation of banking. Otherwise, individuals may unfairly benefit from that knowledge in advance.

To be clear, it is only ‘premature’ disclosure that may be refused. In any event, even though this is (conveniently) missed by some, the information may be compelled under the public interest override. Thus, for example, it is extravagant to say that the Court’s ruling means that information requests cannot be filed in regard to information pertaining to the proposed Economic and Technical Cooperation Agreement (ETCA) between Sri Lanka and India. On the contrary, such requests can be lodged. The duty of determining if the public interest merits the disclosure is on information officers and the Right to Information Commission with a judicial hearing at the final stage.

Critical scrutiny and priorities ahead

Relatedly, though this issue was specifically not mentioned in the Determination, frantic cries raised by certain commentators and misinformed political pundits of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) that the Central Bank of Lanka is exempted from the RTI Bill is totally without any foundation. There is no such exclusion.

In fact, flamboyant arguments that the Indian RTI law is more liberal in this regard are misguided. That law excludes the disclosure of information ‘which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India and the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State.’ This term has a wide reach and is exceedingly generalized. Here too, premature disclosure of trade agreements is disallowed as was the case a few years ago when an RTI request was filed regarding a proposed India – European Union Free Trade Agreement. But a fine balance has generally been observed in not blocking information in the public interest. Similar vigilance must be exhibited here. Solid work from the grassroots upwards, which was precisely how RTI developed as a powerful tool in India, will yield far more satisfying results than grandstanding in Colombo for the sake of publicity.

That said, the infamous RTI provision in the 19th Amendment must be revised. As much as this Amendment was deceptively packaged by its ‘yahapalanaya’ advocates as manna from heaven when its clauses were self-contradictory and self-defeating such as those relating to the public accountability of the Constitutional Council, so was it in relation to RTI. The fact that these lapses passed critical muster in a collective gasp of relief in having got rid of the Rajapaksa monstrosity is no excuse for our own culpability.

We see the consequences of this distressing failure day by day.

Are our Tamils fit for devolution?

by Izeth Hussain-May 6, 2016, 9:34 pm 

My recent probing into the question of the problem of the casteist racism that afflicts both the Sinhalese and the Tamils – the Tamils to a much much deeper extent – leads me to ask whether a solution to the ethnic problem can be found through devolution. My expectation is that the Sinhalese might conceivably make a success of it because their casteist racism is much less than that of the Tamils. On the other hand, I expect that if more and more devolution is allowed to the Tamils the ethnic problem will become more and more difficult to solve, contrary to what might be expected at a theoretical level.

I will first of all approach this problem at an empirical level, setting aside for the time being the question of the connection between devolution and casteist racism. When the Northern Provincial Council was set up and Wigneswaran was made Chief Minister there were sanguine expectations on a fairly widespread scale that we were set on a course that would lead at long last to a pragmatic solution of the ethnic problem. The assumption was that improvements on 13A, if not its full implementation, would suffice to meet the Tamil demand for devolution. But it was not long before Wigneswaran started striking, quite unexpectedly, belligerent postures that declared him an extremist. Then came Prime Minister Modi’s visit with its Hindutva affirmation of solidarity with the Sri Lankan Hindus and encouragement to ask for a federal solution. Recently the NPC refunded eighty per cent of the unspent budget allocated to it, and there has been controversy over the building of six hundred houses for the Tamil displaced. Considering all that could be done with 13 A even in its presently truncated form, the performance of the NPC has been dismal. The moral might be drawn that devolution isn’t working.

And now comes a thunderbolt in the form of the Resolution adopted by the NPC last month, embodying what are understood to be the TNA’s proposals for Constitutional change. As there have been several media commentaries on the proposals I will not go into details about them. I will focus on the one point that seems to be of overwhelming importance: the States (meaning in this context a State in the North East) shall be "supreme in their respective spheres", meaning in the spheres that are not under the control of the Centre. Professor Laksiri Fernando comments, "This is about a ‘separate state’ within a loose federation, with ‘supremacy for that state ‘in its own sphere" (Island of May 2). In other words the TNA is demanding a confederal arrangement that could go some way towards a de facto Eelam.

How are we to interpret that demand? It could be that the TNA is making a maximalist demand, in reality expecting something well short of it. It could be just a ploy in an ongoing political game and we would be over-reacting if we get het up about it. But it can also be interpreted as revealing an enduring Tamil mind-set: the Tamils believe that they have the right to self-determination inclusive of a right to set up a separate state, a right that is an absolute entitlement, something that inheres in their very being, something therefore that they can never renounce, and consequently they can never be satisfied with anything less than a de facto Eelam, or at the very least a confederal arrangement that goes a good distance towards it. A commonsensical question arises: how on earth is it possible for the Tamils to entertain so bizarre an expectation, bizarre considering that the LTTE was militarily defeated and no one in his right mind believes that the Tamils on their own can enforce Eelam or even a confederal arrangement on the Sinhalese? The answer of course is to be found in the India factor. If not for that factor there will be no Tamil ethnic problem today, and it is only India that can make the Tamils change that enduring mind-set.

How will that mind-set impact on the problem of devolution? It seems reasonable to think that if 13 A is implemented fully with devolution of police and land powers the Tamils could still want to assert as much power as possible on the ground, independent of the control of the Centre, and that could cause serious problems. Successful devolution requires a mutual accommodativeness that can hardly be expected from the Sinhalese, and still less from the Tamils, beyond a modest measure of devolution. Examples of successful devolution elsewhere may not apply here: the relevant example here may be the troubled relationship between Delhi and Kashmir. What might succeed here is limited devolution, not the very extensive devolution that the Tamils keep demanding, together with a fully functioning democracy inclusive of safeguards for the minorities as in the West. We cannot evade the following question: are the Tamils in particular psychologically fit for devolution beyond a very limited range?

I will now make a novel point that as far as I know has never been made before. That is an astonishing fact as will soon become apparent. I will make my point not in the form of a question but in the form of a categorical assertion about which there can be no argument on rational grounds. The point is this: the Tamils have no moral right, none whatever, to have devolution in the Northern Province. The Tamil rationale for devolution has always been that it is an absolute requisite to secure the legitimate interests of the minorities, meaning of course the interests of all members of a minority, not just some segments of it. But there has been grotesque discrimination against members of the upcountry Tamils who have settled in the North and other non-Vellala caste members. The rationale for devolution to the North therefore disappears.

My argument is based on what has been revealed recently (Island of April 29) by Murugesu Chandrakumar, former MP and Deputy Chairman of Committees in Parliament, who recently quit the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) of which he had been a founder member. He has declared that social injustice is evident in the discrimination against the non-Vellala depressed castes in almost all fields including education, employment, agricultural extension, and other fields providing opportunities for economic mobility. According to Chandrakumar the depressed castes comprise 65 per cent of the Northern Province’s population of 1.5 million.

The upcountry Tamils were given shelter and land in the Northern Province after the 1977 and 1983 riots but they were treated as servants by the local upper caste Tamils. Chandrakumar is quoted as saying, "This would be apparent if one visits Kilinochchi district. While the Eastern side of the A9 Highway is green, the Western side is parched. While the Iranamadu irrigation tank serves villages East of A 9, Western villages have no irrigation facilities. And it is on the Western side of A 9 that there are settlements of plantation Tamils. There was only one school on the Western side till the end of the war in 2009. After the war, the EPDP put up three schools."

Chandrakumar alleged that there is political discrimination too. In the Northern Provincial Council there is only member from the depressed castes. In the Sri Lankan Parliament there is not a single member from a depressed caste. There was caste discrimination in Tamil society even when the LTTE was in power, but Prabhakaran would not allow it in a brazen form. In fact the LTTE recruited lower caste members and gave them responsible positions. But the moment the LTTE was eliminated, caste discrimination raised its ugly head again. I will not add anything to the facts presented here as they speak eloquently enough to establish the point that those Tamils in the North have no moral right, none whatever, to devolution.

izethhussain@gmail.com

SRI LANKA: PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR  JUAN E. MENDEZ

07/05/2016

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Colombo, 7 May 2016

*This statement should be read in conjunction with the preliminary observations and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

Introduction

At the invitation of the Government, my colleague, Ms. Mónica Pinto — the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers — and I visited Sri Lanka from 29 April to 7 May 2016 to assess the situation and remaining challenges concerning torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the independence of judges and lawyers. We would like to express our appreciation to the government for extending an invitation to visit the country, for their full cooperation during our visit, and for the efforts displayed, in particular by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to facilitate and organize official meetings. In addition, we would like to thank the United Nations Resident Coordinator and the United Nations Office in Sri Lanka for supporting the preparations of the visit.

Sri Lanka is at a crucial moment in its history. While the armed conflict has ended after more than 30 years, much of the structures of a nation at war remain in place as the fabric of Sri Lankan society has been ravaged. Sri Lankan citizens continue to live without minimal guarantees against the power of the State. It is now critical and urgent to replace the legal framework that allowed serious human rights violations to happen and set up sound democratic institutions and legal standards that will give effect to and protect human rights embodied in the constitution of Sri Lanka as well as the international human rights treaties it has voluntarily ratified.

Officials we spoke to identified as the main threats and challenges of the country international terrorism and organized crime, as is the case with most countries in the world today. However, they can never justify the continuation of repressive practices or a normative framework that contributes to violations of fundamental rights and civil liberties.

The elections of January and August 2015 brought an opening in the democratic space and the change in government has led to some promising reforms, such as the re-instatement of the Constitutional Council. Yet, more reforms are expected and necessary before the country can be considered to be on a path to sustainable democratization governed by the rule of law.

Read More

The Repression of Sri Lanka’s Tamils Continues

In spite of Colombo’s promises, the repression of Tamils continues.

By Taylor Dibbert-May 07, 2016

Unfortunately, Tamils residing in war-torn Sri Lanka’s north and east are facing a period of heightened repression. A recent spate of arrests in these Tamil-dominated locations is very troubling. What does this actually mean and what might one look for in the weeks ahead?

“Actually abductions and arrests have been reported to be ongoing for a while,” says Mario Arulthas, co-editor of Tamil Guardian, a London-based news outlet. “Civilians and even a journalist returning from abroad have been arrested [in Sri Lanka] this year.”

It appears that these arrests are being made on (extremely questionable) national security grounds. Some of those arrested are former members of the Tamil Tigers, the group that spent nearly three decades fighting Sri Lankan government forces for a separate Tamil state in the northern and eastern parts of the country.

With end of war commemorative events right around the corner (the country’s brutal civil war ended on May 18, 2009), there are well-founded concerns that government repression will continue in the coming weeks. “It seems likely that the current crackdown is intended to reimpose a climate of fear in the North-East, especially in the run-up to May 18,” says Arulthas.

In spite of all the promises and proclamations, Colombo’s official plans for transitional justice are still in their embryonic stages. Besides, a reality check seems to be in order, especially when it comes to ongoing human rights violations across the Northern and Eastern provinces, which remain heavily militarized.

Maithripala Sirisena was sworn in as president in January 2015. How confident could the Tamil community feel about transitional justice when fundamental freedoms are consistently violated? By failing to make smaller gestures that matter (such as releasing or bringing to trial all Tamil political prisoners), is it realistic to believe that Colombo is serious about more significant changes?

Whether the administration of Barack Obama and others decide to discard their panglossian approach remains to be seen, but members of the international community have been forewarned. “The [Sri Lankan] government’s repeated assertions of its sincerity with regards to widespread reforms will be put to another test over the next weeks,” notes Arulthas.

Drug smuggling in North-East aimed at eradicating Tamil society says Chief Minister

07 May 2016

The rise of drug smuggling in the Tamil North-East is degrading education, culture and development in a manner that seems “well planned” and aims to eradicate Tamil society, said Chief Minister C V Wigneswaran.

Speaking at a teachers’ conference at Vembady Women’s College in Jaffna, Justice Wigneswaran told the audience that despite the presence of 15,000 Sri Lankan army soldiers in Jaffna, illegal drug smuggling has continued to increase.

“At whose behest is this happening?” he questioned, noting that there were even greater numbers of air force, navy and police personnel.

“We understand that the sale of these narcotics is mainly focussed on school children, with an aim to destabilise the education of our students,” he continued.

The chief minister also called on teachers to remain vigilant and watch for signs of drug use in schools.

Drug smuggling in the North-East has increased since the end of the armed conflict, a fact noted by Justice Wigneswaran, who lamented its rise.

See our earlier posts:

Cannabis smuggling operations increase across North-East (30 April 2016)

Drug use in former conflict areas ‘rapidly rising’ (05 Apr 2016)

Millions of rupees worth of cannabis recovered in Jaffna (26 Mar 2016)

Sri Lankan police recover 2kg of heroin in Jaffna (12 Mar 2016)

60 kg of cannabis seized by Sri Lankan police in Jaffna (03 Mar 2016)
Five-fold increase in consumption of alcohol in North-East Sri Lanka (14 June 2015)

Genocidal agenda behind increase in drugs in North - TNA MP (10 Jun 2015)

Tamils still face genocidal agendas says TNA MP (07 Jun 2015)

Increased drug problem since Sri Lanka's military arrived in North-East says CV Wigneswaran (08 Jun 2015)

Drugs deliberately introduced to quell desire for liberation of Tamil youth says Wigneswaran (02 Jun 2015)

Unacceptable presence of war criminal soldiers in North-East - CV Wigneswaran (25 May 2015)

Prevalence of drug use raises questions says Wigneswaran (17 May 2015)

EU links human rights to trade: 58 conditions for GSP Plus

By Our Diplomatic Editor-Sunday, May 08, 2016

Human Rights Action Plan etc. called for; talks in Brussels next week

In its haste to regain the GSP Plus facility, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has agreed with the European Union (EU) to implement a sprawling list of 58 conditions linking human rights, national security and other domestic concerns with trade, a document obtained by the Sunday Times shows.

Among the 58 conditions imposed are to revoke the Prevention of Terrorism Act, to expedite cases of remaining detainees, to introduce a new Human Rights Action Plan, review the status of the Tamil diaspora organisations and individuals on the terrorist list, to devolve power under the new Constitution, return all private lands to owners in the North, adopt a policy of National Reconciliation and on National Resettlement, finalise the re-settlement of all displaced persons, and to ratify the Convention on Enforced Disappearances with accompanying legislation as well as issue certificates of absence.

The EU insists that the conditions be met before Sri Lanka can even consider applying for the GSP Plus. The stringent stipulations come with short deadlines (most have now elapsed) and were accepted by the Foreign Ministry “without any form of negotiations” at the EU-Sri Lanka Working Group on Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights in January, authoritative sources said.

Many were kept in the dark about the list, the sources said, adding that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had been “furious” when he learned of all the commitments made. He has appointed a steering committee to process it. Meanwhile, the MFA is expected to update the list to reflect new deadlines.

“This is a clever ploy by the EU to rope us in on so many commitments and actions that it will be holding us to for many, many years to come,” a senior official said on condition of anonymity. “After all, given our middle income status, Sri Lanka is eligible for the GSP Plus only for a few more years.”

David Daly, EU Ambassador to Sri Lanka, has informed the Government that implementation will be monitored and that it will be necessary to quantify progress, wherever possible. He has said that a “continuous flow of progress from Sri Lanka” is a key factor in being able to decide when Sri Lanka should lodge its application.

Commerce Director Sonali Wijeratne, who is said to be vehemently opposed to linking trade with human rights, is being sent to the Belgian capital, Brussels, for further talks next week. Ms Wijeratne will lead a delegation to the EU-Sri Lanka Working Group on Trade and Economic Relations Cooperation scheduled for Wednesday. She has asked to include Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda in the team to handle the non-trade components of the discussions.

The Government has committed to rehabilitate all ex-combatants by 2017 and to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure to include the rights of detainees by 2016. It has been agreed to adopt new regulations for public disorder management by the police by the end of March 2016; review the Public Security Ordinance; expedite the processing of remaining cases referred to by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; and to establish an office on Missing Persons.

The Government has agreed to “security sector reform”; to put an end to “all surveillance, harassment and reprisals against civil society, human rights defenders and journalists”; propose legislation allowing individuals to submit complaints to the UN Human Rights Committee under the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and to the UN Committee against Torture; and to “reconsider the decision to establish the Press Council”.

The list also includes an undertaking to propose legislative changes to ensure non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; to expedite prosecution of reported cases of torture; to launch wide public consultation and to disseminate information during the various stages of setting up a transitional justice mechanism; and to design a transitional justice architecture consistent with the Human Rights Council resolution and the results of the public consultation.

A fortnight ago, the European Commission decided to put forward a favourable report to lift the ban on Sri Lankan fish imports after the country was ‘red flagged’ for engaging in IUU (Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated) fishing practices. The EU Council of Ministers was expected to endorse the Commission’s recommendations.

Antecedents Of July 1983 & The Foundations Of Impunity: The PSO

By Rajan Hoole –May 7, 2016

Dr. Rajan Hoole

When we talked about the Police of 1958 and earlier, we are not saying that it was at any point an ideal police force. Far from it – there were a number of instances of police brutality towards the lower orders of society, of which Vittachi gives one example. A classic example now fading from living memory is the attack on the strikers of 5th June 1947, on the eve of independence.

The primary issue was the Left protest against the Soulbury Constitution for Independent Ceylon, for its failure to guarantee workers’ rights. Associated with it was the interdiction of T.B. Illangaratne, president, and 19 others of the Government Clerical Services Union for having held a meeting on Galle Face Green, in contravention of Public Service Regulations. 50,000 public servants prepared for trade union action.

At this point there was a development of considerable historical interest. The 

State Council headed by D.S. Senanayake, the prime minister-in-making, hurriedly passed the Public Security Ordinance, taking barely 90 minutes over it. We shall encounter the PSO again in the run up to the violence of July 1983. Perhaps the rulers in 1947 also thought it useful to have such an act on the statute book before independence, since, one is not surprised by such laws under colonial rule, while it would be awkward to present such legislation after independence. Interestingly, however, the most oppressive piece of legislation ever passed in Parliament – the one to make Tamil plantation workers non-citizens – could not have been passed under colonial rule!

Read More

Debt-laden Sri Lanka to curb high life for officials

May 07, 2016

Sri Lanka's junior finance minister has asked President Maithripala Sirisene to stop officials flying business class as part of government efforts to reduce the country's ballooning budget deficit.

Lakshman Yapa Abhayawardene also asked Sirisena to direct ministers and government officials to monitor the financial management of all ministries.

"I expect your personal and dedicated intervention to implement a strong fiscal management system," Abhayawardene wrote in a letter to the president.

The request comes as the government takes steps to raise revenue by 100 billion rupees in 2016, in response to repeated requests from the IMF, by increasing value added tax (VAT).[nL3N17Y08Y]

Sri Lanka is heavily indebted, partly due to borrowing by the previous government during its nine-year tenure that ended in January 2015, and faces a balance of payments crisis with around $2 billion foreign outflows from government securities.

The government last week reached an agreement with IMF for a $1.5 billion bailout to help Sri Lanka avert a balance of payments crisis.
- http://in.reuters.com -

Towards True Freedom of Expression

Featured image courtesy NewsFirst

RAISA WICKREMATUNGE
05/06/2016

Former editor in chief of the Nation in Thailand, Kavi Chongkittavorn received an unexpected scoop when visiting Sri Lanka in the 1990s. The source – Minister of Foreign Affairs Lakshman Kadirgamar, who challenged, “If I give you stories… stories which involve Thailand, will you write them?”

Chongkittavorn replied that it was his duty to do so. The subsequent story he filed – revealing that Phuket was being used as a base for the LTTE to smuggle weapons to Sri Lanka – surprised Kadirgamar, who never thought that he would write a story implicating his own country.

“He thought I would never write the story as something might befall me. But a good story is a good story,” Chongkittavorn says.

Kadirgamar could be forgiven for thinking Chongkittavorn would fear for his safety – since 1992, 19 journalists have been killed in Sri Lanka in the pursuit of their jobs, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Many of these cases are still unresolved, as Groundviews has reported in the past.

This is pertinent to remember as World Press Freedom Day fell on May 3. However, Chongkittavorn says he has seen a vast improvement since his last visit.

During the era of Mahinda Rakapaksa, the former editor in Chief of the Nation said, media freedom ‘had been turned upside down, including media structures.”

This isn’t the case today.

“Journalists are not being jailed, or murdered, or kidnapped. I think the [Sri Lankan media landscape] has changed a lot since the new government,” Chongkittavorn said.

Read More

Report recommends 20th-Century solutions for 21st-Century media challenges

Friday, 6 May 2016

As a believer in the value of public consultation and peer review, it was with much expectation that I started reading the voluminous (284 pages) report by the Secretariat for Media Reforms, entitled ‘Rebuilding Public Trust: An Assessment of the Media Industry and Profession in Sri Lanka’. But I was disappointed by its lack of understanding of the momentous changes occurring in the “attention economy” and by its trite recommendations based on wishful thinking.

It was in 1971 that Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon who first described the attention economy: “Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.” What this means is that the most scarce, and therefore most valuable, commodity today is attention.

 

Do they get it?

The report does not ignore new media. It reports facts from the supply-side, such as the advertising outlays (Rs. 1 billion and growing) already being spent on new media in Sri Lanka as opposed to around Rs. 30 billion on mainstream media (MSM); mobile phones now being the most common electronic device in homes, followed by TV and radios; and most people accessing the Internet over mobile devices. But unfortunately absent are recent demand-side data.

It’s not that such studies were unavailable. A representative-sample survey on media consumption in the Western Province released by the Centre for Policy Alternatives in January 2016 found that “Private television is the most popular source of news for the respondents, followed by Facebook and the Internet/web. When breaking down the findings by age category, Facebook is the main source of news for the 18-24 year respondents followed by private television stations and the internet/web.”

The Western Province is not Sri Lanka and 18-24 year olds are not the entirety of the population. But if our purpose is that of setting out the future trajectory of media development in the country, these are the data of greatest relevance.

MSM are already losing the attention of a key demographic. As this demographic ages, they will take with them the habits and preferences formed as they became adults. The subsequent cohorts will not revert to MSM. Advertising rupees will follow attention. MSM in the current form will shrivel and die. The few that succeed in becoming trusted content providers on new-media platforms will survive.

Despite pages of description, the authors have failed to internalise this simple conclusion as explained below. 

The test

The most pressing problem in the Sri Lanka media sphere at this time is either the damage caused to the body politic by State-owned media (including newspapers) or the dysfunctions of private media. I happen to believe the former is more significant, because the damage is being done with taxpayer money. Others may prioritise the latter.

The report’s understanding of the ongoing transformation of the media sphere may be tested in relation to its recommendations on State-owned media:

The government should initiate legal reforms to transform the state-owned and state-managed broadcast media (SLBC, SLRC and ITN) into truly independent public service broadcasters (PSBs) so as to serve the public interest without any political interference. PSBs must be independent from government in their governing structures and have full editorial autonomy. The PSBs’ independence from the state should be legally guaranteed, including through the appointment of independent governing boards and the editorial independence of the broadcaster and its professional and editorial staff from the governing board should also be protected. Drafting a PSB law should take into account a range of PSB models in Europe, Canada and Asia.

The government should ensure that PSBs’ public funding is secure, long term and stable to protect them from arbitrary political interferences and market forces. There should be public funding mechanisms for PSBs.

A public consultation should be undertaken to decide the future status of the state-owned print media organisation (Lake House/ANCL). All options, including its transformation into public service media, full privatisation and broad-basing ownership, should be considered.

Public service broadcasting is not new to Sri Lanka. Words similar to those in the above recommendations are likely to be found in the Parliamentary debates leading to the creation of the SLBC and the SLRC and even the expropriation of ANCL. We have tried public-service broadcasting and failed.

All that is novel is the naiveté of expecting governments to allocate “long-term, secure and stable funding” to be managed by “independent governing boards” that will then ensure “full editorial autonomy.” Such idyllic conditions do not exist even in the countries we are told to emulate. If employees are to have full autonomy, why have governing boards and go through the trouble of making them independent? Why not simply set up standing orders for the transfer of taxpayer money to the employees to do whatever they wish? Why not ignore small matters such as accountable use of public resources?

Realistically, let us assume PSBs are created with imperfectly independent governing boards that will be broadly accountable to their government paymasters; and that these boards have under them employees who produce content deemed to be in the public interest by the boards. Also in a concession to the parlous state of our Treasury, let us assume that more than half the PSB revenues will have to come from advertising.

Our Constitutional Council is unlikely to approve anyone other than boring old men and women who have made it their life’s mission to ruffle as few feathers as possible. No chance for edgy content mavens here.

What the stodgy boards consider to be in the public interest (i.e., least likely to offend) is unlikely to be of much interest to the general populace, let alone the 18-24 year olds who are forming their media preferences. When the state had a complete monopoly on broadcasting, old men of the above description were able to impose their tastes on the rest of us. Even now in some parts of the country, people can pick up only the ITN signal so they have few alternatives.

But when access to the internet is universal, as it soon will be, the old men (and a token woman or two) will have a tough time. Audiences will tune out and the advertising rupees will fly away. Nothing new. Already happened to ANCL and SLBC. 

What they missed

To talk about scarcity of frequencies even after the digital transition, as the report surprisingly does, is to assume channels will continue. In the emerging media sphere, there will be no channels. There will be brands and icons and attention-garnering devices we still do not have the right terms for. But no channels that can claim loyal eyeballs. BBC and NHK may live on because they have built up their brands, not because they have been allocated channels.

Whatever attracts attention will also attract advertising revenues. In the first quarter of 2016, Facebook attracted advertising revenues of $ 11.86 (Rs. 1,734) per North American user. That is the future the report missed.

Mid-20th Century technology-specific media instruments funded by taxpayer money known as PSBs have no chance in 21st-Century reality. But no cause for worry. There’s little chance these naïve recommendations will be implemented by our 16th-Century politicians.