Thai Prime Minister urges ‘corrupt’ Buddhist monk to surrender

Monks gather to meditate at the Wat Phra Dhammakaya temple as the DSI attempt to arrest its abbot. Pic: Twitter/Pui Pim-ampai

19th June 2016 

CALLING for an end to a standoff between authorities Buddhist monks of the expansive Dhammakaya Temple in Bangkok, Thailand’s Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha has urged its scandal-ridden abbot to surrender peacefully.

The 72-year-old abbot, Phra Dhammachayo, is wanted on corruption allegations but is currently being “shielded” by followers at the Pathum Thani temple. Prayuth said the authorities were holding back to avoid a potential clash.

On Thursday, the Department of Special Investigation attempted to apprehend the influential monk, but failed as thousands of disciples blocked the temple’s entrances using vehicles such as backhoes.

“[Officials were] unable to arrest [the monk] because people acted as human shields. Is this proper? If [the person] doesn’t do anything wrong and is innocent, he should surrender, that’s the end of it,” Prayuth said on Saturday, as quoted by The Nation.

However, Prayuth said the authorities would remain persistent in making the arrest.

According to The Nation, the abbott faces legal action on a string of allegations, including the embezzlement of billions of baht from the Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative.

SEE ALSO: Thai authorities prepare to arrest temple abbot for corruption

The abbot has repeatedly failed to appear before investigators when ordered, leading to the issue of an arrest warrant. He cited poor health as his reason for not appearing in court.

Phra Dhammajayo has been charged with money-laundering and receiving stolen property, reports the Bangkok Post, but his followers have claimed the case is a conspiracy to besmirch the temple’s reputation.

His followers also claim the allegations were politically motivated.

Phra Dhammachayo and his foundation is accused of receiving more than Bt1.4 billion (US$39.7 million) in cheques from Supachai Srisupa-aksorn, a former chief of the cooperative. Supachai is now serving a jail term in a related embezzlement case.

Thailand’s Immigration Bureau has also blocked the abbott from leaving the country.

Cancer risk from coffee downgraded

By Nick Triggle-15 June 2016

The cancer risk of coffee has been downgraded, with experts concluding there is inadequate evidence to suggest it causes the disease.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, had classed coffee as "possibly" carcinogenic since 1991.

This was because of a link to bladder cancer.

But the expert group has now decided there is insufficient evidence to say whether it causes cancer or not.

Drinking very hot drinks - above normal drinking temperature - probably does though, it has concluded.

The IARC said this was because of the link to oesophageal cancer.

But the risk was only there for drinks consumed above 65C.

This was based on studies in places such as Iran, China and South America, where tea is often consumed at 70C.

The findings have been reached after 23 scientists reviewed hundreds of different studies.

PHILLIP HAYSON/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

What should we make of this?

In a nutshell, experts are admitting they just don't know whether coffee causes cancer. Previously, they had said it was possible it did.

But what is also important to note is that this cancer-classification process has nothing to do with the likelihood of someone getting cancer, just whether something can cause it.

For example, the category 1 carcinogens - where experts are convinced the agent causes the disease - include smoking tobacco and eating processed meat.

But smoking increases the risk of cancer twentyfold, whereas regularly eating processed meat doesn't even double it.

Previously the IARC thought it was possible coffee caused cancer. That was not a judgment on the chances of getting it from drinking coffee, just that there was a link.

Now the evidence is judged to be insufficient to say either way.

But will this make a difference to coffee drinkers? It's doubtful. Most probably never even considered cancer when sipping their morning cuppa even when it was classified as a risk.

The IARC runs a register of environmental causes of cancer.

There is a scale ranging from category 1 - including activities such as smoking - where the evidence is convincing, to category 4, where there appears to be no risk.

Since 1991, coffee has been in category 2B - reflecting what was then seen as a possible link to bladder cancer.

Now, it has been switched to category 3, which means it cannot be classified.

The IARC also noted a reduced risk for coffee drinkers of cancers of the liver and womb.

Dr Rachel Thompson, of the World Cancer Research Fund, said the findings reflected the emerging research.

She said tea drinkers in the UK should not be alarmed though.

"These new findings don't mean that you can no longer enjoy hot drinks," she said.

"It is the very hot temperatures that have been identified as a cancer risk, and so, when drinking tea or other hot drinks, just let it cool down for a few minutes, especially if you're not adding any milk."

National Coffee Association president Bill Murray said: "This finding is great news and highly significant for coffee drinkers and confirms evidence from an avalanche of studies by highly respected and independent scientists."

Impunity and Justice: Why the UN Human Rights Council Must Stay Engaged in Sri Lanka

As the United Nations Human Rights Council meets in Geneva this month, it’s time to assess how far Sri Lanka has come since last year’s passage of a landmark resolution to promote reconciliation, accountability and human rights.

By Alan Keenan | @akeenan23

Resolution 30/1, adopted in October, was a major achievement for the Council – and an important milestone in Sri Lanka’s journey toward lasting peace and a just settlement of its decades-old ethnic conflict. Following years of bitter resistance by the previous Sri Lankan government to international efforts to encourage post-war reconciliation and accountability, the new government led by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe displayed admirable political courage in negotiating a consensus resolution containing many of the elements needed for a sustainable peace.

However, Sri Lanka today is not yet the success story that many in the international community claim it to be. Progress on implementing the Council resolution has been slow and often grudging, and there are growing doubts about the government’s political will and ability to see the complex process through. For Sri Lanka to stay on the path toward recovery, it needs sustained international support and engagement.

Speaking at this critical juncture, High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein this week encouraged the government to prepare a comprehensive strategy on transitional justice with “inclusive and meaningful engagement from all Sri Lankans”. As Zeid prepares to report to the Council on 29 June on progress toward implementation of the resolution, member states should send strong public and private messages to the Sri Lankan government, offering financial, capacity-building and other tangible support for its efforts – as well as clear suggestions for improvement.

The Reform Agenda

The government has adopted an ambitious reform agenda to address the many challenges the country faces: keeping a beleaguered economy afloat, strengthening the rule of law, tackling corruption, drafting a new constitution, promoting reconciliation efforts with the Tamil population in the north and east, and establishing a multi-pronged set of transitional justice mechanisms agreed with the Council.

Unfortunately, the entire program risks collapse unless new energy, focus and resources are brought to bear. A weakening economy and slow going on most other fronts have led to waning support from the key constituencies that brought the government to power – Tamils, Muslims and reform-minded Sinhalese. Belief in the possibility of meaningful progress is fading across the board.

REPORT | Sri Lanka: Jumpstarting the Reform Process

Efforts of the national unity government – a coalition between President Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP) – have been weakened by a variety of factors. First, the government lacks technical capacity and trained personnel on key issues. Second, there is no unified strategy for advancing reforms – with the SLFP split between Sirisena’s wing and supporters of ex-President Mahinda Rajapaksa, and often at odds with the UNP, particularly on economic policy. Third, the administration has not mounted a coherent public relations campaign to sell its successes and build support for the more politically controversial aspects of its program, including transitional justice.

The most critical element of the reform agenda is how to tackle the entrenched culture of impunity, which has fed multiple bloody insurgencies over the past 40 years. Sri Lanka must seize this narrow window of opportunity to address the problem. Failure to succeed in this effort will undermine virtually all the other reforms the government says it wants to achieve. Progress toward ending impunity is essential to reestablishing the rule of law for all ethnic communities, reasserting civilian control over the military and building the trust needed for a lasting political solution.

Notable progress has been made toward a new constitution, as parliament has begun to meet as a constitutional assembly. The report of the Public Representations Committee, tasked with gathering ideas from the public, was issued at the end of May. It endorsed a range of bold reforms, including the incorporation of a bill of rights. The committee failed to reach agreement, however, on expanded devolution of power for Tamil-majority regions in the north and east, a key issue noted in the Council resolution. With parliamentary consensus likely to fall well short of long-standing Tamil demands for federalism and national self-determination, the government and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) could face a major challenge in winning Tamil backing in the referendum needed to approve the new constitution, with the pro-engagement leadership of the TNA weakened as a result.

Transitional Justice

Sri Lanka has made only halting efforts toward developing the four transitional justice mechanisms pledged to the Council – a truth commission, reparations and missing persons offices and, most controversially, an independent special court for war crimes with international participation. The national unity government should be encouraged to design and sell its Council-mandated transitional justice efforts as part and parcel of its larger agenda to promote “good governance” and the rule of law, which has widespread public backing in all communities. Meanwhile, donors should deepen their support – through training, equipment and personnel – to build the Sri Lankan state’s capacity to establish effective justice mechanisms, strengthen criminal investigations and improve witness protection.

Transitional justice efforts should be sold as part and parcel of the good governance agenda.

In advance of this month’s Council sessions, the government has scrambled to finalise a package of reforms it can present as evidence of progress. At the top of the list is the Office of Missing Persons (OMP), legislation for which was approved by the cabinet on 24 May and is expected to be presented to parliament in the coming days. While the proposed office would likely help thousands of families seeking information about their loved ones who went missing during the civil war, it has been criticised for lacking any effective link to criminal investigations and thereby potentially maintaining impunity for large-scale enforced disappearances. The government has also been criticised for its hurried and minimal consultation with victims’ families prior to finalising the proposed legislation. Council members should encourage the government to submit the draft bill, prior to parliamentary approval, to the national consultations process that is due to get underway by the end of June – both to improve the quality of the legislation and to win back flagging confidence among victims’ groups and civil society.

The government’s recent ratification, in May, of the UN Convention on Disappearances is a welcome move. Incorporating the treaty in domestic legislation, as promised to the Council, will be even more significant. These steps will mean very little, however, if the government remains unable or unwilling to prosecute cases of abduction and murder, particularly those for which they already have substantial evidence.

International participation is essential to the credibility of the special court.

Council members and the High Commissioner should press the government to follow through on its commitment to meaningful forms of international participation on the proposed special court for war crimes. The Council resolution specifies the importance of including “Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators” in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism. Under domestic pressure, the president and prime minister backed away from promises to the UN and announced there will be no foreign judges. Given the decades-long failures of government commissions and judicial processes, international participation is essential to the credibility and effectiveness of the special court. Council members should insist that the government holds the line on the involvement of international judges, at least in observer roles, and devises concrete plans for outside experts to be included in investigations, prosecutions, forensics and witness protection.

Prosecution of military personnel, particularly with foreign legal involvement, was always sure to be the most controversial aspect of transitional justice for many Sinhalese. There needs to be a clear strategy to address Sinhala nationalist resistance, including by actively promoting the benefits of transitional justice for all communities. Instead, the president, prime minister and other key officials have regularly retreated when criticised by Rajapaksa and his nationalist supporters.

Even the most optimistic assessments of the government’s transitional justice policies suggest the government intends to postpone any moves to establish the promised special court until after March 2017, when the High Commissioner is due to issue his final report on implementation of the Council’s 2015 resolution. While justice for crimes committed by both sides during the war will necessarily take a long time to achieve, further delays in even initiating the process will only confirm suspicions that the government is merely buying time until the international community loses interest.

Legislation to establish transitional justice mechanisms must be on the books by next year.

Council members should press the government to begin building the legal, institutional and staffing capacity needed for all the promised transitional justice mechanisms. The High Commissioner should insist that legislation needed to establish these mechanisms must be on the books by March 2017, in advance of that month’s Human Rights Council session. These measures should include legislation to criminalise war crimes and crimes against humanity, and to establish command responsibility as a mode of criminal liability.

Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption

Confidence is faltering in the government’s commitment to restore the rule of law, a pledge that was central to the January 2015 election of Sirisena. Investigating complex financial crimes and political killings under the former regime is undoubtedly a slow, difficult and dangerous work. The challenges are made more acute by the involvement of key figures from the old regime still serving as ministers, bureaucrats and law enforcement officials, some of whom are known to be actively obstructing progress. There is increasing evidence that senior officials in the Attorney General’s department and in the military have blocked important criminal investigations.

Sri Lankan opposition party workers erect a cutout of their presidential candidate Maithripala Sirisena in the north central town of Polonnaruwa on 30 November 2014. AFP/Lakruwan Wanniarachchi

The government must take steps to dismiss or discipline obstructionists. Officials who lobbied to undermine UN efforts to support justice and accountability under the Rajapaksa regime should also be removed from policymaking positions. In order to address long-criticised conflicts of interest in the Attorney General’s department, it is necessary to establish a permanent, independent special prosecutor for serious human rights cases in which state officials are alleged perpetrators.

It is necessary to establish an independent special prosecutor for serious human rights cases involving state officials.

Meanwhile, credible reports indicate that witnesses in criminal cases implicating the security forces are facing serious threats. The government has yet to establish an effective witness protection program or revise its weak witness protection law, in compliance with a clause in last year’s Council resolution promising to do so.

Progress on key criminal cases is needed to reverse the growing sense that the national unity government is not substantially different from previous corrupt and inefficient governments. Progress on less politically controversial cases is also essential to rebuild confidence that the government is willing to tackle impunity and can establish a credible process of accountability for war-related crimes.

Adoption of some important legal and institutional reforms is said to be very close – including legislation to replace the repressive Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) with new laws consistent with human rights standards, as required by the Council resolution. However, recent arrests under the PTA have violated due process and reawakened fears of a return to “white van” abductions, which were a primary means for hundreds of enforced disappearances under the Rajapaksa government. Detainees are still being held under the sweeping provisions of the law.

The government should not wait for repeal of the PTA before ending violations.

Council members need to press the Sri Lankan government to end abuses by the Terrorism Investigation Division of the police (TID), which continues to detain suspects without charge, often in aggressive and humiliating ways. TID must be made to follow established procedures – recently reiterated by Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Commission – on detentions, and personnel suspected of involvement in serious abuses must be suspended, investigated and prosecuted. The government should not wait for repeal of the PTA and the establishment of a new system before acting to end current violations.

Confidence Building and Military Reform

On ethnic issues and the legacy of the war, the president and other senior officials have set a more conciliatory tone – seen most recently in the much less triumphalist commemoration of the seventh anniversary of the end of the civil war. Nonetheless, the past six months have seen very little progress on the key issues of concern to Tamils in the north and east – concerns reflected in the text of last year’s Council resolution: the release of hundreds of detainees held under the PTA, the return of land held by the military, investigations into the tens of thousands of forcibly disappeared people, and the removal of the military from civilian affairs in the north and east. Indeed, progress has been so slow and grudging that what were intended to be confidence-building measures have become confidence-weakening measures.

Trust in the government’s good intentions has also been damaged by the tight and often intimidating surveillance of Tamil civil society activists by military and police, and by unwarranted arrests. The president and prime minister appear wary of asserting their authority over the military, and there has been little movement toward developing a longer-term plan for security sector reform. The inability to gain effective civilian control over the military is one factor behind the government’s slow implementation of its other Council commitments. This in turn undermines public confidence, especially among Tamils, in the government’s political will to guarantee justice for all.

Donors should use their leverage to encourage the long hard work of restructuring the military for peacetime duties.

The government should be encouraged to start developing a comprehensive plan for security sector reform. Such a plan should aim to reduce the military’s social, political and economic footprint in the north and east, as well as to include job training, re-employment programs and psycho-social support for demobilised soldiers. Many ex-soldiers are severely traumatised and caught in continued cycles of violence – in the home and on the street, sometimes as hired thugs for politicians. Foreign militaries now working more closely with Sri Lanka should make offers of technical support for security sector reform a central component of their re-engagement. Donors should use their leverage – including the prospect of additional deployments of Sri Lankan troops as UN peacekeepers – to encourage the long hard work of restructuring the military for peacetime duties.

As the past nine months of fitful and partial implementation of last year’s consensus resolution make clear, the political challenges ahead in Sri Lanka are considerable. For there to be a realistic chance of ending the culture of impunity and establishing effective forms of transitional justice, the Human Rights Council and other UN mechanisms will need to remain engaged beyond March 2017. Consideration of Sri Lanka by the Council remains one of the primary factors driving action – as is evident by the flurry of activity in recent weeks.  Member states should begin discussions now about what form continued engagement can take. Among other options, Council members should encourage the Sri Lankan government to invite an expanded presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, whose resources in Sri Lanka remain insufficient to meet the many pressing demands.

Sri Lanka’s much-improved engagement with UN agencies and human rights mechanisms is to be welcomed. But it is not enough. What all of Sri Lanka’s communities need and deserve now are tangible changes in legislation and concrete implementation of its international promises and obligations on the ground.

Implementation of UN resolution is the key, insists UK

(By Our Special Correspondent in Geneva)

: June 17, 2016

The ‘implementation’ of the UN resolution on Sri Lanka “is the key” for reconciliation and lasting peace is the island nation, says Julian Braithwaite, the UK Ambassador and Permanent Representative for Geneva.

Noting that it was “extremely important that the issue is coming back here to the 32 nd session of the UN Human Rights Council this month,” he said that the resolution passed in September last year was hugely crucial for Sri Lanka as it set up “the path way for reconciliation and the process for peace building after so many years of conflict.

“But the implementation is the key. It’s all about implementation on the ground. We know how difficult that is and we know politically it remain difficult. But we delighted that this issue is coming back here,” 

Ambassador Julian Braithwaite told Ceylonews in an exclusive interview at the UNHRC complex in Geneva.

“The High Commission will be giving his update and the Human Rights Council will be able to again fully endorse the process and provide its support to progress in implementation of the resolution that we believe and we all fervently hope will lead to the reconciliation and the accountability that is so necessary for lasting peace, democracy and reconciliation between the communities in Sri Lanka”.

UN Human Rights Chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein at the opening day of the 32 nd session on Monday said that Sri Lanka requires “a comprehensive strategy on transitional justice” to fulfil its international commitment to implement the UN resolution.

Prince Zeid also said the process “will require the inclusive and meaningful engagement of all Sri Lankans”.

Asked whether the High Commissioner’s statement was an indication that Sri Lanka doesn’t have a comprehensive strategy in its current approach, Ambassador Braithwaite said that the Colombo government was “working on developing one”.

“This process will clearly take time and they are working through an enormous amount of change and building the political support in Parliament. I understand all those difficulties. We want to use this session of the council to give our support, our endorsement and our encouragement to go further with the implementation, to take those brave political decisions that are necessary to continue the momentum that we believe will lead to genuine reconciliation and peace,” the UK Ambassador said.

The UN Human Rights Chief has often slammed the Sri Lanka’s judiciary as one that raemains “highly politicised, unbalanced, unreliable” over the past several decades and the last year Human Rights Council resolution demanded international participation in the accountability mechanisms dealing with international crimes and gross human rights violations.

Sri Lanka’s new government leaders including President Mathripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, despite having co-sponsored the resolution and promised the full implementation, have rejected the international participation in the accountability mechanism.

When asked how the UK government, which was in the forefront in bringing a UN-led investigation, would ensure the foreign aspect in the accountability mechanism, Ambassador Braithwaite said: 

“Implementation of all the resolution aspects of the resolution is important”.

“We understand that this is matter of a domestic political process. In order to do so, we do fully support the implementation of all of those elements of the resolution. We will remain engaged and stay focused. 

We will ensure that the Human Rights Council remains engaged providing support that is necessary as we go through this important (and we understand it is difficult), hugely important process for Sri Lanka,” he said.

On 29 June, High Commissioner is expected to provide an oral update on human rights situations in Sri Lanka followed by a general debate.

Sources in Sri Lanka’s Permanent Mission in Geneva told Ceylonews that Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera is also expected to make statement at the Council on that day.

Sri Lanka’s Democratic Transition: A New Era for the U.S.–Sri Lanka Relationship

By Lisa Curtis-Senior Research Fellow
Asian Studies Center

Testimony before The House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific

June 9, 2016 

My name is Lisa Curtis. I am Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy for the victims of the severe flooding and landslides which wracked Sri Lanka last month. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those who lost their lives in the disaster as well as those who lost their homes and other property. The people of Sri Lanka have demonstrated their strength and resilience in the face of terrible natural disasters in the past, and I have no doubt they will overcome this current crisis.

Introduction

There has been a rapid turn-around in U.S.–Sri Lankan relations in the past 18 months since President Maithripala Sirisena took power. Passage of the 19th amendment just a little over a year ago was a milestone on the path back to democracy. The democratic reform process is enabling closer relations between the U.S. and Sri Lanka, whose geographic position at the maritime crossroads of Asia and the Middle East has become more significant with China’s rise.

In addition, the Sri Lankan government’s decision to co-sponsor a U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution that called for post-war reconciliation and an investigation of alleged war crimes was a promising step, kindling hopes for a genuine accountability process that would help foster national unity and reconciliation. The human rights community noted that the adoption of the resolution could mark a turning point for human rights in Sri Lanka.[1]

However, nine months after the adoption of the U.N. resolution, there is concern that the human rights reform process has stalled, and that the government is squandering an opportunity to reconcile the country and address Tamil grievances in a way that ensures that Sri Lanka will never again become embroiled in civil war.

U.S.–Sri Lankan Relations: A New Chapter

U.S.–Sri Lankan relations have been on an upswing ever since Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena defeated Mahinda Rajapaksa in the January 2015 election. Sirisena defected from Rajapaksa’s cabinet and ran against him on pledges to restore parliamentary democracy and rein in corruption. President Sirisena formed a coalition government with the opposition United National Party (UNP) led by Ranil Wickremesinghe and quickly made changes, including lifting media restrictions and allowing foreigners to travel to the war-torn northern part of the country. Five months after Sirisena took the helm, the Sri Lankan parliament passed Article 19 to curb the powers of the presidency by reinstating a two-term limit to the presidency, limiting the president’s ability to dissolve parliament, reviving the Constitutional Council, and establishing independent commissions to oversee the judiciary and police.

The U.S. has welcomed Sri Lanka’s return to parliamentary democracy. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip to Colombo in May 2015 shortly after the historical vote to curb the powers of the presidency was the first visit by a U.S. Secretary of State to Sri Lanka in more than 40 years, marking a milestone in relations.

Read More

The Reality Beneath The Sansoni Report

By Rajan Hoole –June 18, 2016

Dr. Rajan Hoole

Antecedents Of July 1983 & The Foundations Of Impunity – Part VIII

The UNP’s New Culture of State Violence

The time was just after the General Elections of 21st July 1977, when Jayewardene’s UNP was returned with a five-sixths majority. The climate then created by unleashing violence on supporters of the defeated opposition is described in an article by Neil Dias titled 1977 Victims in The Island of 29th August 1994, just after elections where the UNP was defeated:

“While the post-election violence was preceded by a pledge given by the victor [i.e. Jayewardene] at the poll that he will give a period of leave after the election results to the law enforcement agencies, the plunder of August 1977 was heralded by the call of the same leader to the Sinhalese mob to the effect that they had lost their patience… [i.e. speech in Parliament below]

“[During July 1977 in the Kegalle District], houses of hapless victims living a few yards from police stations, court houses and bungalows of judicial officers were burnt and plundered with gay abandon. Those going to complain at police stations were turned away. Later, complaints were rejected by the courts as belated….”

Former Chief Justice Milliani Claude Sansoni

Once the Police Force had reached a point where its direction from the highest to the lowest levels was to lend complicity to such perfidy, it was bound to create a break in the character and morale of the Force. The more unscrupulous among them would have lost no time in becoming political commissars.

We give below an extract from Prime Minister Jayewardene’s speech in Parliament on 18th August 1977, two days after the first incidents in Jaffna:

“…we are still one nation [and] this Government is elected to govern the whole Island… The vast majority of the people in this country have not got the restraint and the reserve that Members of Parliament, particularly those in the front ranks, have been used to. They become restive when they hear such remarks as that a separate state is to be formed; that Trincomalee is to be the capital of that state; that Napoleon had said that Trincomalee is the key to the Indian Ocean; and therefore Trincomalee is going to be the capital of the state…

“Whatever it is, when statements of that type are said and the newspapers carry them throughout the island, and when you say you are not violent but that violence may be used in time to come, what do you think the other people in Sri Lanka would do? How will they react? “If you want to fight let there be a fight; if it is peace, let there be peace!”

After a prolonged applause by members of his party, Jayewardene added: 

Read More

India-rebuilt Lanka stadium where 23 human skeletons were discovered

June 18, 2016

The India-renovated Duraiappah sports stadium in the embattled Sri Lankan city of Jaffna had once laid bare the hidden brutalities of the Tamil civil war when at least 23 human skeletons, including those of some disappeared children buried secretly in the playground, were discovered in 1999.

The stadium, named after a former Jaffna mayor, the late Alfred Thambirajah Duraiappah, Tamil-dominated city in northern Sri Lanka, suffered huge damages and remained abandoned during the civil war.

Its renovation was started in 1999 when the conflict-ravaged northern areas saw relative bouts of peace and calm. The moves to renovate and reopen the playground were hailed as signs of normalcy in the Jaffna peninsula until it exposed what laid buried deep within.

The skeletons, including those of children, were unearthed when the stadium was being refurbished, according to a 2002 report on Sri Lanka child soldiers by Daya Somasundaram, a renowned psychiatrist in northern Sri Lanka.

The bodies were believed to be of those arrested by Sri Lanka security forces and later allegedly killed in what activists say were extra-judicial murders.

Leaving the brutally nightmarish past behind, the Sri Lanka government aided by India got the stadium renovated at a cost of Rs 7.1 crore -- all borne by New Delhi.

The stadium now flaunts two pavilions, a gymnasium, a sprawling playground and incandescent lights.

It has two galleries that can seat 1,850 spectators. The stadium could be utilised for all types of sports and track events, except cricket.

The stadium on Saturday hosted an event to celebrate the second anniversary of the International Day of Yoga. Some 8,000 people were said to have performed yoga in the presence of at least 1,500 spectators watching from the galleries.

According to Indian officials here, the renovated stadium will provide the necessary infrastructure to promote sports and recreational activities, and benefit more than 50,000 students from different schools and educational institutions in the Northern Province.

The project also aims to assist the overall development of the youth of the Northern Province.

The second major event that is expected to be held at the stadium is National Games 2016 in September, which will be hosted by the Ministry of Sports, Sri Lanka.

--IANS

sar/hs/vm

SRI LANKA: DEFENCE MINISTRY REFUSES TO PROVIDE LIST OF SURRENDERED PERSONS

( Dozens of former LTTE leaders missing after surrendered themselves to the Military in May 2009)

18/06/2016

The Commission to Investigate into Complaints Regarding Missing Persons informed last week that it had reached a bottleneck as the Ministry of Defence had not complied with a request made by the Commission asking for the list of names of those who had surrendered to the security forces during the terminal phase of the war.

Chairman of the Commission, retired High Court Judge Maxwell Parakrama Paranagama said that sometime back the Commission had requested the said information from the Ministry of Defence but had not received any reply back.

It was previously reported that the Department of Prisons too in a similar manner had not complied with requests with regards to information about those who had surrendered during the final stages of the war. Elsewhere, it was also reported that requests by the Commission for lists of names and details of Sri Lankans living as refugees and political asylum seekers in India and certain European countries, had been denied on the grounds of domestic laws and security related reasons.

“The Ministry of Defence directed the Department of Prisons of the Ministry of Prison Reforms to provide information about prisoners, which we received. We had reason to believe that the Ministry of Defence had some more information including about people under detention. Information concerning these we did not receive,” he said.

“We will make an effort again next week to contact the Ministry of Defence in this regard. Foreign countries declined to divulge information about those in camps as they had their own rules and regulations. We wrote through the previous Foreign Ministry under the earlier Government. While the United Kingdom wrote back saying that they cannot give the said information, other countries did not write back,” he added.

Military Spokesman Brigadier Jayanath Jayaweera said the matter was a sensitive one.

Defence Secretary Karunasena Hettiarachchi said that while he did not know whether the previous request for the said information had come to him, if a fresh request in writing was made by the Commission to him, the Ministry would make available information that was in the possession of the Ministry.

(Original Caption: Defence Ministry Snubs)

By Ruwan Laknath Jayakody and Arthur Wamanan / The Nation

No torture or humiliation of terror suspects

President issues strict orders to Police and Armed Services

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Police and Armed Forces have been given new directions by President Maithripala Sirisena on the arrest and detention of persons over terrorism related offences. The move on Friday came in the wake of the ongoing United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions in Geneva. An oral brief on Sri Lanka is to be given by Human Rights Commissioner Zaid Ra’ad Al Hussein on June 27.

President Sirisena has said the person making the arrest or detention shall identify himself by name and rank to those arrested or to any relative or friend. Every person arrested or detained, he has said, shall be informed of the reason. Searches of women and girls should only be made by other women “with strict regard to their dignity and bodily integrity,” the directive says.
In a preamble to the signed five-page directive, President Sirisena has noted that as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and Minister of Defence, he is of “the opinion that it is necessary to issue the directions to the Heads of Armed Forces and the Police.” This, he points out, is to enable the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) “to exercise and perform its powers, functions and duties and for the purpose of ensuring the fundamental rights of persons….”

The directive will apply to those arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and when arrests are made during a State of Emergency when in force. A similar guideline was issued when Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga was in office too.
President Sirisena has said the Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Order (in the case of the Police) and the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (in the case of the Armed Forces) should formulate a “uniform document” which will contain the name and rank of the person making the arrest and the reasons for it. It will also have to record the place of arrest. If it is not possible to issue such a document, he has said that a Police officer should record such a case in the Information Book (IB). Those in the Armed Forces will be required to report to the Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station who will record a statement in the Information Book. Both Police and the Armed Forces will be required to issue a document when a vehicle is seized stating the reasons and the name of the person doing so.

Among other highlights in President Sirisena’s directive:

• Prompt action to be taken when an arrested person is seeking medical help.
• Attorneys-at-law representing those arrested should be permitted to meet them.
• Adequate basic amenities should be provided in all places of detentions “which would not make the detention itself a torture and humiliation.”
• Detention should be in keeping with the established fundamental rights enshrined in Article 13 (5) of the Constitution that an accused is presumed innocent until he or she is proved guilty.

Evidence Of Rajapaksa (State) Sponsorship Of Hate

By Hilmy Ahamed –June 18, 2016

Hilmy Ahamed

Two years have passed since the pogrom of Aluthgama, the black June for the Muslims in Sri Lanka. The government of President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe (Yahapalanaya) has done sweet nothing for those affected by extremist violence in Aluthgama and Beruwela. Demands for a commission of inquiry on religious hate and to punish the perpetrators have fallen on deaf years. The government is only interested in appeasing the international community in Geneva with regard to the conflict in the North. The culprits of Aluthgama continue to roam freely, and are beginning to regroup. They will unleash hate once more.

Harin Fernando, the Minister of Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructure revealed in parliament that the convener of the Ravana Balaya Ven. Iththakande Saddhatissa Thero, had been provided three vehicles by former Minister Wimal Weerawansa’s Ministry of Housing Development. This was at a cost of Rs. 2 million a year. He said this in parliament during the debate on the no confidence motion against Hon. Ravi Karunanayake. These perks and privileges had been given to these extremists from our tax money, paid without a doubt through dubious means. What were Ven. Iththakande Saddhatissa Thero’s responsibilities at the Ministry of Housing Development to merit three vehicles?

Ven. Iththakande Saddhatissa Thero is one of the most militant and extremist Buddhist monks in the hate campaign against the Evangelical Christians and Muslims. The Defense Ministry during the Rajapaksa era too has been accused of providing land rovers and other high end luxury vehicles to the instigators of the Aluthgama violence, the Bodu Bala Sena and Ven. Galagoda Atete Gnanasara Thero. Two Muslims lost their lives, hundreds were injured and hospitalized, and billions worth of business and property were destroyed in this violence two years ago. The government has not taken any initiatives to inquire and arrest those responsible for this communal violence.

Buddhist religious leaders and their places of worship probably need state patronage where true Buddhism is preached and practiced. What right do these extremist Monks who unleashed so much violence against the minorities have, to enjoy perks and privileges from state institutions? Is it not time for the government of Yahapalanaya to investigate these excesses committed by politicians or government officials and punish them for financial irregularities? Have they followed financial policy guidelines? If they cannot prove with evidence as to how they provided these facilities from state institutions to those who were not directly involved with the administration, they would be guilty as charged. What was the service these monks rendered to government institutions? There would not be a need for extensive investigations or proof of misuse by the FCID, CID or other investigating mechanisms. The evidence would be there in black and white. Money and services have been extended to private persons without any service rendered in return. The politicians of the previous regime seems to have done well in hiding their tracks and now fingers are pointed at the public officials who had approved and made illegal payments from various government institutions. For the first time in the history of Sri Lanka, there is the possibility of punishing public servants for being political stooges. If enforced, this would ensure that future public servants would not be party to politicking with public funds.

Read More

Arjuna Mahendran:PM’s Asset or Albatross?

The Prime Minister may have had the best of expectations in getting the present governor appointed in the aftermath of 2015 January election. He may have expected to have a trustworthy technical asset in his new appointee. Instead of being a technical asset, the governor has become a political albatross for the Prime Minister and a betrayal of the promises of good governance.

by Rajan Philips

( June 19, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The name in the title notwithstanding, this article is not so much about an individual as it is about the politics and propriety of public institutions and the promise of good governance. The controversy over re-appointing the current governor of the Central Bank to a full six year term seems to be dividing the government and the parliament right down the middle, even though the division is clearly along party lines. Outside of parliament, there is a chorus of protests against the reappointment and persistent appeals to the President not to reappoint the governor when the current term runs out on June 30. And those who are protesting and appealing actively campaigned for Maithripala Sirisena in the January 2015 presidential election. A good number of them are also traditional UNP supporters, drawn from the upper echelons of society and familiar with the role and function of the Central Bank and its governor.

The controversy, if it is not resolved, will be the first standoff between President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, who until now have been cohabiting happily like two peas in a pod. By itself the cohabitation so far has been a commendable achievement, given the uncompromising nature of our political traditions and culture. At the same time, the possibility that the central bank career of one individual could threaten Sri Lanka’s summit cohabitation is demonstrative of the silly depths to which the country has sunk in political cronyism. And political cronyism is one area where the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government has much in common with the maladjusted Rajapaksa regime despite all the promises about good governance. The parliament, the cabinet and public institutions are all consumed by cronyism. The Central Bank governorship is one of many glaring instances.

Political preference always plays a role in senior appointments in public institutions – be it in the judiciary, the executive, or armed forces. But no harm is done so long as appointments are made from among a list of candidates who are equally qualified and competent, and there is no quid pro quo understanding between the appointing authority and the appointee. President Truman used to say that a President may expect a judge whom he appoints to the Supreme Court to give rulings favourable to the government, but it never happens that way. In fact, it must never happen like that and what is good for the judiciary should also be good for any public institution including the Central Bank.

Sri Lanka’s Central Bank is perhaps the youngest of the country’s major institutions. Established two years after independence, it has had 13 governors in over 66 years. In the past, the bank governors have generally tended to mind their business in a professional manner without getting muddied in politics. There were always criticisms of the bank from the political Left over differences in economic policy and direction, but the integrity of individual governors and the institution were never in question except for some early controversies. Everything changed over the last ten years involving the current and preceding governors, with cronyism creeping into the appointment of the bank governor.

Crony-business as usual

During the last years of the Rajapaksa government there were stories about a power troika and its Tuesday tea meetings. The troika apparently included the Defence Secretary, the Governor of the Central Bank and the Chief Justice. Their hold on power and weekly musings were cut short by the January 2015 election. The Secretary and the Governor resigned immediately without any fuss, but the Chief Justice had to be fired despite pathetic pleas and promises of favourable rulings. Replacements for the Secretary and the Chief Justice were found internally and based on seniority. But the replacement for the Governor was parachuted from Singapore at the Prime Minister’s choosing and insistence. It was not the PM’s finest moment of judgement, or an instance of good governance. The appointment was inappropriate even as it was a continuation of cronyism from the previous regime.

What was at issue was not the qualification or the competence of the new replacement, but the process of making the appointment. With only 18 months left in a six year term an interim appointment could surely have been made from internal candidates, pending a permanent appointment that would have followed the proper process for making such appointments. The promise of putting in place a due process and abiding by it was one of the key promises of good governance. It turned out to be the first promise to be flouted and that too within a fortnight of a historic election. It was as though the political and the personal risk taken by Maithripala Sirisena in leaving the Rajapaksa cabinet to become the common opposition candidate, Ranil Wickremesinghe’s selfless sacrifice of presidential aspirations, all the efforts of those who boldly campaigned against a vindictive regime, and the daring determination of the voting public – were all meant to make a favoured individual to become the governor of the Central Bank. Put another way, it was not a business-as-usual election and it was not meant to be crony-business as usual after the election.

To add injury to insult, rather than demonstrating extraordinary competence and flair in the performance of his duties the new appointee has turned out to be worse than business-as-usual even in comparison to his beleaguered predecessor. There have been serious allegations of conflicts of interests and even allegations of incompetence made by competent observers. Whether they are true or not, whether they have been proved in court or not, are irrelevant to the question of reappointment. What is relevant is that such questions have been raised and they are not going away.

Government ministers are getting it backwards in arguing that the governor should not be penalised when no court has found him to be guilty. And they are lying when they insist that the Supreme Court has cleared the governor of wrongdoing. The Court has made no pronouncement on the governor at all. Why should it? No one wants to punish the governor for anything that has not been proved. The question is whether he should be rewarded with a reappointment when there is so much controversy about him. Proving crime for punishment involves a much higher bar than the bar for selecting candidates for senior positions. And not being guilty of anything is not a qualification for appointment or reappointment.

The Prime Minister may have had the best of expectations in getting the present governor appointed in the aftermath of 2015 January election. He may have expected to have a trustworthy technical asset in his new appointee. Instead of being a technical asset, the governor has become a political albatross for the Prime Minister and a betrayal of the promises of good governance. He is also an unnecessary distraction to the positive purposes of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe cohabitation. Our public institutions have been corrupted immeasurably over the last ten or twenty years by political cronyism. The corrupt processes cannot be reversed in a hurry, but only step by step. For institutional reform, the steps must start at the top – from the highest position in every institution. The Central Bank is no exception. One would only hope that the government will not sacrifice the institution by way of restructuring the bank to reappoint the current governor with diminished powers. That would be a travesty.