Saturday, June 25, 2016

Cambodian PM Hun Sen rides motorbike without helmet, gets fined

Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Sen parks a motorbike as his arrives at a police station in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Friday. Pic: AP

24th June 2016

CAMBODIAN Prime Minister Hun Sen was slapped with a 15,000 riel (about US$3.75) fine for failing to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle during a visit to the Koh Kong province last Saturday.

According to the Khmer Times, Hun Sen was issued the fine on June 18 by the Srae Ambel district police for violating the traffic law. The motorcycle was also found to be without a number plate.

The traffic police officer, Sun Nem, who issued the fine to the leader said he was merely doing his job when issuing the ticket.

“He didn’t do something wrong seriously, just didn’t wear a helmet and the motorcycle had no number-plate. So I had to fine him to follow the traffic law,” Nem said, as quoted by the Khmer Times.

Nem added the motorcycle owner, Sen Dy, was also fined.

SEE ALSO: Cambodian govt pressures media to call Hun Sen ‘Lord Prime Minister’

On whether he was concerned about being fired or demoted for fining the prime minister, the officer said he was not as he followed the law. He said he was also acting on orders by his police unit chief.

“I have a role to enforce the traffic law for everyone properly. So whether you are powerful, poor, rich, small or high-ranking, if you break the law, you must be punished the same by the law.”

On his Facebook page, Hun Sen said last night that he accepted the fine, adding he would personally pay for it and for the motorcycle’s owner. The two were fined the same amount.

“I predicted that even though I apologized, the police still fined me because I committed a fault,” he said.

On the incident, Hun Sen also brushed aside parliamentary immunity accorded to him under the country’s constitution which could not stop him from being fined for breaking traffic laws.

“I am responsible for the fine of myself and the owner of the motorbike, though his bike had no number-plate. I am doing that just to help him and let him get the number-plate after that,” Hun Sen said.

“I appreciate Koh Kong province’s Srae Ampel district police who implement the law without discrimination and with independence and without any fear of powerful people, including the prime minister.”

Abortion pills: Everything you need to know

The abortion pill is available to women on the NHS CREDIT: ALAMY

21 JUNE 2016

Agroup of medical professionals from the Royal College of Nursing Congress are calling for women to be able to take abortion pills at home. Currently abortion law means women can only terminate pregnancies after approval from two doctors, and the procedure must be carried out at a hospital or clinic.

But nurses say these restrictions are “needlessly intrusive” and women should be able to take the abortion pill at home instead.

To help you make up your own mind, we’ve summed up the most important information about abortion pills.

What is the abortion pill?

The abortion pill is taken to end a pregnancy. It is made up of two parts. The first is mifepristone, which works by blocking the hormone progesterone. Without it, the uterus lining breaks down and the pregnant cannot continue.

Women must then take another pill called misoprostol which is put into the vagina and makes the womb contract. It causes cramping and bleeding similar to a miscarriage, and normally begins two hours after the tablet is inserted.

At what stage in pregnancy can you take it?

The abortion pill is typically used for early medical abortions (up to nine weeks of pregnancy).

But - depending on your doctor's advice - it can also be used for late medical abortion (from nine to 20 weeks of pregnancy). In this case, the process can take longer, as the woman may need to wait between taking the two pills.

It is also possible to use it for late abortion (20-24 weeks), which requires an overnight stay in hospital. It may also involve ‘feticide’ - where an injection is administered into the foetus to stop the heartbeat, before the abortion takes place. The pills are also taken and contractions can last six to 12 hours.

Women can also have surgical abortions from 15 weeks of pregnancy, where the cervix is gently stretched so a suction tube can be used to remove the foetus and tissue within the womb.

From seven to 15 weeks of pregnancy, they can have suction terminations, where gentle suction is used to remove the foetus from the womb.

Where can you get the abortion pill?

In England, Scotland and Wales, women can access abortions throughNHS services and clinics.

In Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, women have limited access to abortions, which must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic. It means many women travel to parts of the UK where it is more easily accessible, or use sites such as Women on Web - a Netherlands-based website that sells mifepristone and misoprostol - to buy pills.

How much does it cost?

The abortion pill is free on the NHS. But if obtained in a private clinic, it can be more expensive. Marie Stopes charges £546 for an abortion using the abortion pill, and between £644-£2,040 for surgical abortions. BPAS charges £545 for the abortion pill, and prices go up to £1,725 for late abortions. But the clinic offers discount rates for Irish women, and both organisations accept NHS payments.

Online, the pills can cost as little as £50 and in some cases, websites ask women to donate between 70 to 90 euros.

Why can’t you take it at home?

In some areas of the UK, the second dose of the abortion pill is administered on an outpatient basis, so the abortion can be managed at home. It means that when the contractions start, women can bleed in familiar surroundings.

But this is not the case everywhere, and many clinics and hospitals are bound by law to require women to take both pills on site. It means that women sometimes have to rush home to avoid the contractions and cramps beginning in public.

How long does the process last?

This depends on how far into pregnancy a woman is. If she has an early medical abortion, she can be given both pills at once. The cramps and bleeding will then start that day and usually last a few hours. Most women pass the pregnancy within four or five hours after taking misoprostol.

If a woman is more than nine weeks pregnant, she will typically take the misoprostol between one and three days later. When she takes it, she should pass the pregnancy within around six hours.

If a woman has a late medically induced abortion, contractions can last up to 12 hours and she will need to stay in hospital overnight.

Bridging the gap: Understanding the needs and aspirations of post-conflict Sri Lanka

Featured image courtesy Tamil Guardian

AINGKARAN K. on 06/24/2016

There have been numerous debates along the lines of Sri Lanka’s ability to deliver Transitional Justice (TJ), how the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) should approach the TJ process and the people’s right to know, yet little is known about Sri Lankans’ attitude towards restorative justice. The way Sri Lankans evaluate TJ measures is clearly determined by their ability to understand not only the recent past in general and key historical events, but also the root-causes of the ethnic conflict.

Unsurprisingly, in various forums it has been emphasized that figuring out what actually happened, is in fact crucial. However, there are several issues that need to be critically scrutinized before we finalise and implement the truth seeking mechanism which is extremely important for an effective TJ strategy which would hopefully address the root causes of the civil war.

Firstly, we need to decide whether we are going to focus on key incidents or incidents occurred in certain period(s) of time or the entire post-independence period, if we are going to focus either on certain periods or major (incidents) how we are going to decide which period or which incident. Secondly, if we are going to focus on certain period(s) or times, how we are going to ensure that the history of the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict can be described through these isolated narratives. Thirdly, whether Sri Lanka as a whole and different interest groups have the ability to sustain the pressure and tension of exposing difficult truths without jeopardising the reconciliation process. And finally, what Sri Lanka as a deeply divided country intends to do with the truth it seeks.

It is undisputable that figuring out what actually happened is vital for the implementation of the other three pillars namely, reparation, justice and accountability and institutional reforms or guarantees of non-recurrence. It is also equally undisputable that, although the truth sought through various truth-seeking mechanisms can be used for criminal prosecutions, it may potentially set back the process of reconciliation when all parties concerned view themselves as victims. Thus, the question remains – Does truth-seeking contribute to sustainable peace and reconciliation?

It is noteworthy that what occurred in the past thirty years or so was just one symptom of an underlying disease which is the institutionalised discrimination against minorities (ethnic, race, political ideology, gender, language, religious belief). But there are other elements that fanned the flames of hatred amongst different groups, including fear of extinction, ethnic politics, fear of loss of identity and increasing competition over vital resources. There have been several incidents which occurred over a period of 100 years – Sinhalese-Muslims riots in 1915, 1956 Gal Oya riots, Sinhalese-Tamil riots in 1958, Tamil-Muslim riot in April 1985, JVP insurgency in 1989 and forced expulsion of Muslims by LTTE in 1990 to name a few. A majority of Sri Lankans, especially the ones that get to elect top leaders need to understand that the minorities are only waging protests against inequalities and not against the majority community, whilst the minorities need to understand that the Sinhalese community has it is own reasons to feel threatened as they are a minority in the region. Nevertheless, majority of Sri Lankans believe in equality and respect for everyone, irrespective of religion, race, language, ethnicity and admire and respect the diversity of Sri Lanka which makes our country a unique and interesting place to live; recognizing our differences as plus, not minus; believing in co-existence and social harmony. Although, we cannot ignore the fact the radicals who are small in numbers, from time to time come up with fascinatingly creative ideas to sow hatred amongst different groups and it is our responsibility to prevent them from poisoning the rest of the country.

The GoSL has expressed its commitment towards achieving sustainable peace and providing a political solution to the ethnic conflict. However, the minority groups, especially the Tamils are sceptical as the GoSL has done little to nothing to win the hearts of the people or in building trust amongst different groups and in the government. Without attempting to address this trust deficit and find a common ground to create an attitudinal change for social justice and promote social harmony and to counter stereotypes, the initiatives taken by the government with or without the support of the international community isn’t going to reap anything fruitful. The obstacles faced by the Yahapalanaya government with regard to presenting of the 19th amendment to Parliament, challenges faced by the government in returning the lands back to Tamils and demilitarizing the North and East, and difficulties encountered in finding a common ground on constitutional reforms and solution for the national issue are but a few examples of conflicting understandings and ideologies amongst various groups. The Joint Opposition led by Parliamentarian Mahinda Rajapakse, who greatly benefitted from the political economy of hatred, which turned out to be short-lived, is waiting for an opportunity to make a comeback, has been a continuous threat to the current coalition government and the advisors to top leaders of the country as well as the leader of the opposition.

We have given ourselves, with the support of international community, a historic opportunity to address our differences. But the fact that a majority of the Sri Lankans lack sufficient knowledge of transitional justice, and the proposed transitional justice measures to be designed and implemented by the GoSL is an alarming state of affairs which will exclude them from this historic process. Although it is quite understandable and normal for the top leaders of the coalition government mostly, if not completely, made of self-serving politicians to maintain certain levels of secrecy to prevent extremist elements from manipulating the facts and dividing the parliamentarians in the Yahapalanaya government and the country, it is important to identify a strategy to educate the general public without jeopardising the reconciliation process to make this process inclusive and meaningful.

It is time for Sri Lankans to decide whether they want to continue to live in a system that favours certain people because they belong to one particular identity or follow a particular ideology or unite to build up a new system that protects anyone and everyone irrespective of that individual’s identity or ideology. It is undisputable that Sri Lanka is a diverse country and we need to learn to accept each other for who they are. For a country with a literacy rate of 92%, arguing who came first and who came last sounds highly preposterous.

Thus, it is critical for Sri Lankans to plan their strategy to bring a change from within to address the underlying root causes of the ethnic conflict in the most amicable way. Meanwhile it is the duty of top political leaders to introduce political reforms to counter the culture of ethnic politics and to send the message of reconciliation across their respective constituencies as well as the Island.

நீதியைப்பெற வெளிநாட்டு நீதிபதிகளே தேவையென மக்கள் நம்புகின்றனர்

Published by RasmilaD on 2016-06-24 09:07:22

தகவல் அறியும் உரிமை சட்டமூலத்தின் உண்மையான நோக்கம் அடையப்படுவதை உறுதி செய்யவேண்டுமென வலியுறுத்திய தமிழ்த்தேசியக் கூட்டமைப்பின் தலைவரும் எதிர்க் கட்சித் தலைவருமான இரா.சம்பந்தன் இச்சட்டத்தை நடைமுறைப்படுத்துவதில் அரசியல்வாதிகளின் தலையீடுகளை தவிர்க்கவேண்டுமெனவும் குறிப்பிட்டார்.

அத்துடன் இலங்கை நீதித்துறையின் சுயாதீனத்தன்மையும் பக்கச்சார்பின்மையும் அவற்றின் கௌரவமும் பாதுகாக்கப்படாத நிலை தொடர்வதன் காரணமாகவே தற்போதும் வெளிநாட்டு நீதிபதிகளினால் மட்டுமே நீதியை பெற்றுத்தர முடியும் என்று மக்கள் பலரும் நம்பிக்கை வைத்துள்ளதாகவும் அவர் சுட்டிக்காட்டினார்.

பாராளுமன்றத்தில் நேற்று வியாழக்கிழமை இடம்பெற்ற தகவல் அறியும் உரிமைக்கான சட்டமூல விவாதத்தில் கலந்துகொண்டு உரையாற்றுகையிலேயே அவர் மேற்கண்டவாறு தெரிவித்தார்.

அவர் மேலும் உரையாற்றுகையில்,

தகவலறியும் உரிமைக்கான சட்டமூலம் இந்த பாராளுமன்றத்தில் நீண்ட காலத்துக்கு முன்னதாகவே கொண்டு வரப்பட்டிருந்த போதிலும் துரதிர்ஷ்டவசமாக நிறைவேற்றப்பட்டிருக்கவில்லை. தகவல் அறியும் உரிமைக்கான சட்டமானது பல நாடுகளிலும் உள்ளது. இந்த சட்டமானது அடிப்படை உரிமைகளையும் ஜனநாயகத்தையும் பலப்படுத்துகிறது. அதன் விளைவாகவே மக்கள் பலமடைகின்றனர்.

மக்களின் இறையாண்மை அரசாங்கம், நிறைவேற்று அதிகாரம், சட்டவாக்கம், நீதித்துறை, அடிப்படை உரிமைகள் மற்றும் வாக்குரிமை ஆகியவற்றில் தங்கியுள்ளது. பல்வேறு நிறுவனங்களும் அதிகாரங்களை மக்களின் பெயரால் அனுபவிக்கின்றன.

ஆட்சி அதிகாரங்களை வெவ்வேறான ஆட்சிமுறை நிறுவனங்களான நிறைவேற்று அதிகாரம், சட்டவாக்கம் மற்றும் நீதித்துறை என்பன அனுபவிக்கின்றன. இவை ஒன்றில் இன்னொன்று தலையீடு செய்துக் கொள்வதில்லை. ஜனநாயகத்தையும் மக்களின் இறைமையையும் பாதுகாப்பதற்கு தகவல் அறியும் உரிமை அடிப்படையாகும்.

மக்கள் தங்களது இறையாண்மை, ஜனநாயகம் ஆகியவற்றைப் பாதுகாப்பதற்கு அர்த்தப்புஷ்டியான பங்களிப்பை வழங்க வேண்டும். அவ்வாறாயின் நாட்டில் இடம்பெறும் விடயங்கள் பற்றி குறிப்பாக ஆட்சிமுறை சம்பந்தமான விடயங்கள் தொடர்பாக அறிந்திருக்க வேண்டும்.

அனைத்து தகவல்களையும் முழுமையாக அறியத்தருவதென்பது நடைமுறை சாத்தியமற்றதாகும். தேசிய நலன் சார்ந்த விடயங்களை வெளிப்படுத்த முடியாது. ஆட்சிமுறை பற்றி நம்பகரமானதும் துல்லியமானதுமான தகவல்களை மக்கள் பெறக்கூடியதாக இருக்க வேண்டும்.

ஆட்சி என்பது குறித்தவொரு காலப்பகுதிக்கான பொறுப்பாளியாக உள்ளது. அதன் கடமைகளானது மக்களின் ஆய்வில் இருந்தும் பார்வையில் இருந்தும் விலகிச் செயல்பட முடியாது. தகவல்கள் வழங்கப்படும் போதே மக்கள் அதுபற்றி ஆய்வில் ஈடுபட முடியும். இதுவே இந்த சட்டத்திற்கான நியாயப்பாடாகும்.

இந்நாட்டில் அரசாங்கங்கள் மக்களுக்கு பதிலளிப்பதாக இருந்ததில்லை. தேர்தல் காலங்களில் மட்டுமே அரசாங்கங்கள் பதிலளித்துள்ளன.

இச்சட்டமூலத்தின் மூலம் இந்நிலைமையை மாற்றியமைக்க கூடியதாக இருக்கும் என்ற எதிர்பார்ப்புள்ளது. வீண் விரயங்கள் மற்றும் ஊழல்களை தடுத்து, பாராளுமன்றத்தினால் ஏதுமொரு விடயத்துக்காக ஒதுக்கப்பட்ட நிதியின் பயன்பாடு பற்றி அறிந்துக்கொள்ள முடியும்.

எமது நாட்டில் நிறுவனங்கள் அரசியல்மயப்படுத்தப்படும் கலாசாரம் இருக்கிறது. நீதித்துறை கூட அதிலிருந்து தப்பியிருக்கவில்லை. இந்த நாட்டின் நீதித்துறை மீது ஒரு காலத்தில் கௌரவம் இருந்தது.

நீதித்துறையின் சுயாதீனத்தன்மை மற்றும் பக்கச்சார்பின்மை பற்றிய அந்த கௌரவம் தொடர்ந்தும் நீடித்திருக்கவில்லை. இதன் விளைவாக சட்ட ஆட்சி பாதிக்கப்பட்டதுடன், அதன் பெறுபேறாக நாடும் பாதிப்புகளை சந்தித்தது. தற்போது கூட நீதி நிலைநாட்டப்படுவதை உறுதி செய்ய வெ ளிநாட்டு நீதிபதிகள் தேவை என்கின்ற நிலைமை காணப்படுகிறது. வெளிநாட்டு நீதிபதிகளினால் மட்டுமே நீதியை பெற்றுத்தர முடியும் என்றே மக்கள் பலரும் கருதுகின்றனர்.

இச் சட்டமூலத்தின் உண்மையான நோக்கங்களை அடைவது என்றால், இச் சட்டத்தின் கீழ் ஸ்தாபிக்கப்படும் நிறுவனங்கள் சுயாதீனமாகவும் அச்சமின்றியும் செயற்படக் கூடியதாக இருக்க வேண்டும். இச்சட்ட மூலத்தை நடைமுறைப்படுத்துவதில் எந்தவொரு அரசியல்வாதிகளின் தலையீடுகளையும் தவிர்த்துக் கொள்ள வேண்டும். இச் சட்டமூலத்தின் கீழான நிறுவனங்களுக்கு மிகவும் பொறுப்பான கடமைகள் இருக்கின்றன என்றார்.

Testing time for govt and TNA relations

BY Manekshaw-2016-06-25

Prior to 2015 the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran and Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera who was then in the Opposition had joined hands and met several Tamil diaspora organizations abroad to seek their support to overthrow the Mahinda Rajapakse regime. They even succeeded significantly in gaining the support of some of the prominent Tamil diapsora organizations such as the Global Tamil Forum (GTF) and British Tamil Forum (BTF) in 'torpedoing' the Rajapaksa regime.

So with the coalition of the TNA, the new government with the commitment of good governance in the country was formed with the leadership of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the new regime in return extended its support in making the TNA the main Opposition party in Parliament.

The 'honeymoon' between the government and the TNA even led to several significant developments in strengthening the reconciliation process including Sri Lanka becoming a co-sponsor of the resolution brought out in the UNHRC on improving the human rights situation and probing into the alleged atrocities committed during the Rajapaksa regime.

As Sri Lanka agreed upon on several aspects with other countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom which had co- sponsored the UNHRC resolution on creating a hybrid judicial mechanism with the inclusion of Commonwealth and other international legal luminaries to investigate into the alleged war crimes committed during the final phase of the war has now popped up as a challenging issue with President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe rejecting any form of foreign involvement in the investigation.

As the TNA leader
R. Sampanthan urging the government to stand by the UNHRC resolution which was adopted in September last year, the back tracking of President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe from the commitment made in probing the alleged war crimes investigation in the resolution is likely to be a thorny issue in strengthening the reconciliation process in the country.
According to the TNA, Parliamentarian Sumanthiran, he had clearly briefed the officials in Washington on the failures by the government in implementing the UNHRC resolution during his stay in the US last week.

Government's failure
Sumanthiran had also travelled to Geneva from Washington and he had a lengthy meeting with the UNHRC Chief and briefed him in detail on the government's failure in implementing the resolution adopted in September last year.
On his return to the island a few days ago Sumanthiran said the UNHRC Chief was even disappointed over the failure in implementing the resolution as it was agreed upon with the co-sponsorship of the government.
In the backdrop of Sumanthiran returning from Washington and Geneva, Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran at a meeting with the Head of the Delegation of the European Union in Jaffna two days ago had reiterated his stance on calling for an international investigation into the alleged war crimes in the island.

Wigneswaran also told the EU delegation that being a key figure in the legal fraternity, it was disheartening for him to note the recent statements made by the government backtracking on the commitments it made by co-sponsoring the UNHRC resolution on accountability, justice and reconciliation in the island.
As far as the international community's concerns on the alleged war crimes are concerned, it is important to note a German Court last week had sentenced 94-year-old Reinhold Hanning to five years imprisonment for being a Nazi SS guard at the Auschwitz gas chamber where 170, 000 Jews were killed by poison gas.

According to the German court judgment the convict Reinhold was in his early twenties. Reinhold had served only as a Nazi SS guard at Auschwitz and his presence there was also considered as part of the holocaust.
So the judgment on the 94-year-old former Nazi SS guard has highlighted that even 60 years after the end of World War II, justice has been delivered to the satisfaction of thousands of Jews who had escaped the Nazi atrocities and still living to see the justice is done to them.

In recent years even Bangladesh had punished several persons in the country for their involvement in the war crimes during the Bangladesh independence struggle in 1971.
Since there is no trace of hundreds of persons after their surrender to the Security Forces at the end of the civil war in 2009, those who were in power in that particular period will be responsible for the disappearances and other form of alleged human rights violations and war crimes.

Death sentence
Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera who was in Oslo two days ago to attend a conference calling for an end to the implementation of the death sentence met the UNHRC Chief Prince Zeid Raa's Al Hussein who was a distinguished participant at the Oslo conference.
With the presentation of Foreign Minister Samaraweera's submission on the implementation of the UNHRC resolution brought in September last year on Sri Lanka in Geneva, the UNHRC Chief Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein is expected to present his verbal submissions on his findings in implementing the UNHRC resolution along with the first hand information he collected during his tour in Sri Lanka in February, on 29 June.

While expressing his views on the positive and the negative aspects of implementing the UNHRC resolution in Sri Lanka during his verbal submissions, the UNHRC Chief is also in a compelling state of displaying his elite form of diplomacy in guiding the country towards greater reconciliation.

Brexit & Sri Lanka: Some Thoughts From Trinidad

By S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole –June 23, 2016

Prof. S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole

Brexit as Separatism

Brexit, a portmanteau word combining Britain and Exit, is about tomorrow Thursday’s plebiscite in Britain over whether Britain should stay in or exit the European Union. As a student in the early 1970s I remember Conservative British PM Edward Heath convincingly speaking on BBC news (which often preceded movies in Sri Lanka) about the advantages of membership in what was then the Common Market. A plebiscite in 1975 after joining won a 65% approval to stay.

Exclusivity Versus Internationalism

Those were the days of reduced racial tension and I could as a Commonwealth student vote in British elections. Even while a student, however, that right was withdrawn under Conservative Margaret Thatcher who also doubled my tuition fees as a foreign student. Today with asylum and other residence seekers pouring into Europe, the tolerance for other peoples is long gone and the cry for exiting the EU, is really a cry against racial (non-White) immigration and for absolute sovereignty.

According to a poll in The Times (21 June) there is a near 20% lead among working class and unemployed workers to leave and a 20+% lead to stay among upper-middle class voters. Among postgraduate qualified Britons, the lead to stay is nearly 40% and even more among the less racist 18-29 year old segment. The lead among the liberal Guardian readers is nearly 90% while the lead to exit among The Sun readers is 40%. It is instructive of the people who read The Sun that it carried topless models on its infamous Page 3 for 45 years until a campaign stopped the practice in January 2015. What the educated and the cultured want is clear – an internationalist outlook.

Strength in Numbers

A lesson is that the educated segments know that there is strength for a nation in numbers. With white folk not producing enough children to sustain their population levels, Britain soon will not have people buying their own goods to sustain economic growth. Despite Donald Trump, the thinkers in the US, Canada and even the EU know that unless population levels rise, there will not be enough people to drive economic growth. Having decided that the required population growth can come only from immigration, the US and Canada have tailored their immigration policies to welcome immigrants who can contribute – students who come for degree studies who are then given pathways to immigration and skilled immigrants; while those with PhDs and publications are allowed to apply independently without a sponsor for residence. Having decided that they need more people, they wisely choose who such people shall be.

This is why David Cameron, Britain’s Conservative PM, is in affix. As The New York Times explains (21 June), “In 2013, besieged by the increasingly assertive anti-European Union wing of his own Conservative Party, Mr. Cameron made a promise intended to keep a short-term peace among the Tories before the 2015 general election: If re-elected, he would hold an in-or-out referendum on continued British membership in the bloc. But what seemed then like a relatively low-risk ploy to deal with a short-term political problem has metastasized into an issue that could badly damage Britain’s economy, influence the country’s direction for generations — and determine Mr. Cameron’s political fate.”

by Izeth Hussain

( June 25, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Should the Government come to an agreement with the TNA over a modified version of 13 A, we would come to an important new phase in our decades long struggle to find a political solution for the ethnic problem. However that agreement, reached at an elite political level, would mean nothing at all if it finds no acceptance among the mass of the Sinhalese people who have a deep ingrained allergy to any substantial measure of devolution because of their conviction that it will lead ineluctably to Eelam sooner or later. Is the alternative a less substantial measure of devolution? But that would not be acceptable to the Tamil people who also have a deep ingrained conviction: they have the inalienable right of self-determination, inclusive of the right to set up the separate state of Eelam, in lieu of which they can accept nothing less than a very wide measure of devolution. Those alternative convictions have been at the root of the ethnic imbroglio that has been dragging on for decade after decade after decade.

What options would be left to us if the Government finds itself unable to deliver on an agreement reached with the TNA? I believe that the only option would be to jettison devolution altogether, consigning 13 A to the place where it properly belongs: the wpb (the waste paper basket). The position of the Tamils would then be more or less identical with that of the Muslims. Some Muslims have prospered mightily, others have done well enough to lead reasonably contented lives, while a very substantial proportion have to reconcile themselves to leading lives of quiet desperation in more or less indigent misery. That is the consequence not of Sinhalese wrongdoing but of the limitations of contemporary capitalism as established by Thomas Picketty and others. Many Muslims enjoy the immeasurable benefit of fluency in English – a benefit conferred on them by the Sinhalese political masters. Certainly there has been discrimination against the Muslims – the discrimination against me under the 1977 Government was grotesque by international standards, much worse than against my Tamil colleagues. But on the whole anti-Muslim discrimination has been tolerable, not of the intolerable order that compels emigration. Last year there was the BBS Islamophobic campaign, with huge foreign funding and enthusiastic though covert State backing, but it failed to ignite another 1983 pogrom. We must note that the largely Sinhalese civil society was admirably active in combating that racist idiocy. Today the Muslims have to confront what looks like a dangerously rising propensity to regard the Muslims as the scapegoats for the many ills afflicting Sri Lanka. Many Tamils in particular – as can be seen from the Colombo Telegraph columns – seem to be relishing the prospect of getting together with the Sinhalese and mercilessly whacking the Muslims.

So there are pluses and minuses in the relationship between the Muslim minority and the Sinhalese majority. Very probably the problems confronting the SL Muslims are not much different from the problems confronting a great many ethnic minorities all over the world. The sensible pragmatic solution for their problems should be through the Western model which is successfully integrating immigrant ethnic minorities in the West, inclusive of the Muslim minorities contrary to what is made out in idiotic Islamophobic propaganda. The model is that of a fully functioning democracy together with adequate safeguards for the legitimate interests of the ethnic minorities. There is nothing unrealistically utopian about what I am proposing. We did have a fully functioning democracy at one time; presently we are well on the way to establishing it again and entrenching it in a new Constitution; and as for ethnic harmony we Sri Lankans were famous for it while India was being rent apart by ethnic riots. But our Tamils won’t agree, at present, to anything other than an attempted political solution through a wide measure of devolution, which may not be acceptable to the majority of the Sinhalese people.

How do we get out of this imbroglio? I believe that the only way is by persuading India to abandon 13 A, and indeed the very notion of finding a political solution through devolution. We cannot do this – I mean “persuading” India – by putting it in the dock and charging it with a neo-imperialist drive which created the ethnic problem and has kept it going because of a secret objective of establishing Eelam or reducing Sri Lanka to total satellite status. That would be sheer nonsense. Instead, we must acknowledge our own responsibility for contributing to the ethnic problem, meaning by “we” all three of our politically important ethnic groups. The Sinhalese created the problem in its militant form by grotesque discrimination against the Tamils and State terrorism from 1977 to 1983. The Muslims aided and abetted the creation of the problem by siding enthusiastically with the Sinhalese in every bit of racist idiocy perpetrated against the Tamils. The Tamils kept the problem going after 1994 by rejecting every offer of a political solution because of their conviction that they could establish Eelam through force of arms. We must begin, therefore, not by putting India in the dock but by acknowledging that we ourselves have been our own executioners.

Next we must make a just and fair-minded assessment of the contribution made by India and the rest of the international community to the ethnic problem. We must first of all acknowledge that Norway and other countries that were involved in the peace process were actuated by the noblest motives without any ulterior motives or secret agenda behind them. But they made a grievously wrong assessment of the LTTE. First of all they believed in and fostered the myth of the military invincibility of the LTTE. Secondly they failed to recognize that because of that myth the LTTE would accept nothing less as a political solution than a very loose confederal arrangement amounting to a de facto Eelam. That was something on which no Government in Colombo could be expected to deliver. It seems plausible to hold that by those mistaken assessments Norway and the others contributed in no small measure to the prolongation of the war. It becomes arguable that Norway and the others now how a moral responsibility to help Sri Lanka find a way out of its ethnic imbroglio. They can do this by persuading India to accept a political solution other than by devolution.

Finally, and most importantly, we must make a fair assessment of India’s role in the ethnic imbroglio. In terms of international law, it most certainly put itself in the wrong by training and arming the Tamil militants in the aftermath of the 1983 pogrom. That amounted to outrageous interference in the internal affairs of a small and powerless neighbor. But in its own eyes, and very probably in the eyes of most of the rest of the international community, it had a moral justification for what it did: Delhi could not have ignored the fall-out in Tamil Nadu of the horror perpetrated against the SL Tamils without alienating Tamil Nadu, and perhaps even the entirety of the Dravidian South, from the Aryan North. To understand this we have to take count of the full horror of the 1983 pogrom. Tamils were burnt alive in the streets of Colombo with total impunity, a demonstration that they could be treated as subhuman, as worse even than pariah dogs. There was no reaction from the civil society, nor from the political Opposition, worth speaking about. A bestialized racist Jay Gang was seen to ride supreme over the Island. In India the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the Gujarat riots of 2002 led to official enquiries and judicial action, while there has been nothing of the sort in Sri Lanka over the 1983 pogrom. It is arguable therefore that there was a moral justification for India training and arming the Tamil militants. It remains however, irrespective of whether or not there was a moral justification, that India bears the major responsibility for enabling the start of a war that lasted for a quarter century and cost a hundred thousand deaths. Consequently India also has the major responsibility for enabling us to find a way out of the ethnic imbroglio. The way out has to be – as I will argue in the next part of my article – on the basis that the Tamils have no case, none whatever, for even the slightest degree of devolution.

The Heroes Of Anuradhapura

By Rajan Hoole –June 24, 2016

Dr. Rajan Hoole

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

Although the Sansoni Report has been used selectively for propaganda, it, on the contrary, gives us strong direct and indirect evidence of the State’s blatant complicity in the communal violence. The events in Anuradhapura, and the conduct of G.W. Liyanage, SP, Anuradhapura, give us the strongest indication of direct involvement by the State. This was an officer directly responsible for the maintenance of peace in Anuradhapura. We rely on the Sansoni Report for the forthright account below of events in Anuradhapura, which is not a favourite section of those who acclaim the Report.

SP Liyanage had arrived in Jaffna at noon on the 16th, accompanying DIG Ana Seneviratne and, about 10.30 AM on the 17th, attended a conference in the Jaffna Kacheri. There, Superintendent of Health Services Dr. Dassanayake complained about the conduct of the Police. (He later left Jaffna after an anonymous caller told him that he would be ‘shot like a dog’.) Assistant Collector of Customs Mr. J. Senaratne who had come from Colombo by night train told SP Liyanage that he should be in Anuradhapura as Tamils had been attacked there. (The night trains had been attacked and the passengers robbed, but there had apparently been no deaths.) Liyanage had replied in Sinhalese, “Were they assaulted enough?”

Liyanage was in Jaffna when the false police radio message was sent alleging that large Tamil mobs were attacking or were getting set to attack the Sinhalese. He left Jaffna for Anuradhapura on the 17th evening. It was the same evening that DIG Ana Seneviratne told Amirthalingam that the troubles had spread to Anuradhapura and Kurunegala and that it was going to be worse than 1958. In fact on the evidence of the Report, the main killing of Tamils started at Anuradhapura only after Liyanage’s arrival from Jaffna. In contrast, a number of Tamils commended the attitude of Liyanage’s assistant, ASP Chandra Mendis.

On the 17th evening, two Tamil employees at Anuradhapura hospital took refuge in the house of Dr. Wijewardene, Medical Superintendent. One of them, Sivasambu, later died of injuries received. SP Liyanage came there at 10.30 PM and repeated the false radio message sent that morning with some macabre additions: “Havoc in Jaffna, Sinhalese have been murdered, Sinhalese women raped on the road, Buddhist priests have been attacked and doctors in Jaffna hospital not attending to Sinhalese patients.”

SP Liyanage was at large in Anuradhapura on the 17th night, repeating this message with variations, such as Sinhalese women were being nailed to the wall in Jaffna. He was at the railway station about 11.45 PM soon after the single worst incident of murder, telling the surviving victims his stories about the gory fate of Sinhalese in Jaffna. Testimony against him is damningly plentiful, especially that of L.M. Poulier, District Mechanical Superintendent of Railways.

Mr. K. Gunasekera, District Superintendent of Railways had placed his Tamil colleagues in the rest rooms upstairs of the station and a police guard of four was placed at the staircase entrance below. Also, there were 5 armed soldiers under Lt. Percy Perera from the National Guard. Poulier came downstairs and spoke to T.D. Gunawardene, PC No. 5920, about looking after the Tamils upstairs. PC 5920 replied, “…They must be given the works for at least 10 minutes”. Poulier then saw a mob rushing upstairs carrying weapons, who came downstairs 5 to 10 minutes later, with articles removed from the victims. Just at this time Lt. Percy Perera’s party had conveniently vanished.

Sri Lanka's benefits from its IMF program depend on reform effectiveness, evidence from other program countries shows

Global Credit Research - 23 Jun 2016

Singapore, June 23, 2016 -- Moody's Investors Service says that whether or not Sri Lanka's (B1 negative) credit profile demonstrates a temporary or more enduring improvement from its International Monetary Fund's (IMF) program will depend on how effectively the program's ambitious reforms are implemented.

Moody's conclusions are outlined in its just released report "Government of Sri Lanka: Reform Implementation Key to Lasting Fiscal, External Improvement from IMF Program".

The IMF approved on 3 June 2016, a $1.5 billion three-year Extended Fund Facility (EFF) program for Sri Lanka, with the main focus on fiscal reforms, as well as reforms to the country's state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

Moody's report points out that the EFF program aims to address Sri Lanka's immediate balance of payments pressure, reflected in the fall in foreign currency reserves to low levels. In conjunction with financing, the program envisages fiscal reforms to address one of the causes of Sri Lanka's macro-economic imbalances and its balance of payments problems.

To assess the likely impact of the IMF program on future economic, fiscal and balance of payments developments in Sri Lanka, Moody's examined previous IMF programs in countries facing similar external liquidity, fiscal and structural reform challenges as Sri Lanka. These include Stand-By Agreements with Pakistan (B3 stable, 2008), Sri Lanka (2009), Romania (Baa3 positive, 2009), Mongolia (B2 negative, 2009), Jordan (B1 stable, 2012), and Ghana's 2009 poverty reduction and growth program. Many of these programs were followed by subsequent programs.

Based on the above examples, Moody's found that the main impact of the program is likely to be external liquidity relief. In addition, Sri Lanka's budget deficit is likely to narrow as the EFF garners consensus around fiscal consolidation. However, the experience of other countries shows limited and often short-lived progress in fiscal consolidation. Nevertheless, Moody's recognizes that these countries' fiscal metrics could have deteriorated more significantly in the absence of a program.

Therefore, in Moody's view, while the IMF program will alleviate Sri Lanka's external liquidity pressures, a more durable improvement in the macro-economic and balance of payments pressures will depend on the extent to which authorities can durably reverse the ongoing fiscal deterioration while improving Sri Lanka's international competitiveness and attractiveness to foreign investors.

The study underpins Moody's view that effective policy implementation determines the extent to which a country reaps the benefits of an IMF program.

Subscribers can access the report at http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBC_1027305.

NOTE TO JOURNALISTS ONLY: For more information, please call one of our global press information hotlines: New York +1-212-553-0376, London +44-20-7772-5456, Tokyo +813-5408-4110, Hong Kong +852-3758-1350, Sydney +61-2-9270-8141, Mexico City 001-888-779-5833, São Paulo 0800-891-2518, or Buenos Aires 0800-666-3506. You can also email us at mediarelations@moodys.com or visit our web site at www.moodys.com.

This publication does not announce a credit rating action. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Higher education in Asia: Making the most of private investments for public objectives

Wednesday, 22 June 2016

If the Government does the needed regulation, private investments in higher education can be directed towards the pubic objective of enriching human capital stock in a country. In Sri Lanka, Government is inactive, opponents are out to discredit, and general population seem to eye private initiatives with suspicion.

Interestingly, Sri Lanka is not the only country where private-for-profit higher education is viewed with suspicion. We are in good company. In USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and in many countries in Europe, most higher education institutions are public or private-not-for-profits. In Japan or South Korea, 80% or so of the institutions are private, but almost all of those are not-for-profit entities. In general, for profit higher education institutions are few and far between in developed economies, and by all indications, for-profit institutions are watched warily by authorities and civil society in these countries too.

The situation in USA is quite interesting. After nearly four centuries of continuous progress in public or private-non-profit options in higher education, private-for-profit options begun to emerge only in the last few decades. With increasing technological advances in distance education, perhaps, many private initiatives emerged, but after receiving increasing scrutiny for abusing Federal government grants for student loans, they seem to be on the decline.

According to a news report from March 2015, the enrolment at Phoenix University, America’s largest for-profit university, was about 460,000 students five years ago. Now it’s 213,000. The University of Phoenix’s parent company, Apollo Education Group (APOL), has had to undergo a major restructuring to save itself.

The situation developing economies appears to be different. Trends in higher education in emerging economies in South Asia and South East Asia show that in our part of the world we don’t have the luxury of scoffing at private initiatives. Our strategy should be to nurture all types of organisations, focusing on accountability, not ownership.

If USA could not, can lesser countries keep tabs on its for-profit institutions? Initiatives in in Malaysia shows that we indeed can manage for-profit institutions successfully in more authoritarian countries, and experience in Bangladesh in South Asia suggests that private sector has to play a larger in self-regulation in more chaotic democracies.

Malaysia

Malaysia is a good example of how a government may make the most of private initiatives to meet public objectives. Recently, Studymalaysia.com reported that Malaysia has 20 public universities, 53 private universities and six foreign university branch campuses; 403 active private colleges, 30 polytechnics and 73 public community colleges. Of the private universities, 30 participated in, SEATARA-2011, the most recent Rating System for the Malaysian Higher Education Institutions (SEATARA in Bhasa Malaysia), and received ratings from Excellent to Very Good.

SEATARA 2011 was the third rating exercise undertaken at the institutional level for universities and university colleges in Malaysia by the Malaysian Qualifications Authority. The resulting rating system uses a six-tier categorisation with Tier 6 identified as “Outstanding” and Tier 1 as “Weak.” No university, public or private, achieved the highest rank of 6 or the lower ranks of 1 and 2.

Fifty universities achieved Excellent (Tier 5) or Good (tier 4) ranking. Of those, 67% were private institutions. Interestingly, in the research performance ranking survey, only 30% of the ranked universities were private.

SETARA measures quality of teaching and learning at six levels according to three generic domains of input, process and output to assess the quality of teaching and learning. The input domain focuses on talent, resources and governance. The process domain focuses on curriculum matters and the output domain is on the quality of graduates and graduate satisfaction. SETARA involves students in the evaluation by using appraisals by students who will audit lecturers on punctuality of the teacher, satisfaction on the delivery of subjects and other attributes.

SETARA-2013 evaluated 53 higher learning institutions in Malaysia. In contrast to SEATARA-2011, it evaluated one discipline at a time for a selected set of disciplines. As we shall later, a discipline by discipline approach may be the better option for Sri Lanka.

Three private universities from Malaysia

Three institutions Berjaya College, HELP University and University Technologi Petronas exemplify different types of private universities in Malaysia.

Berjaya College, a private university, was founded in 2009 by an international entrepreneur named Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan, and it is part of the Berjaya Corporation Berhad group of companies. The college has not come forward yet for evaluation by MQA.

The Vice Chancellor and President of HELP University is also Co-Founder of HELP International Corporation, which is listed in the Malaysian Stock Exchange. HELP’ is largely in the business of education. HELP University was awarded a 4-star rating by MQA for its teaching and learning.

The Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP) is a Malaysian private university established in 1997. The campus is built on 400 hectares (990 acres) at Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia. The university is a wholly owned subsidiary of PETRONAS, the national oil company of Malaysia. Seemingly well-endowed, UTP was awarded a 5-star rating by MQA for its teaching and learning and another five star for its research.

Bangladesh

Developments in Bangladesh and India, countries closer to home are perhaps more relevant to Sri Lanka. Bangladesh for example, has been able to pass the laws for regulation, but actual regulation is stalled due to low capacity and other issues.

The Government of Bangladesh enacted a private higher education bill as early as 1992. Currently, there are 60 private universities, 34 public universities and three international universities in Bangladesh. Although the increased number of universities has provided opportunities, a debate has emerged over the quality of education at these institutions due to the significant difference among these institutions. These inconsistencies in quality may be due to the lack of regulatory oversight and inefficiencies of the regulatory agencies of the government.

As a vice chancellor at a private university noted in 2015, the government entrusted the University Grants Commission (UGC) to supervise all universities in Bangladesh. It has tried to follow certain conditions laid down in the amended Private Universities Act of 2010. The most stringent condition has been not to grant permission for any new program of study in a private institution unless they move to their permanent campus on one acre of land within Dhaka city area and two acres outside Dhaka city. For the last three years excepting six or seven private universities who moved to their own campuses, the rest could not expand their programs to meet rising demand for enrolment in existing rented premises. There was an attempt to establish an “Accreditation Council” as per the Act of 2010, but the progress has been slow due to a lack assessors and other.

Lessons for Sri Lanka

Initiatives in regulation are non-existent in Sri Lanka. We are even far behind Bangladesh. It is a shame that our Ministry of Higher Education is seemingly inactive and UGC says it has no authority. In an interview published in Ravaya newspaper of 13 June, the Chairman of UGC called for a central qualification authority and other policy measures. He should use his office to push these ideas further.

In the meantime, the chambers, a national newspaper, a civil society organisations should take the lead in ranking higher education, starting with a few small steps.

Discipline by discipline assessment

An approach that is worth considering is discipline by discipline assessments. The Malaysian Qualifications Agency released the results of its latest Discipline-based Rating System or D-SETARA in 2013. It assesses the quality of teaching and learning in four clusters of disciplines: Engineering; Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy; Health Sciences; and Hospitality and Tourism. Participation in D-SETARA is voluntary; invitations were made to all HEIs offering undergraduate programs and have had the first batch of graduates in 2011.

In 2013, LIRNEasia developed and tested a methodology for assessing ICT programs. LIRNEasia is a think tank, not an implementing organisation. Our research or development reports are available in the public domain for others to use.

(Sujata Gamage can be reached at gamage@gmail.com. She writes a weekly column in Dinamina and posts her research on

Selling birth right of Sri Lankans

The British understood the value of land and distributed land on a long lease, initially for 99 years. Land is an asset that belongs to the people of this country and no one has the right to sell it especially to non-citizens

by Ashley de Vos

( June 25, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Traditionally the King controlled the land and its distribution. Land was endowed to Temples and Devalas and to exceptional individuals. These Nindagam lands were for Bukthi Vidinna or for enjoying the benefit from it, but as a principle it could be withdrawn if one fell out of favour with the King.

Suddenly, in early 2000 land was sold freehold to foreigners especially along the west coast. Many were quite surprised. It was a disaster for the country, the free environmental quality was selfishly interfered with. Today the sea side from Galle and Matara is closed off by a high wall, a colonial wall built to seal off the activities within and a view of the sea from all. As one drives along the coast only sudden glimpses of the sea is available as though a colonial privilege is being afforded to the natives. A view of the sea and the coast is the birth right of the people of this country, it has been forcibly and deliberately taken away.

Madam Chandrika Bandaranayke Kumaranatunghe should get the credit, she saw through this wrong decision and had the regulation revoked. However, foreigners continued to buy land but in lesser quantities, with some members of the legal fraternity finding the smallest loop hole to enable the free sale of this birth right. Land should always remain the exclusive birth right of the people of this country.

Now again in 2016, a desperate decision is being re-examined to sell this birth right to foreigners.Sri Lanka is a small country with a high population density and limited land area. Very limited, considering the essential environmental considerations that should be reviewed, but instead, are being pushed under the carpet. Maintaining the environment in as pristine a condition as a sustainable entity, is of paramount importance to ensurewater security. If this precious environment is not protected and enhanced, no tourist will ever visit this historic country again.

Whatever any other country wishes to do is not Sri Lanka’s concern. This valuable Sri Lankan birth right should never be up for sale. With the crumbling of the exchange rate, Land in Sri Lanka would be available at a pittance to the foreigner, especially considering the enhanced rate he would get for his dollars. It would create an unrealistic increase in the cost of land and in the unequal balance, the innocent Sri Lankan would not be able to buy even a square inch of his birth right. Only the speculators and foreigners with artificially inflated funds would be able to buy land. Sri Lankans would be isolated and progressively reduced to penury in this new government sponsored colonial enterprise. Sri Lanka wither goest thou!

Land is the birth right of the people of this country, no one has the right to sell it especially to foreigners unless there is a clear mandate from the people. A mandate no one in his right mind would ever give. We should only lease land and that for limited periods of time. Land is an asset that belongs to the people of this country it is their birth right it should remain inviolate.