Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, July 4, 2016

Nigel Farage, the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, speaks at a news conference in London July 4. (Neil Hall/Reuters)

 Right-wing firebrand and populist politician Nigel Farage resigned as leader of his U.K. Independence Party on Monday morning, the latest political bombshell to hit the nation as it grapples with fallout from last month’s vote to leave the European Union.

“I have never wanted to be a career politician. That is why I now feel that I’ve done my bit,” Farage, who helped spearhead the campaign to leave the E.U., said Monday in atelevised press conference.

“I will watch the renegotiation process in Brussels like a hawk,” he said of expected talks between British and E.U. leaders in the coming months. But, Farage said, “I want my life back.”

Also on Monday, energy minister and parliamentarian Andrea Leadsom, announced her intention to run for the leadership of the ruling Conservative Party — and, by extension prime minister. The party has been thrown into disarray in the wake of the E.U. referendum held June 23.

Prime Minister David Cameron, the current Conservative Party leader, announced his resignation the morning after the vote, after having backed the campaign for Britain to remain a member of the European Union.
 
The decision by British voters to leave the 28-member bloc, built through a series of treaties in the wake of World War II, shocked nations around the globe and plunged Britain into political and economic uncertainty.
The British pound fell about 10 percent against the U.S. dollar, and economists have warned of a global recession if the turmoil continues. On Monday, Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, told the Financial Times that he planned to cut the country’s corporate tax rate to just 15 percent — the lowest of any major economy.

Leadsom also emphasized economic issues.

“Business needs certainty,” Leadsom, who has emerged as one of three front-runner candidates, said Monday. “I will prioritize new trade deals with the fastest growing parts of the world.”

In her speech announcing her leadership bid, Leadsom said British citizens have “just rediscovered our freedom.”

“The U.K. will leave the European Union,” she said. “Freedom of movement will end.”
 
Farage and UKIP, too, had taken a hard line against immigration and the freedom of movement that comes with E.U. membership. Much of the “leave” campaign, popularly known as Brexit, focused on calls for stricter border controls and full withdrawal of Britain from Europe’s common market.

In his resignation speech Monday, Farage called the European Union’s single market — which refers to the bloc as one territory without regulations on goods and services — a “big business protectionist cartel.”
“We need a new prime minister that puts down some pretty clear lines — that we’re not going to give in on issues like free movement,” he said.

“We are now in charge of our own future, and I want us to grab this opportunity with both hands,” he added.

But for all of the talk of victory, nearly all of the leaders of the “leave” movement have either stepped back from high-level politics or have been sidelined in the post-referendum political wars.

The vote has divided the Conservative Party and prompted a similar leadership crisis in the Labour Party, where members of Parliament voted to oust Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. He has since refused to resign.
Before Farage’s departure Monday, former London mayor and pro-Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson announced that he would remove himself from the race for leader of the Conservative Party. He previously was the favorite to take the keys to No. 10 Downing Street.

His pronouncement came last week, just hours after his fellow campaigner and supposed ally Michael Gove declared his own candidacy and announced that he thought Johnson was unfit for the premiership.
The move by Gove, a Conservative politician, shocked Britain, and drew comparisons to Shakespearean-style treachery or an episode of the political drama “House of Cards.”

In the meantime, Gove’s popularity has plummeted. Home Secretary Theresa May has emerged as a front-runner for leader of the party.

May campaigned for Britain to remain in the European Union, but she has presented herself as a unifying figure within the party. She has promised to reform the bloc’s rules of freedom of movement, but she has stopped short of promising a full halt to migration to Britain.

May has about 100 members of Parliament backing her leadership bid, while Gove and Leadsom each have roughly 20, according to the right-wing Conservative Home website.

The first round of voting for the Conservative leadership begins Tuesday, and it will eliminate the fifth of five candidates for the job.

Islam Is All-American

Long before Donald Trump’s demonizing of Muslims, the Founding Fathers debated whether Islam should be defended.
Islam Is All-American

BY SUHAIL A. KHAN-DECEMBER 18, 2015

As American Muslims find themselves at the center of a heated debate over religious freedom, it’s important to remember that our nation’s founders contemplated these very issues since before the creation of the United States.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” So begins the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the American colonies regarded themselves as a new nation.

The new nation would struggle to make that proposition a reality for all, including African slaves, women, and other religious and ethnic minorities. In times of real or perceived danger, this proposition has been tested: In 1882, for example, the Chinese Exclusion Act, a sweeping prohibition on the immigration of Chinese workers, was passed in the wake of anti-Asian hysteria. In 1919 and the 1950s, the “red scare” caused many innocent Americans to be unfairly accused of being communist sympathizers. American Jews, Catholics, and Mormons faced decades of prejudice and often violence. After Pearl Harbor, over 120,000 Japanese-American citizens were forced from their homes and placed in camps.

Today, it’s the five to seven million Americans who happen to be Muslim who have been stereotyped and demonized. GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for the registration of all Muslim Americans, the warrantless surveillance of all Muslim places of worship, and a ban on all Muslim travel and immigration, “They’re not coming to this country if I’m president,” he said this week in the Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas.

“We have a problem in this country: It’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American…when can we get rid of ’em?” one of Trump’s supporters bellowed at a campaign rally in New Hampshire in September. Trump encouragingly nodded along: “We need this question,” he agreed, and promised that “we’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.”

Such vitriolic sentiment stands in stark contrast to the unifying message of the most recent GOP occupant of the White House, President George W. Bush, in whose administration I was honored to serve for both terms. During the 2000 campaign for example, Bush praised the faith of Americans who regularly attended a “church, synagogue, or mosque,” met with Muslim American supporters across the country, and visited a prominent Islamic center in Michigan — the first major presidential candidate from either party to do so. The GOP convention in Philadelphia was the first in either national party’s history to feature a Muslim prayer. And after Muslim American community leaders expressed their civil liberties concerns regarding a provision of Clinton’s 1996 immigration enforcement legislation, Bush publicly promised to repeal the provision in the second presidential debate with Vice President Al Gore.

Bush’s inclusive efforts earned him the endorsement of eight major Muslim American organizations. By election day, more than 70 percent of the Muslim vote — including 46,200 ballots in just Florida — went in his favor. And after his 2001 swearing-in, Bush appointed a record number of Muslim Americans to senior positions in the White House and throughout his new administration.

Bush also remained steadfast in his inclusiveness after the 9/11 terror attacks. Just days after the tragedy, Bush visited an American mosque, the first and only sitting president to do so. He also reminded the world, “ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. … ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for.” And when anti-Muslim rhetoric rose, Bush fired back, “Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America.”

Such heroic leadership seems a lifetime away. While other presidential hopefuls and elected officials from both sides of the political aisle, editorial boards, and even celebrities and sports figures have widely condemned Trump’s statements, it’s easy for the nation’s Muslims to feel singled out, particularly when poll after poll demonstrates increasing popular support for such anti-Muslim sentiment. (Muslim Americans, while perhaps small in their relative numbers, are growing in political influence. Their political organization is improving, they are increasingly generous financial contributors to campaign coffers, and they remain a key voting bloc in swing states such as Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.)

But even as Muslim Americans find themselves at the center of today’s heated political debate, it’s important to remind ourselves that Muslims have been a proud part of the American story from the very founding of our republic, and that the Founders contemplated the freedom for all — including Muslims — when they conceived our great nation over two centuries ago.

Historians estimate that a quarter to a third of the African slaves brought to the United States were Muslims. American Muslims, both slaves and freedmen, served in the American War of Independence and the War of 1812, and were a part of the impassioned debate about religious liberty from the very beginning of the nation’s founding.

Referred to as “Mahometans” and “Turks,” many of the founders referenced Muslims — along with Jews, Catholics, and others — as they hotly debated the limits of the freedom of worship. Thomas Jefferson, in authoring the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1777, established the foundation for the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. The statute disestablished the Church of England in Virginia, freeing Virginians from paying taxes to the church and guaranteeing freedom of religion to people of all faiths.

During the debate over the legislation, some Virginia legislators unsuccessfully sought to include a reference to Jesus Christ. Writing in 1821, Jefferson reflected that “the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of [the statute’s] protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

While it’s unclear whether Jefferson knew any Muslims, we know that his opinions on religious freedom were heavily influenced by the philosopher John Locke who, in promoting religious freedom in England in 1689, expressed his belief that all citizens who believed in God — Jews, Catholics, and Muslims — should be protected. “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others,”

Jefferson wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia, which was published in 1781. “But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

James Madison, who would later become the fourth U.S. president, joined Jefferson in supporting religious liberty and assisted in supporting the final passage of the Virginia statute in 1786. Railing against religious taxes, Madison argued that the separation of church and state would actually promote Christianity as an open society would be welcoming to those “remaining under the dominion of false Religions.” Establishing an official church, he continued, “discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation.”

Another supporting Jefferson was Richard Henry Lee, a delegate to the Second Continental Congress who made the June 7, 1776, motion that the American colonies declare independence. “True freedom,” Lee proclaimed, “embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo [Hindu] as well as the Christian religion.”

These ideas about religious freedom that were nurtured in the American colonies were written into the Constitution after the United States won its independence. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was a notable precursor of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

But the real debate surrounded the language banning religious tests as a qualification for public office, put forth in Article 6, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution. This clause, revolutionary at its time, provided that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” By including this clause, the founders proclaimed that men of all faiths, or none at all, would be equally eligible to play a role in public life in the new democratic nation.

The ban on religious tests was a major source of contention during the debates to ratify the new constitution. Madison wrote to Jefferson in 1788 that “one of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests opened a door for Jews, Turks & infidels.” Indeed, a delegate to Massachusetts’s ratifying convention warned that public office would be open for “a papist or an infidel.”

During North Carolina’s 1788 constitution ratification debate, anti-Federalist Henry Abbot argued that eliminating a religious test meant it would be possible that “pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.” A South Carolina newspaper raised the possibility of Quakers taking over the fledgling government. One Virginian suggested that the delegates rewrite the clause banning religious tests to require officeholders to swear a belief in the “one only true God, who is rewarder of good, and the punisher of evil.”

Defenders of the ban rallied support for the clause. Baptist preacher John Leland, who had opposed religious tests successfully in Virginia, argued “If a man merits the confidence of his neighbors in Virginia, let him worship one God, twenty Gods, or no God — be he Jew, Turk, Pagan, or Infidel, he is eligible to any office in the state.”

And Federalist James Iredell, who subsequently was appointed as a Supreme Court justice, stood firm in his defense of the clause. “[It] is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices,” Iredell said. “But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?”

That same question, posed over two centuries ago, looms large over our debate today. The United States currently faces a determined enemy who makes no distinctions about our race, ethnicity, or religion — attacking us only because we are Americans. In response, some strident voices tragically seek to divide our nation on religious lines by casting suspicion on an entire faith group. Now more than ever, it’s important to remind ourselves that our great nation was founded on religious freedom for all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion.

Muslim Americans are our neighbors, or friends; they are doctors, lawyers, business owners, teachers, first responders, and nearly 6,000 serve in uniform in our Armed Services. Many have given, as President Abraham Lincoln stated, “the last full measure of devotion.” In this time of real danger, let’s not allow our zeal to defend our ideals destroy them.
MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

Thousands of Buddhist monks march in anti-Muslim protests in Myanmar’s restive Rakhine State


Sunday, 03 July, 2016

Myanmar’s bitterly-divided Rakhine State saw mass protests on Sunday as thousands of Buddhists, including monks, demonstrated in a show of opposition to a government edict referring to Muslim communities in the restive province, organisers said.

Anti-Muslim rhetoric has spiked across Myanmar recently, with two mosques torched by Buddhist mobs in just over a week in a country where sectarian violence has left scores dead since 2012.

Home to around one million stateless Rohingya Muslims, Rakhine State has been hardest hit by religious violence that has left tens of thousands of the persecuted minority in fetid displacement camps.

The Rohingya are reviled by Rakhine Buddhists who refuse to recognise any shared rights to the province and instead call them “Bengalis” – or illegal immigrants from nearby Bangladesh.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s new government has sought to defuse the row over the term Rohingya instead ordering officials to refer to “Muslim communities in Rakhine”.

But protesters on Sunday said that too was unacceptable as it hands Muslims recognition in a Buddhist state.

“We reject the term ‘Muslim communities in Rakhine State’,” Kyawt Sein, protest organiser in Sittwe, said, adding more than 1,000 people, including monks, had joined the rally in the state capital.

Rally-goers there shouted slogans including “Protect Rakhine State”, while a protest in the town of Thandwe drew similar numbers.

“Bengalis should be called Bengalis,” Phoe Thar Lay,a leader of a local Rakhine youth group said, adding that 17 townships across Rakhine were participating in protests on Sunday afternoon.

Most Rohingya live cut off from the Buddhist community in displacement camps or remote settlements since sectarian riots tore Rakhine apart in 2012.

Persecution and poverty have forced tens of thousands to flee by sea, but the dangerous trafficking route south through the Bay of Bengal was closed late last year during a Thai crackdown on people smuggling.

Suu Kyi, a veteran democracy activist who championed her country’s struggle against repressive military rulers, has drawn criticism from rights groups for not taking up the cause of the Rohingya.

Instead she has carefully sought to sidestep controversy, urging the international community to give the country “space” to unpick its sectarian problems.

The Rohingya are not recognised by the government as an official ethnic minority.

After a 12-day visit to Rakhine and other conflict sites in Myanmar, a UN rights investigator warned Friday that “tensions along religious lines remain pervasive across Myanmar society”.

Yanghee Lee urged the country’s new civilian government to make “ending institutionalised discrimination against the Muslim communities in Rakhine State ... an urgent priority”.

The same day a mosque was torched by a Buddhist mob in the jade-mining town of Hpakant in the far north.

That incident came eight days after another crowd of Buddhists destroyed another mosque in central Bago, forcing the Muslim community to seek refuge in a neighbouring town.

Indore Docs Implant Boy's Nose After Reconstructing it on Forehead

Indore Docs Implant Boy's Nose After Reconstructing it on Forehead
Doctors perform a surgery on a patient. (Picture only for representational purpose)
CNN-News18July 3, 2016

Indore: Doctors here have performed a rare plastic surgery by reconstructing the nose on the forehead of a 12-year-old boy and then implanting it at the original place on his face.

Arun Patel, hailing from the adjoining Ujjain district, due to a side-effect of an injection his nose had disappeared when he was just one-month-old, Dr Ashwini Dash, who led a team of doctors to perform the surgery said.

In a unique method, doctors first reconstructed the nose on the boy's forehead and later on implanted it at its proper position on his face.

He said that the rare surgery was performed in four phases which took one year and got completed recently.

"A normal rhinoplasty was not possible on Arun's face as his nose had almost disappeared. Therefore, we decided to perform a special plastic surgery on him, which is medically called as 'pre-fabricated forehead flap rhinoplasty'," the 42-year-old surgeon said.

During the first phase of the surgery, a special silicon 'tissue expander' was put on the forehead of the boy. A special chemical was put in it so that the tissues on the forehead can expand, he said.

In the second phase, some cartilage from the lower part of chest of the boy was taken out and an artificial nose was reconstructed out of it and placed on the forehead for three months so that blood circulation like in any other body part may begin there and all its tissues become active.

During the third phase, the nose grown on Arun's forehead was removed and implanted at the original place on the face and joined with every minute vein so that it may have normal blood circulation, Dash said.

In the fourth phase of the surgery, the place on the boy's forehead where the nose was grown was normalised. The surgeon said they were keeping a close watch on the nose implanted in the last one year and if they find any deformation in future, they would take necessary steps to correct it through surgery.
Meanwhile, Arun, who is a class VI student, is delighted on getting a new nose on his face. "I did not have the courage to look at myself in the mirror in the absence of the nose. I would always walk on roads with my head down.

In school, the children used to be afraid of me and made fun of me. But, now after getting a new nose, I can face the people with self-confidence," he said.

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Human Rights council discusses human rights situation in Sri Lanka and Myanmar

2009-Human rights situation in Sri Lanka----------2016 Human rights situation in Sri Lanka
Residents walk past buildings burning in riot-hit Meiktila, central Burma, 21 March 2013Rohingya Muslim women and children sit in a boat after they were intercepted by the Bangladesh Border Guard (BGB) members in Teknaf, Bangladesh © EPA/STRINGER
Neighbourhoods were burned and looted during the riots in Meiktila(Myanmar)--Rohingya Muslim women and children sit in a boat after they were intercepted by the Bangladesh Border Guard (BGB) members in Teknaf, Bangladesh © EPA/STRINGER

Concludes Interactive Dialogue on Burundi

GENEVA (29 June 2016) - The Human Rights Council this afternoon heard United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein present an oral update on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, and his report on the situation of human rights of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar.

Mano Ganesan Threatens To Quit Over Language Disparity


Colombo Telegraph
July 2, 2016
Minister of National Dialogue Mano Ganesan has threatened to resign from his ministerial portfolio if the government fails to give due recognition for language parity.
Mano Ganesan
Mano Ganesan
“If there is no language parity, how on earth can there be genuine power sharing, national coexistence and parity between ethnicities and provinces? National question is not only the language issue. But it sure holds the large part of the national question. Therefore I consider language parity is the prelude to the national coexistence. If no recognition is given to the language parity exercise of my ministry, I will have no business in holding this ministry. I will quit,” Ganesan warned.
He emphasized that his ministry has two major mandates, one is for national coexistence dialogue between ethnic linguistic segments and the other is for the all-important official language policy implementation.
“We are still very much far behind the goal of achieving language parity in this country. Still the Tamil speaking communities are governed by the Sinhala only language policy mechanism. As the sole authoritative for official language policy implementation, I am answerable to the questions raised by the people’s representatives of the Tamil speaking community,” Ganesan said, while adding that the Chief Ministers of the Northern and Eastern Provinces were questioning him over the continuing language disparity.
He is scheduled to meet Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and also Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera to discuss certain shortcomings in regard to this issue before they become serious.
Meanwhile, Ganesan has also accused Samaraweera of ‘hijacking’ the local mechanism process from the Prime Minister’s office, which has led to a breakdown in the process going forward. The mechanism centres around four key areas; truth, justice, repatriation and non-recurrence, which are linked to the country’s efforts to achieve reconciliation.
“It is true that that foreign ministry is the face of Sri Lanka to the world. But however it looks to me that foreign ministry has hijacked the total mechanism process from the prime minister’s office. The Prime Minister’s Action Group (PMAG) of which my ministry is also a part has not met since its inception. Foreign minister Samaraweera has somewhat failed to take some of the serious concerns of the leading activists of civil society organizations (CSO),” Ganesan claimed.
Sri Lankan military helps settle Sinhalese fishermen in Tamil North-East

 03 July 2016
Hundreds of Sinhalese families have been settled into Mullaitivu with the assistance of the Sri Lankan military said a member of the Northern Provincial Council.

T Raviharan, an NPC member, said that hundreds of Sinhalese families have settled in the Nayaru region and have been actively assisted by Sri Lankan troops.

He noted that in 2011, 72 Sinhalese families were granted temporary passes to the region, which allowed them to fish in Nayaru waters with the help of the military, despite protests from local Tamil fishermen. Today that number has swelled to more than 290 families.

At the Kokkulaai Estuary, the situation was even more dire, said Mr Raviharan. 13 families were granted temporary passes in 1982, he noted. Now over 500 families have settled in the region, he said.

Government ‘Very Slow’ In Implementing Important Initiatives To Safeguard Human Rights: TNA Tells UNHRC


Colombo Telegraph
July 2, 2016
The Tamil National Alliance on Friday expressed its concern over the very slow pace in the implementation of crucial initiatives with respect to safeguarding human rights issues in Sri Lanka.
TNA Leader  R. Sampanthan
Leader of the Opposition R. Sampanthan
Citing reasons for it’s claim, the TNA pointed out the delay in releasing private lands illegally occupied by the military; the continued use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and the government’s failure to repeal it; the breach of undertakings to release those held under the PTA; and the continuing surveillance and harassment of civilians in the North and East, as issues that was proving to be an obstruction towards reconciliation in the country.
“Delay in the resettlement of displaced people in both the North and East, and in the restoration of normal life by providing then with housing, livelihood opportunities and other facilities continues to be a matter of concern and is a great impediment to the process of reconciliation and the return to normalcy,” the TNA said in a statement.
The party also noted that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights at the 32nd session of the Human Rights Council had accurately captured the opportunities and challenges for reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka,.
“With respect to the reconciliation mechanisms proposed by the government, we welcome the tabling of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) Bill in Parliament. The government consulted us on the Bill, and we are pleased that several of the extensive revisions we urged have been included in the gazetted text. We commend the government for its constructive engagement on the Bill. We look forward to further amendments being moved at the committee stage, and to the early passage of the law through Parliament,” the party said in a statement.
According to the TNA, a law on the lines contemplated by the Bill, if implemented sincerely, could bring relief to families of the forcibly disappeared who are in desperate need of answers. “The OMP must represent a dramatic break from the experience of failed Commissions, including the current Paranagama Commission which lacks credibility. We reiterate that justice for crimes committed in the past by both sides is a necessary precondition to meaningful reconciliation,” the statement added.

NO TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT ON HRC RESOLUTION 30/1 – TNA

samantha_tna_006-720x480-720x480

(TNA meeting Samatha Power in Colombo)

Sri Lanka Brief03/07/2016
Issuing  a statement the Tamil National Alliance says that there is no agreement between “the TNA, Government of Sri Lanka and the United States have come to an agreement with regard to the implementation of the UN resolution 30/1, especially with regard to the accountability processes.”
The full statement fellows:

03rd July 2016

 Press Release

The Tamil National Alliance rejects the rumors that have been appearing in the public media stating that the TNA, Government of Sri Lanka and the United States have come to an agreement with regard to the implementation of the UN resolution 30/1, especially with regard to the accountability processes.

The Tamil National Alliance has always held the position that the resolution must be implemented both in letter and spirit and there has been no change in this position. We will remain committed and take all necessary steps to ensure that the resolution is implemented fully in the future.

The TNA wishes to urge all Sri Lankans not to get carried away by these rumors and to remain united in restoring justice and equality among all citizens and to work towards reconciliation and building a united undivided Sri Lanka.

Tamil National Alliance

Sri Lanka must stay the course

Return to frontpage

 EDITORIAL-July 2, 2016

The frequent human rights updates in Geneva provide an occasion for the world to discuss Sri Lanka’s post-war situation, especially the progress made in investigating the excesses during the last phase of the civil war that ended in 2009. Until last year, the country considered the process hostile and inimical to its interests. Now, with a new government in Colombo, there has been constructive engagement with the international community and Sri Lanka says it is looking for ways to implement a unanimous resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in October 2015. The UNHRC has tried to nudge Sri Lanka towards rebuilding civilian livesthrough resettlement, reducing the military presence in the north and east, and delivering accountability for past crimes through a credible judicial process with international participation. However, the update presented by High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein in Geneva does not present an encouraging picture. He expressed concern about the “heavy military presence” in Tamil areas, noting that the process of the military returning land to its civilian owners has been tardy. There is a lack of urgency in coming up with tangible measures to build confidence among minorities and victims of human rights violations. In turn, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera has informed the ongoing session in Geneva that the government has instructed the military to release by 2018 all civilian land it holds. He has promised that the proposed judicial mechanism will inspire confidence among the stakeholders, but has drawn attention to the “divergent views” in the country on it, perhaps a hint of further delay.
Sri Lanka went through a democratic transition in 2015 when it elected Maithripala Sirisena as President, ending the 10-year reign of Mahinda Rajapaksa, which was marked by post-war triumphalism and a disregard for the plight of ethnic minorities. Later, the parliamentary election led to a national unity government that promised good governance, economic revival, and transitional justice for the war-affected. But even today the High Commissioner has reason to be anxious that those promises are at risk. The road was not expected to be smooth for Sri Lanka when it embarked on an ambitious effort towards national reconciliation and accountability. But the government is frittering away energy and time on political controversies, the row over the appointment of a new Central bank governor being an example. Having set in motion the process for a new Constitution and measures for reconciliation and reform, any loss of momentum now on the part of the government will result in a loss of credibility.

Dithering over Central Bank and Damned 


over UNHRC 


article_image
by Rajan Philips-July 2, 2016, 8:52 pm

More than half the government’s troubles are of its own making. The remaining troubles that are not self-made are the ones that the government is supposed to deal with, directing all its energies to addressing them in some order of priority. Yet, week by week and month by month the government creates new troubles while its involuntary troubles are festering for lack of systematic attention. Two examples, one from each category, are dominating the current news waves and illustrate the government’s self-inflicted and inherited predicaments. The Central Bank governorship is a classic instance of needless prime-ministerial stubbornness and helpless presidential dithering. If it is not for real, it would be a damned good script for a political sitcom. On the other hand, the government is damned for real regardless of what it does in regard to the UNHRC’s stipulation for involving foreign judges in domestic inquiries. For the latter, the government deserves universal sympathy. On the Central Bank, it qualifies for universal scorn.

Technically, the Central Bank is now without a governor. The 18-month tenure of Arjuna Mahendran ran out on June 30, and the two chief executives of the government have not been able to come to an agreement about how to fill the vacancy and what to do with Mahendran. For the record, Mr. Mahendran has been quoted as saying, "I will not seek an extension of my term until COPE clears my name." That is a rather odd, if not presumptuous, statement to make, for it is not up to him to seek an extension but it is the President’s privilege to appoint or not appoint him to a new term. Mr. Mahendran can only accept or decline if the President offers him an extension. By all accounts, the President is not at all prepared to reappoint Mr. Mahendran, and on this he is in total agreement with the chorus of civil society and public interest voices who want Mahendran gone. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, is on another plane and has indicated that "the allegations against Mr. Mahendran should be proven in order to take action against him" and that he "won’t hesitate to take action against Mr. Mahendran if the allegations are proven".

Unfortunately, the PM has got it backwards. Everyone knows the old maxim that justice must not only be done, but also appear to be done. Equally, individuals coveting senior appointments must not only be innocent, but also appear to be innocent. The institution is bigger than the individual. If there were no allegations against Mr. Mahendran, there will not be any objection to his reappointment. The objections now are different from the earlier scurrilous objections of the Joint-Opposition forces based on Mr. Mahendran’s Singapore citizenship. The government’s primary, if not the only, consideration should be whether reappointing him to a full term of six years will help or hurt the institution of the Central Bank. It will not be in the interest of the Central Bank to appointment someone merely because the allegations against him have not been proven. Rather, the Bank will be better served by appointing someone without any allegations whatsoever. There are such people for every top job in Sri Lanka, who are not only technically qualified, but are also scrupulously untainted. And the media carried a short list of half a dozen people, some of them well known for their qualifications, honesty, integrity, and political neutrality, who were being apparently considered by the President for governorship. If appointed, they will positively contribute to the Bank rather than being a permanent source of detraction. Good governance was supposed to put an end to making wrong appointments for the wrong reasons. There should be no exception to this expectation, and the Central Bank should be the last place for making exceptions.

President Sirisena has publicly stated that he would be making a new appointment before June 30, but the deadline has come and gone. Mr. Mahendran’s term has ended. No one has been appointed. And the Bank hopefully is being run by an ad hoc committee of three Deputy Governors. Now it is being suggested that the new appointment of the Governor can only be made by the Minister of Finance, who is now in China. And everything is said to have been put-on hold until the Finance Minister returns from China this weekend. This is pure bunkum. The responsibility for the Central Bank was taken out of the Finance Ministry by gazette notification in non-conformance with the law. The Finance Minister has been sidelined and overlooked in all the major economic decisions of the government, except during his long winded budget speech. Now the party line, or the cabinet line, is that the country must wait for the Minister’s return from China before the Central Bank can have a governor.

If this was the case, why was not the Finance Minister involved in all the publicized consultations regarding the re-appointment of Mr. Mahendran? Why was not a decision made before he left for China, given the June 30 deadline? Do not due process and deadlines matter anymore? Can bids and tenders be received after deadlines through cabinet exceptions? We will not know unless an aggrieved bidder goes to the Supreme Court as in the recent case involving the now tainted tender for the supply of coal to the Norochcholai Power Plant. In the words of the Chief Justice, the tender shenanigans have shocked "the conscience of the Court." Troubles of the government’s own making! And let not cabinet ministers trot out the silly old non-argument that Mr. Mahendran has been cleared by the Supreme Court.



Damned over UNHRC

When it comes to satisfying the UNHRC requirement to involve foreign judges in domestic inquiries into war crimes allegations, the government is between caught between the devil and the deep blue see. The government’s plight is one of being damned if it invites foreign judges and damned if it doesn’t. The southern critics of the government are all waiting for the government to trip and fall between its recent assurances that there will be no foreign judges, and the UNHRC chief’s reminder in Geneva that there must be foreign judges. Per usual, the government has been all over the map on this matter, with different voices saying different things at different times. At least, there appeared to be some unity of purpose at the beginning. Now, observers are looking beyond the appearance of unity to emerging signs of differences at the highest level.

The obvious tug-of-war over the governor of the Central Bank is something the government would rather not have for the sake of its own good and for the good of the country. I cannot think of an instance when a previous government, or cabinet, got so publicly divided over an individual appointment. It shows the banal lows to which our politics has sunk from the lofty heights to which our hopes were raised in January 2015.

More ominously, political staffers in different power silos are playing different games with or without their masters’ approval. One such game that is being much talked about is a seminar on foreign policy organized by presidential staffers that became a platform for badmouthing the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and former President Chandrika Kumaratunga by a born-again Rajapaksa loyalist. This is hardly the method for preserving unity in the troika, at the top.

On the other side, the TNA is tugging along, hoping all the while that some good will come out of the Sirisena-Wickremasinghe government in which it (TNA) has invested all its political eggs. The TNA has come out with a measured statement on the Oral Update by the UNHRC chief in Geneva. It has welcomed the update while avoiding any direct reference to foreign judges. It is not at all funny that the moniker for political intransigence among otherwise well-meaning people should invariably involve ‘f’-words: first Federalism, now Foreign Judges. More to the point, the TNA has focussed on the Office on Missing Persons Bill that has been tabled in parliament. There apparently has been positive collaboration between the government and the TNA in the preparation of this bill, and the TNA’s statement indicates the urgency for passing it into law and implementing it sincerely to bring relief to those who are seeking answers regarding those who went missing during the war.

The government has put quite a few reconciliation irons in the political fire. The constitutional and the investigative initiatives are more problematic than practical initiatives to provide answers about missing persons and to provide relief on the ground to their survivors. For all its good intentions, the government is yet to demonstrate its ability to develop a practical road map, set relief targets, and provide institutional support and mobilize people at all levels to achieve those targets. It is only through such efforts can the government and the TNA put in place the foundation for national reconciliation. Without these efforts and a practical common ground, constitutional assemblies and courts of inquiries will end up becoming platforms for shouting matches, as they did in times past.

Critical Evaluation & Democratisation Of Article (9)  


Colombo Telegraph
By Mass L. Usuf –July 3, 2016
Mass L. Usuf
Mass L. Usuf
The Public Representations Committee on Constitutional Reform (PRCCR) appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers on the 22nd of December 2015, has released its Report with regard to the proposed Constitutional reform.
The more than 300-page Report goes on to state that a study of the representations made by the public reflects a desire in the people throughout Sri Lanka towards democratisation of the State, establishment of the Rule of Law, broadening Fundamental Human Rights, Peace and Reconciliation and strengthening of independent commissions.
The PRCCR recommendation inter alia regarding Article 9 was interesting to read specially, from the perspective of the desire towards democratisation. It merits a critical evaluation from the view point of the Report and the usefulness of Article 9 itself.
The recent Sri Lankan history is pregnant with the germ of political opportunism, nationalism and later Sinhala Buddhist nationalism. Each of these ‘isms’ singularly and collectively conceptualising and institutionalizing Article 6 of the 1972 Republican constitution, the precursor to the present Article 9 of the 1978 Socialist Democratic constitution. Many in the past have argued that the rise and institutionalisation of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism in post-independent Sri Lanka bear much responsibility for today’s protracted ethnic conflict between the majority Sinhalese state and the minority Sri Lankan Tamils. [i]
Prophecy
A Federal Party member, K.P. Ratnam, criticizing the formative document [ii] that led to Article 6 and now Article 9 prophetically stated in 1972:
“I wish to tell you that this position will be a cause of continuous strife for this country” [iii]
As I write this today, even after the lapse of 44 years of this prophecy, the conflict has extended from the Tamils to the Muslims and the Christians. Some robed racists continue the pretense of having taken upon themselves what the State is supposed to do – that is to give the foremost place to Buddhism per Article 9. These fascists are pretentiously claiming to ‘protect’ Buddhism using everything that violates the Buddha dhamma viz. hate speech, manufactured lies, violence and fear mongering.Maithripla Buddhist monks
Scant academic or political discussion has taken place on the impact of Article 9 on the right to religion of the non-buddhists. The ramification of this Article on a pluralistic society like Sri Lanka is largely unexplored publicly. Sri Lanka is a signatory to several international treaties on human rights etc.