Enough is enough: Mangala responds to MR

2016-07-31


Responding to Former President and Kurunegala District MP Mahinda Rajapaksa’s statement on the Office on Missing Persons, Minister of Foreign Affairs Mangala Samaraweera today said MP Rajapaksa is trying to score political points at the expense of the grieving mothers and the future generations.

 Following is the full statement of Minister Samaraweera.

 Presidential commissions, including those appointed by Mahinda Rajapaksa such as the LLRC and Paranagama Commissions, have received complaints from the tens thousands of family members of those who have gone missing due to conflicts in the North and South.

 Even today, years after the guns have gone silent, on a daily basis, mothers - bearing hardship and financial burden - go from government office to office, from police station to army camp, in the desperate search for their sons. The mothers’ backgrounds are different but their grief is the same: for example, there are those whose sons were forcibly conscripted by the LTTE, those whose sons participated in the 1987 insurrection and those mothers whose sons joined the army, but for whom all that is left are three letters, MIA.

 In fact, even today in my constituency of Matara, there are mothers who come to me searching for their long disappeared sons. These mothers hope against hope that their children are alive and at the very least, to put the past behind, they need to know how, where and why they died. During the meetings that we had with families of the missing from across the country over the last few months, there were mothers of soldiers who came to us asking us to at least find a small bone fragment of their missing sons so that they can find closure. 

As the LLRC notes, this anguish is something that we as Government have an urgent responsibility to address. We need to provide the families of the missing and disappeared with the truth and we need to provide them with relief.

 During former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime all that was done was window-dressing to dupe the international community. But now, in his opportunistic fashion, my former friend Mahinda is trying to score political points at the expense of the grieving mothers and at the expense of future generations. 

But before I expose the list of factual inaccuracies and lies that constitutes his statement on the Office of Missing Persons, it is important to know the background of his statement, especially on this topic.

 As all those who have read my Open Letter to Mahinda are aware, in the early 1990s, no one’s voice was louder than his in articulating the tears of the mothers of the missing in Parliament, in the Courts and even at the UNHRC in Geneva. 

In fact, speaking in Parliament after a visit to Geneva on 25th October 1990, he boldly proclaimed, “if the government is going to deny human rights, we should go not only to Geneva, but to any place in the world, or to hell if necessary, and act against the government. The lamentation of this country’s innocents should be raised anywhere.” On the same day, he said, “I took the wailings of this country’s mothers. Do I not have the freedom to speak about them?”. At another point he was arrested at the airport for trying to take 533 documents to Geneva containing information on thousands of disappearances and his fundamental rights case was heard at the Supreme Court.
 Not only did Mahinda voice their sorrow, he also succeeded in getting the world to act. 

Soon after his visit, the international community imposed conditions on aid. In the same Parliamentary debate quoted above, he boasted, “We asked the donors countries as to why conditions cannot be imposed when giving aid. That was the request we made. It is what has been fulfilled today.” These words speak for themselves and there is no need therefore for me to recount Mahinda’s words and action after he became President, to demonstrate what a hypocrite he has become.

  - See more>>>

Missing links in the Missing Persons’ Bill

• 
  

• Editorial

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Sunday, July 31, 2016

The move by the Government to establish an Office for Missing Persons (OMP) is clearly one of the outcomes of the UNHRC Resolution that requires Sri Lanka to hold an investigation into allegations of violations of International Humanitarian Law during the military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) back in 2009.

Not that the search for ‘Missing Persons’, is in itself something to be taken lightly. So many went ‘missing’ over a period of three decades not just due to one insurgency in the North, but also due to one in the South. Many took advantage of the situation in the country to settle personal grudges.

The controversial aspect of the Bill, however, is whether it is an opening of the door to foreign participation in a process that the Government insists is a “domestic mechanism”; and whether this foreign involvement is an instance of caving in to external elements wanting to continue meddling in the internal affairs of this country from afar. There is a sweeping array of powers sought to be given to the proposed OMP including the ability to enter into ‘agreements with any person or organisation, whether local or foreign’ for a wide range of purposes.

Ironically, the earlier Maxwell Paranagama Commission on Missing Persons which was prematurely wound up to make way for the OMP, partly on the insistence of the UNHRC, put itself in controversy last year when it appeared to recommend that foreign judges sit on a war crimes panel; charges which it hotly refuted.

While foreign technical and expert advice may be obtained, accountability mechanisms must be in conformity with the spirit as well as the letter of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, thus effectively barring foreign judges from adjudicating on highly sensitive local matters.

In principle, there are positive features in the Bill. The primary mandate is that of searching for and tracing missing persons and identifying appropriate mechanisms for the same, and of clarifying the circumstances in which such persons went missing.

The OMP mandate includes making recommendations to relevant authorities to address the incidence of missing persons, protecting the interests of missing persons and their relatives, identifying avenues of redress available to missing persons and their relatives and informing them of same, and collating data related to missing persons from previous processes carried out by other entities and establishing a centralised database.

Unlike Commissions of Inquiry, the OMP is a permanent body not subjected to the political risk of premature termination. Its mandate applies to all missing persons regardless of the time period. It covers not only the Wanni war-affected but also members of the armed forces or police identified as “Missing in Action” (MIA), those missing due to “political unrest or civil disturbances” and those subjected to an enforced disappearance as defined in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. This broad mandate is praiseworthy.

The OMP is subject to judicial review of the Supreme Court. There is judicial supervision in other respects as well. The OMP is empowered to apply to a Magistrate’s Court in order to carry out an excavation and/or exhumation of suspected grave sites and to act as an observer at such proceedings. The OMP findings will not lead to criminal or civil liability leading some to speculate that this would merely be another glorified Commission of Inquiry.

But extraordinarily, the Bill provides that ‘the still to be signed by the Speaker’ Right to Information Act will not apply to the OMP. Concerns of confidentiality regarding information on missing persons may be legitimate in some cases. But that must be dealt with on a case by case exclusion, not by a blanket exclusion which the OMP Bill contains. Proposing this broad exclusion soon after the RTI Bill was unanimously passed by Parliament calls into question the Government’s commitment to RTI. What really is there to hide?

At the heart of the matter, the enforced ‘disappearances’ of Sri Lankan citizens, now covered under the convenient euphemism of ‘missing persons’ call for a measured, coordinated and – above all, effective State response. The Government is under an obligation to correct system flaws in its investigative, prosecutorial and judicial bodies. Restoring public confidence in the efficacy of the law, which remains at an all-time low, will do much to satisfy the expectations of citizens that the State will act as their protector rather than as their abuser.

The 2011 report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommended that “a comprehensive approach to address the issue of missing persons should be found as a matter of urgency as it would otherwise present a serious obstacle to any inclusive and long-term process of reconciliation”.

But will the OMP redress this deficit of public trust or aggravate it? Will it encourage divisive debates on ‘foreign vs. local’ which we see already even while the crucial but quite unglamorously laborious task of reforming the country’s criminal justice systems in regard to alleged war brutalities as well as ‘ordinary’ grave crimes is pushed to a side? These are important questions that the Bill’s enthusiastic proponents should be called upon to answer.

And lest we forget, those ‘missing’ includes not only the war victims of the North and East but also Muslim citizens targeted by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and thousands of Sinhalese who ‘disappeared’ during the 1980s and whose relatives still await justice.

The proposed law states that priority should be given to cases where there is already some substantive evidence to begin an inquiry. What better prima facie evidence is there to conduct an inquiry than the case of the 600 policemen who were killed in 1990 in one sweep in the Eastern Province when they were told to surrender to the LTTE on the orders of the then Government of Sri Lanka?

The case of the 600 policemen officially classified as ‘MIA’ (Missing in Action) is one of the sad chapters of this country’s war on terror, and how let down they were by the politicians of the day, the political leaders to follow, and the police top brass right along since that fateful day. Compare for a moment how the US President broke journey in Spain and flew down to Texas for the memorial of five policemen who were gunned down recently.

There is an argument that these policemen are not ‘missing persons’, but that they were brutally murdered and that their mass graves are identifiable. Thus, this case clearly falls into the category of a ‘war crime’ and it must be investigated as the perpetrators of this heinous deed – the cold blooded mass murder of uniformed men waving white flags – are still in the land of the living. Priority must be given, either way – under the OMP or whatever future tribunal is to be set up under the Geneva Resolution. This terrible episode must not be buried with the bones of those unfortunate policemen.

Brecht within a Tamil Chalk Circle

 2016-07-30

My first introduction to Bertolt Brecht was through the Sinhala adaptation of his play “Caucasian Chalk Circle” by renowned, respected and award winning Sinhala playwright and producer, late Henry Jayasena.

That was way back in 1970. I was once again invited to sit in the audience to watch the same play when “Janakaraliya” a very versatile, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural young group of performing artistes led by reputed, award winning creative artiste Parakrama Niriella, reproduced “Caucasian Chalk Circle” in Sinhala. That was late December, in 2013 before they left for the international drama festival in Kerala. This novel Sinhala version by Janakaraliya was based on Jayasena’s translation of the “Caucasian Chalk Circle”, but given a bit more political flavour.

On 22 July, the Janakaraliya mobile theatre ensemble performed its new version of the “Caucasian Chalk Circle” at the Veerasingham Hall, Jaffna to an exclusively Tamil audience. This time it was a Tamil adaptation of Brecht’s play titled “Venkatti Vattam” co-directed by Niriella and K. Rathidaran.

This was the first Sri Lankan Tamil adaptation of Brecht’s “Caucasian Chalk Circle”. It was performed for the second time at the Visual and Performing Arts University in Colombo, on 25 July evening. It was a mixed audience. It was very much wonderfully youthful. It was also attended by the Colombo Tamil middle class. After two hours and 25 minutes of pin-drop silence in the audience, there broke out a loud and rhythmic clapping with the lights coming on.

Then came cheerful whistling and applause. Louder with every member of the caste coming on stage to greet the audience. It was an aura of delight and pleasure all around and I have not seen such exuberance in a theatre audience for many decades.

What prompted such spontaneous applause, is what I am trying to understand here, in my own way.
The tree productions, spanning a period of 46 years certainly have their contextual differences in understanding an “armed conflict”, a war.

In 1967 when Henry Jayasena set his hands on Brecht’s “Caucasian Chalk Circle”, none in then “Ceylon” had any idea of what an armed conflict is and how life in such armed conflict would be. None had experienced “anarchy” where the State goes under new authority that cannot command total power over every part of the land. Where the rulers, legitimate or not, cannot enforce law and order.

Ceylon was merely getting dragged with day to day issues; cost of living and unemployment, the biggest issues. Politically, the only conflict was in how the Tamil people could be allowed to share power as equal citizens and that was not what the majority of the people were grieving about.
This left Brecht’s Caucasian Chalk Circle as pure fiction, Jayasena could retell on stage as an entertaining folklore. The language thus used was very soft and literary, very musical and nuanced to keep the audience “entertained”. The audience was not taken through travails of a society that demanded justice outside a corrupt and thieving Governor in “Grusinia” appointed by the Persians.

That wasn’t Jayasena’s dramatic intention. His whole adaptation of Caucasian Chalk Circle, as with his own interpretation of the Sinhala folk story “Kuveni” in 1963 that brought her to a modern Court of Justice, revolved around the issue of social justice to the child (Prince Michael) and the “rightful” mother (Grusha). The disputed ownership of the child in a “chalk circle” and the maverick Azdak as a “people’s judge” was what Jayasena loved most to be dramatisedon stage. It wasn’t therefore what Bertolt Brecht had written as Caucasian Chalk Circle. It did not carry that human tragedy under a usurping ruler against whom the people revolted.

After over 400 stage performances of the original Sinhala adaptation, when Niriella re-produced Jayasena’s Chalk Circle, Niriella had lived through the ‘71 and 1988 – 90 JVP insurgencies and the brutal ethnic war that drastically changed Sinhala perceptions on human rights, democracy, civil liberties and in turn brutalised human decency and social life.

He was thus prompted to stitch those experiences into Jayasena’s script of Chalk Circle, he wasn’t going to change. Therefore, Niriella’s version of the Sinhala Chalk Circle had its war effects, the heavily brutalised life in anarchy, mostly brought out with stage effects and in few changes to dialogue. On stage it was more heavy and robust than Jayasena’s. It was also loud and harsh in language with music that added weight to what unfolded on stage.

Yet, it wasn’t near enough to Brecht’s version of the Caucasian Chalk Circle. Obviously, Niriella like those sensitive minds in Sinhala South, was only a serious observer of what unfolded as war and the brutalising of society as seen from the South of the barricade and not one who actually lived through pain of war. Therein lies the difference in this Tamil version that comes after the savage conclusion of the war on the banks of Mullivaikkal in 2009 May after over 26 years of armed conflict.

This Tamil translation of Brecht’s Caucasian Chalk Circle is by Jaffna based veteran Tamil dramatist M. Shanmugalingam. I came to know Shanmugalingam more popularly known as “Kuzhanthai” through translation of three of his plays into English by poet Sopa Pathmanathan.

Dramatist Shanmugalingam, I found had the knack to read through ordinary life in conflict, as captured in his play, “Enthayum Thayum” written after the Vadamaraachchi attack and its displacements. In fact, Jaffna lived through armed conflict for more than 26 years with the first political murder of its Mayor Duraiyappa in July 1975. For Shanmugalingam therefore, reading the original version of Brecht’s Caucasian Chalk Circle would have been as agonising and revealing as reading the events of the last few years of the Vanni war. He thus stood more sensitive than any Sinhala playwright to handle the translation of Brecht’s Chalk Circle and he proves it in every line that comes on stage.

With my very little understanding of spoken Tamil, what stood out strong for me was the political reading that the Tamil production brings out on stage. Unlike the two Sinhala stage versions, this Tamil version is “conflict” driven. It gives the audience the bitterness of human tragedy in a conflict.
The displacement of human life and the utter desperate haste to find refuge and safety. Scarcity of human decency, in terms of economic life, rule of law and failing morals.

The uncertainty in life the absence of authority in society allows to rule the day. And then human bondage that struggles to find respect with people, who dream of a peaceful future.

All of it in this Tamil version, was what any Sri Lankan Tamil could feel and be emotionally moved, having lived through a bloody and brutal war.

With Shanmugalingam’s very honest translation of Brecht’s Chalk Circle, this production co-directed by Niriella and Rathidaran, has thus done more justice to Brecht than what the two previous Sinhala productions could do.

The added strength of this production was the hard and powerful portrayal of characters like Azdak, Grusha, Simon Chachava and the lead singer to whom everyone else on and off stage add their worth.
All that said and done, what I missed in this Tamil production too is the political link that Bertolt Brecht makes with clear rationality between “ownership” and “right to ownership”. The link he forges on “right” to ownership and actual “possession”.

This issue is raised by Brecht in introducing the play on stage and in concluding the play on stage. Yet in all three productions, two earlier Sinhala and this Tamil production, what comes out is the right to possession as articulated through the child and not through land. In fact, my reading of Brecht’s Chalk Circle tells me, his Chalk Circle and the child within it is so formulated to establish the fact that land belongs to the ancestral people, who cared for the land, the issue he presents to begin his play.
I would thus conclude this short essay by quoting direct from the old English translation of Bertolt Brecht’s script (1944) that argues the case for rightful possession of land.

This dialogue in Scene I, is set in a war torn Caucasian village. Members of two “Kolkhoz”, collective farms from two valleys keep arguing about who should own the land and what should be farmed there.
An “Expert” from the State reconstruction commission from the “capital” moderates the discussion, using his authority as an official from the ruling regime.

The old peasant seated on the right – “It is not perfect. It’s barely middling. The new pasture is no good, whatever the young folks may say. I say we can’t live there. It doesn’t even smell like morning, in the morning.”

The Expert – “Let them laugh. They know what you mean. Comrades, why does a man love his home country? Because the bread tastes better, the sky is higher, the air is spicier, voices ring out more clearly, the ground is softer to walk on. Am I right?”

The old peasant seated on the right – “The valley has always belonged to us”.

It’s on that same logic that Azdak decides possession of Prince Michael. He had belonged to Grusha right through the hardest period of life and Grusha is who cared for him with affection.

This connection, this political argument still goes missing even in “Venkatti Vattam” If my little Tamil allowed me enough understanding of the play that the Janakaraliya team, Niriella, Shanmugalingam and Rathidaran teams up to bring on stage. A play even non-Tamils should sit through watching.
Easily, an evening of rich entertainment.

Community hospitality from “Nelumyaya”!

Jul 31, 2016

The concept of “modern classroom” for schools in rural areas is to be made real with the building of modern classrooms project on the 30th instant with the sponsorship of M/s Nelumyaya and Adayalam organization.

Signifying this concept at Thangakele No 3 Tamil  Maha Vidyalaya a presentation and destribution of cement bags had taken place.Simultaneously the school children had been presented with school equipment.

For this event some members of the Nelumyaya and Adayalam organization, villages, teachers, principal and school children had participated. As a part of this community hospitality project initially in the first phase three schools from Nanu Oya. This includes the Uvakelle No 2 Tamil Vidyalaya, Tangakele Tamil Vidyalaya and Kinru Upper Tamil Vidyalaya.

.

The Death Of Neelan Tiruchelvam: A Grave Loss To The Tamil People

By Pitasanna Shanmugathas –July 30, 2016

Pitasanna Shanmugathas

On July 29th 1999, Neelan Tiruchelvam was killed by an LTTE suicide bomber. Dr. Tiruchelvam’s death proved to be a grave loss for the Sri Lankan Tamils. Tiruchelvam, as a constitutional lawyer, was determined to settle the ethnic conflict in a peaceful manner.

Even though Neelan Tiruchelvam did not agree with LTTE’s objectives of using violence to solve the ethnic conflict, he was very sympathetic to the young Tamils who were dying in the armed struggle, and in certain instances, Neelan used his authority protected the welfare of those within the LTTE. For example, in the late 1990s, the Canadian government was about to deport Suresh Manickavasagam—the LTTE chief in Canada. However, Neelan Tiruchelvam as a key political advisor in Chandrika’s government wrote a letter to the Canadian Globe and Mail stating that Suresh was likely to be “interrogated aggressively” if he was deported to Sri Lanka. Subsequently, Suresh’s defense lawyers were able to use Neelan’s written statements in postponing his deportation.

In 1995, Neelan Tiruchelvam and G.L Peiris proposed a set of constitutional reforms known as the GL-Neelan package. The GL-Neelan package involved “merging of the Northern and Eastern provinces, expanding the subjects devolved to provincial councils, establishment of a mechanism to resolve disputes between the central and provincial governments and greater recognition of Sri Lanka’s many minorities.”

Neelan and his wife Sithie / File photo

However, despite proposing sweeping constitutional reforms, the LTTE dismissed the GL-Neelan package without having even read it and condemned Neelan as a traitor. In the late 1990s, Neelan worked to initiate peace talks between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government under a third party peace facilitator.

Read More

On the Pada Yathra and Gunadasa Amarasekara’s point

On the Pada Yathra and Gunadasa Amarasekara’s point

Fragments.

Posted by Uditha Devapriya-Jul 31, 2016

Don't tell me not to fly, I simply got to
If someone takes a spill, it's me and not you
Who told you you're allowed to rain on my parade?

Barbra Streisand, from “Funny Girl”
Names matter. So do personalities. Peruse history, peruse all those revolutions, rebellions, and political changes which have in some form or the other shifted regimes and created precedent, and you will come across both. Revolutions are birthed, sustained, and in some instances continued by rhetoric. Rhetoric is the preserve of the politicians. And politicians, ladies and gentlemen, are not statesmen. Not by a long shot.

Mahinda Rajapaksa has a following. Those who support him inflate figures. Those who oppose him downplay them. Whatever both sides say by way of justifying their stance on the man, one thing is certain: he is not a statesman. If he was, he would have accepted defeat. The only reason why anyone can cut him some slack, hence, is that he is less concerned about returning to power than about sustaining an ideology that survives personalities and parties and ensures a consistent vote-base. The way things stand however, I’d say that this is unlikely. Highly unlikely.

His critics will say that he is possessed by a demon. A demon that goes by the name of “bala tanhava.” I wouldn’t disagree, but going by that logic none of his predecessors would have been possessed by that demon, something which (given constitutional realities after 1977) is highly unlikely. But there’s of course something else these critics will note: the fact that the man served two terms and the fact that he lost batting for a third. I would be less inclined to disagree there.

That still doesn’t stop Mahinda Rajapaksa from taking advantage of the other demons which seem to have besotted this government, i.e. the demons of self-contradiction, self-aggrandizement, self-righteousness, and self-centredness. One can’t blame him for speaking against the present government and pointing out flaws, never mind his motives and never mind the fact that when he was in power, he tolerated those same flaws. Naturally, those in power will point at relative merits and those kicked out will idealise the past. Been there, done that.

About two days ago the largely Rajapaksist “Joint Opposition” organised a walk (of protest) from Kandy to Colombo. This walk, a Pada Yathra, met with opposition, restraining orders, Court visits, and of course the usual rhetoric from the government ridiculing the entire exercise. Typical, I suppose, given political realities and given how the opposition of any regime, be it the UNP or SLFP, loves to dabble in amnesia and dissent. This article is not about the Pada Yathra, however.

This article is about Gunadasa Amarasekara. About a year ago I wrote on him to Colombo Telegraph (“Gunadasa Amarasekara’s Relevance”) and noted that he basically had provided absolution to Rajapaksa’s cabal even though many of those who were with the former president espoused values which he (Amarasekara) clearly opposed. I now realise that I was wrong. Amarasekara, unlike those who support personalities and like Professor Nalin de Silva, does not give blank cheques. For that reason, what he said about two months ago stands relevant, particularly in light of what the Joint Opposition is engaged in now.

Amarasekara said (if I remember correctly) that the JO was as concerned about political rhetoric as the SLFP and UNP, which in the long run would turn the people away from more pressing issues to do with devolution and constitutional reforms. I vaguely remember how diehard supporters of the JO reacted: they either were confused or muttered invective against him. Some even whispered that he was “turning” (like those ministers who’d sided with the government after expressing support to Rajapaksa). Ridiculous and absurd of course, but for those who indulge in black-and-white logic, nothing short of unconditional praise (for the JO) could endear the likes of Amarasekara to them.

The Pada Yathra was about colour. It was about displaying colour. It was deliberately made to reflect that other Pada Yathra from the 1980s, the one Rajapaksa organised against the then UNP regime’s excesses. That, however, had next to nothing featured in what was begun two days ago, for the simple reason that the JO needs attention and needs to attract it fast. Hot air, it would seem, is what they are resorting to.

And it’s not hard to see why. Tisaranee Gunasekara, in an illuminating article titled “Keeping the lunatic fringe in the fringe”, points out that this government has done all it can to be marginally superior to its predecessor. Well, marginal improvement is nothing to be proud about, but it’s still an improvement. Which is why, though I’m a supporter of neither regime, I still can’t fathom how and why members in the JO can spot out dictatorial tendencies in this government when the entire country (yes, even those who bayed for blood while supporting the previous regime unconditionally), knew what Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government indulged in during those last few months before January 8, 2015.

On that count, I agree with Ranjan Ramanayake, who came up with a classic the other day: “The Pada Yathra is just a vehicle parade.” The reference was to the fact that several politicians who participated at the walk were seen in vehicles, unlike the majority who preferred to walk. I have my reservations about Ramanayake, but the man speaks his mind and speaks it in such a way that even his bitterest critics are forced to concede ground to.

Which brings me back to Amarasekara. I don’t think he commented on the Pada Yathra per se. I do know, however, that what he said a few months ago remains relevant today, if at all because it was Amarasekara (together with Professor Nalin) who started a campaign that culminated on the political field, at least for the time being, with the Jathika Hela Urumaya. True, that campaign clearly doesn’t see eye-to-eye with the JHU today, but on one point at least they are in agreement: the fact that a nationalist program has less to do with personalities than a sustainable, consistent ideology.

The Joint Opposition isn’t doing much in this respect. Sadly. The movement (to call it a party would be erroneous) is housed by its share of veterans, respected ideologues, and idiots, not to mention populists and jokers. It’s also housed by devolutionists (not that I have anything against them) and in other ways affirm values which are at odds with Amarasekara’s brand of nationalism. For the sake of maintaining a counterthrust to the government, however, I believe he is willing to cut them some slack, but when it comes to other matters, i.e. political principles, he is less so.

And you know what? I wouldn’t blame him. Nationalism isn’t about rhetoric and shouldn’t be about rhetoric. It doesn’t start with demagoguery and shouldn’t end with show. As I’ve pointed out before, despite two terms as an all-powerful Executive President Mahinda Rajapaksa was unable to stifle federal-speak in his own party. The SLFP, after all, was and is the party of devolutionists and federalists, even more so than the UNP, which to its credit was less concerned about capitulating to Eelamism (during the ceasefire years) than cautiously tackling a deteriorating economy. That the JHU, even after joining the present government, still contends against federal-rhetoric speaks volumes about its sincerity and of course commitment to ideology.

The Joint Opposition, I think, should listen to Amarasekara. If the past is anything to go by, it may well deteriorate into a “one man one show” exercise, which to be honest isn’t what its supporters want. What they want or rather SHOULD want is a movement that survives personality, acts as a bulwark against the government (and even official opposition), and plans for the future. Mahinda Rajapaksa will feature in there as long as he stands by its core values. The moment he detours, the people will suffer him. In silence. In the end, he too will be out.

Let’s not forget, after all, that January 8, 2015 wouldn’t have happened if Mahinda Rajapaksa had a) listened to sense, b) listened to his party members instead of his immediate family, c) not called an election, d) given space to Maithripala Sirisena, the most senior (and deserving) candidate for the post of President or Prime Minister after him, and e) discouraged hosanna-singers. Let’s not forget that even Amarasekara voiced his qualms about Rajapaksa’s regime and his “sahodara samagama.” And while we’re at it, let’s not also forget that even after two years the Rajapaksa Resurgence clearly seems here to stay (proverbially speaking). That, ideally, should drive home the point that their movement should be about sustaining an ideology and not boosting that “sahodara samagama.”

Those who attended the Pada Yathra, I noticed, wore the same t-shirt. A t-shirt adorned by the smiling face of Mahinda Rajapaksa. A pity, I should think. No, not because I hate the man or for that matter his smile, but because all this rhetoric, all those words he and his supporters spout, could have been justified if he didn’t turn the walk into a parade.

Ranjan Ramanayake probably got it right when he spoke the other day. So much so that when I heard what he said, I tried my best not to smile. Or grin. Predictably, I failed.

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

Iran demands Rs. 37 b in unpaid bills

By Damith Wickremasekara-Sunday, July 31, 2016

An agreement has been reached on Iran’s demand that Sri Lanka should settle an unpaid bill of US$ 256 million (Rs. 37 billion) to resume crude oil sales.
The issue about the settlement of the bill figured during talks in Teheran between a Sri Lankan delegation led by Petroleum Resources Development Minister Chandima Weerakkody and top Iranian officials.

The Lankan delegation including a representative from the Attorney General’s Department discussed ways to repay the unpaid bill, the minister said One of the ways was to offset the payments for tea exports to Iran or to consider them as investments made here. Sri Lanka has again begun to buy ‘Iranian light’ crude as the Sapugaskanda refinery is designed in a manner to refine such oil.

Minister Weerakkody said agreement was reached to settle the dues to Iran and the the purchase of crude oil. This has been made possible after the lifting of international sanctions on Iran earlier this year.

President bitterly blames and berates defense secretary ;rectifies instructions :LeN exposure reaps dividends!

(Lanka-e-News -30.July.2016, 11.00) The news report of Lanka e news posted yesterday(29) in connection with the negligence /fraudulence of the defense secretary has reaped rich dividends for the benefit of the entire country.! 

By noon today , the president Maithripala Sirisena has rectified the wrongful order issued by the defense secretary Karunasena Hettiarachi pertaining to Navy Commodore K.C Welegedera .

The  president who  summoned the defense  secretary had blamed and  berated him bitterly over his negligence despite being the defense secretary of the  country , when the defense secretary had taken refuge under the flimsy defense that  it was not done deliberately , and was based on  a misunderstanding .

The president gives instructions to his secretaries by word of mouth and not in writing. It is the duty of the veteran secretaries to note down duly and act accordingly. Sadly this most responsible  defense secretary  had acted most irresponsibly and  failed in his duty in this direction – a most egregious  mistake !  Consequently coming  in for heavy flak from the president .

Anyway , we wish to write  a few words on ‘The president  severely blaming’ the defense secretary,  in the interest of  our viewers .

Maithripala Sirisena is a leader who does not get provoked easily . He is of a calm disposition  and careful about what he utters . However  a listener who heard Maithripala bitterly and furiously blaming and  berating the culprit secretaries would think , why should  this individual continue as  secretary after being insolently treated this way – bearing the brunt of all these abusive words? 

Be that as it may , following the president’s angry reaction , the earlier letter sent in connection with Welegedera was changed . Another letter was sent by the commander in chief of the forces annulling the unjust verdict given by the navy military court.

It is worthy of mention  , Captain Yoshitha Rajapakse travelled abroad on 74 occasions , after  obtaining  permission only 24 times , meaning that he had gone abroad on 50 occasions without obtaining official permission . In the case of Welegedera he had asked for permission to go abroad on several occasions , and gone abroad only once. The Navy Commander  did not summon Yoshitha to the Navy military court , deemed it right to summon Welegedera who travelled abroad just once sans permission , and punished him by barring his promotions for 4 years.

Welegedera is of immense importance to the government of good governance because he is a prime witness in the on going CID investigations into abduction and murder of students after demanding extortion by former Navy Commander Vasantha Karannagoda and his group , as well as the human smuggling to Australia by boats as refugees by Navy chiefs during the corrupt criminal nefarious decade . 

The present Navy Commander appointed the navy military court to try K.C. Welegedera in order to take revenge on the latter , with a view to suppress these crimes aforementioned . Incredible but true , even the locker of Welegedera was broken recently , and the documents pertaining to his evidence in these cases were also robbed.

Connected reports …

1. Country in peril ! Defense secretary deceives president -Whither SL and national security ? 

2. Good governance govt. trembles and is tremulous before apparition of sinister discarded Rajapakse !
-Navy officer who exposed the murders and corruption in trouble again 

3. Defense secretary confirms again he is taking good governance for a ride !
-Punishes Navy officer who went abroad once while Yoshitha Rajapakse who went 29 times without permission is scot free !

4. Incredible but true ! Rajapakse lackeys and lickspittles taking Commander in chief for a ride..!!
-Rajapakse bootlicker in Navy delivers judgments against good governance innocents..!

---------------------------
by     (2016-07-30 18:15:21)

SRI LANKA: HANDS OFF THE MEDIA

by Ashanthi Warunasuirya.-31/07/2016

Media freedom is a topic much bandied-about, yet, despite countless discussions, many believe we are yet to make much headway in the right direction. The previous regime had many issues with regards to media freedom. Since theYahapalana government had assured drastic changes to the then culture of oppression, many hoped that under the new government, media freedom would be re-established.

However, when we look at what is currently taking place in the country, it is doubtful as to whether any real change has taken place. On several occasions we have witnessed Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe unleashing his wrath upon media institutions by openly criticising them. One may argue that anyone should have the right to criticize but his words carried a message of threat rather than constructive criticism. All in all, the Prime Minister’s conduct has now become subject to wide discussion.
The Prime Minister who has from time to time since coming to powerlambasted the media, once again took on the media on Saturday, warning certain media organisations against playing with his government, and also threatening to reveal names of certain journalists who benefited financially during the previous government. Speaking at an event held in Kandy on Saturday, Wickremesinghe said that certain print media organisations were conspiring against the current government because they (journalists) too have been hit since the change of government.

“Some of the rogues are trying to overthrow the government, and this includes print media journalists who are conspiring against the government. Over the next few days, I will reveal names of these journalists who benefited from the previous government. These journalists ate with them and even took money,” Wickremesinghe said.

Wickremesinghe also criticized two English language newspapers in the country, the Daily Mirror and the Financial Times.

“The Daily Mirror is telling us to remove Mangala Samaraweera as Foreign Minister. Sometime back, even the Daily Mirroreditor said I should quit. I think she is the one who should go; if not we must see what we can do about it,” he said.

Wickremesinghe also criticized the Financial Times saying it too was playing a part in conspiring against the government. “If rogues are trying to topple the government then we are ready to take them on,” the Prime Minister declared.

“Do not play with this government; we came to power with a mandate from the people. If they tell us to leave in five years, then we will, but we won’t go just because rogues want us to leave,” Wickremesinghe added.

The Sunday Leader sought the opinions of several media personalities, intellectuals and civil society representatives regarding the gravity of these harsh statements made by the Premier. Following are excerpts of some of their comments.

New media oppression tactics

Kelum Shivantha Rodrigo, Editor, Sri Lanka Mirror.

5

Kelum Shivantha Rodrigo

Media harassment is not a new thing in Sri Lanka. For many years we witnessed how the authorities tried to silence media by using any means necessary. After assuming office, the new government was able to reduce the level of mediaoppressionto a certain extent. But still no local or international organisation has named Sri Lanka as a country with proper media freedom. Recently the Prime Minister publicly threatened several media institutions by naming them. As I see it, there are two modes of media oppression practiced by the present government and its predecessor.

The Rajapaksa regime never threatened any media openly. Their method was secretly abducting any person who objected to their views by using white vans or making them flee the country in fear of their lives. Under this method many senior journalists such as Sunanda Deshapriya and Poddala Jayantha had to flee the country and spend time in custody. Some even had to pay the ultimate price with their lives for speaking against the regime.

The present government is carrying out the same level of oppression but by using different tactics.

However, no government that had attempted to suppress media freedom was able to last long in power.

Media is not a force that can be held at bay with threats. Although there may be a handful of journalists who work for money and privileges, the majority of media is unbiased and independent. They can never be intimidated by threats.

Although we have exposed countless corrupt deals of the previous government with evidence that could bring the culprits before justice, the Prime Minister has so far paid no attention toanything in that regard. Instead, he has started to accuse those who exposed the culprits.

There has never been a perfect government and there never will be. There are problems in the Wickremesinghe government. There are many thieves in this government. This government is not as white as we think.Even though the governments have changed, it’s the same people who are in charge. The culprits have not changed.

This is a serious issue. The previous government was able to skillfully control many media institutions by buying off their bosses. They hoped that it would break down the unity of media organisations. They lavishly gave out privileges and high positions to these media chiefs. If a government tries to buy off journalists by giving out positions and privileges, that is a serious problem.

As a head of a media institution, I would severely criticize the conduct of the Prime Minister. It is not up to the government to attempt to do the duty of the media by trying to assault its opponents in public. There is an accepted way of responding to criticism. The government can respond to any criticism made against them by following that correct procedure. If something wrong has been done, the government has the right to take legal action. Instead, it cannot go berserk in front of the public.

If journalists have taken bribes, a complaint can be lodged at the Bribery Commission. Such corrupt practices are a disgrace to the media as well. There is no debate about that. But it is wrong to make false allegations against those who are speaking against the government’s mistakes. We are not against the government taking legal action against those who have taken bribes but we will stand against all false allegations.
—————————————————————
Media can enjoy their freedom, PM can enjoy his
Karunaratne Paranawithana, Deputy Media Minister

4

Karunaratne Paranawithana

The Prime Minister has said that there are overall opinions that are continuously played by several media organisations, which is wrong.

He has a right to say that in some instances the media is corrupt. Everyone has their own opinion about the media. It is not something that is immune from criticism. Journalists are not saints. It is wrong if we had assaulted, abducted or murdered journalists or if we had ransacked media institutions.
No such thing has been done.

The press is expressing its opinion. The politicians express theirs.

If what the Premier had said is factually incorrect then we could discuss it. What we can do is ensure that media freedom is preserved in this country.

No thuggery, no killing or any undue influence shall be made against the media. Just as the media can enjoy their freedom, the PM can enjoy his.
————————————————————-
Govt-media discussions needed
N. M. Ameen, Chairman, Muslim Media Circle

3

N. M. Ameen

There are certain things in the PM’s speech that we should take into consideration. Anyway there is a problem with the manner in which the Prime Minister has made his point. The report read by the Premier is something that had been sent by someone else. It was about the removal of the foreign minister. I cannot say whether this was something that was intentionally published by the media.

However, it is important that the Prime Minister is engaged in a proper discussion regarding these issues with media institutions. It is vital at this point. The PM has a good understanding about media. He hails from a family that had good ties with the media. So I think that some of the comments he made in anger have now been used against the Yahapalana government. Certain people are trying to reap undue benefits by misusing these comments.

The relationship between the government and media must be decided through lengthy discussions. Then we could agree upon the limits. These incidents must not continue. We have to admit that some degree of media freedom has been established under the present government compared to the previous regime. A weekly Sinhala newspaper had recently published a hypothetical report of the opinion of the Muslim community with regards to the ‘non-religious’ propositions that have been made to the Constitution. It is not a wise thing to publish such reports to trigger religious and racial hatred once again. In my experience, even if we respond to these claims they are not being published. So we must look at this in an unbiased manner. However, it is very important that a discussion must be held about threatening journalists.
All this is only going to create a wrong impression in the public mindset about the government and the media. So far there has been no constructive dialogue among media organisations regarding the matter. We hope things would change in the future.

————————————————————-
No one has a right to threaten the media
C. Dodawatte, Secretary, Free Media Movement

2

C. Dodawatte

There can be conflict of opinion between politicians and journalists. It is a natural phenomenon. But there should be a mature way of criticizing each other. Not only for the journalist, if there has been any criticism, there is a proper way of doing it. Instead, if anyone tries to criticize by threats, then that is not a good sign. We have continuously said that even though there is a right for anyone to criticize media, no one has a right to threaten them.

Here we see something that has gone beyond a mere criticism. This is not good for the future of the country. So we hope that the government would be more responsible in future with regards to its relationship with the media.  As a media organisation we have raised several issues regarding this incident.

 We have focused on the threatening tone of the Prime Minister. He must explain his motives to the country. Until then we are concerned of this statement.

We have continuously condemned these statements of the Prime Minister. But the government has so far not done anything about it. The media minister is holding discussions with media chiefs on reforms that must be carried with regard to media responsibility.

So far these issues have not been taken up for discussion in these talks. In the future we would urge the parties to discuss these issues properly.

————————————————————-
We don’t want a repetition of the past

- Lasantha Ruhunuge, Chairman, Sri Lanka Journalists’ Association

1

Lasantha Ruhunuge

The Prime Minister has made various statements about the media in the past. The most recent development is the speech he made in Kandy, where he accused two media institutions and their editors by name.

First of all, this is not an appropriate way for a Prime Minister to behave. He is not making these accusations in a proper way. If any party has been aggrieved by the conduct of any media institution, then there is an established legal procedure that can be followed to seek remedies. Instead, if he is making these open allegations while preaching about democracy and media freedom, he must explain his motives for choosing this irregular path. He must make himself clear on whether these are proper accusations or signs of media oppression. Ironically, so far it seems as if he has threatened the media.

We condemn the recent statement as well as the previous statements that have been made by the PM regarding media oppression. There are issues that we could agree upon. But this is not the way to say them. If there are corrupt journalists, rather than naming them in public without any evidence, he must expose them with sufficient evidence.

A journalist may have a political agenda but within the confinements of profession, a journalist cannot be biased. We must act in a way that does not disrupt the peace, harmony and co-existence of this country. If any journalist is attempting to break these social values, then they must be dealt with according to the law and not through public humiliation. That is a threat to media freedom. This is not what we expect from a Yahapalana government. We see a lack of unity among media organisations these days. But we hope to once again rally all forces that fought united to topple the previous regime. We must decide what our policy should be under the present circumstances and how we should respond to these issues.

The Premier has said that he would have to teach journalists a lesson. So he must reveal to the country what sort of lesson he is intending to teach as a high-ranking official in the government. If we do not act quickly, we may see a repetition of the horrid past once again.

Sunday Leader