Why Sri Lanka Doesn't Trust the UN

Popular opinion in Sri Lanka views the UN’s human rights efforts as a form of neocolonialism.

By Thamil Venthan Ananthavinayagan

-August 10, 2016

Sri Lanka, an island nation situated in the Indian Ocean, is unfortunately not solely known for its beautiful landscapes, beaches, and the hospitality of its people. The country is sadly more known for the vicious civil war that cost more than 150,000 lives; less is known to the wider public of the violent clampdown of two inter-ethnic riots, two brutal abatements of Marxist uprisings, ethnically motivated pogroms, countless incidents of torture, extra-judicial killings, and enforced disappearances — Sri Lanka has the second highest number of disappearances in the world, after Iraq.

This questionable human rights record comes along with certain paradoxes, namely the Sri Lankan signatures on most of the major international human rights treaties and engagement with charter and treaty-bodies of the United Nations (UN) alike. And yet, the Sri Lankan human rights application seems to be more than sparse, if not expedient. Also, Sri Lanka’s present and visible engagement with one of the UN’s bodies, the Human Rights Council, is overshadowed by mutual distrust and vicious hostility. So why is it that Sri Lanka’s engagement with the United Nations is so unfruitful and, allegedly, makes no significant progress on the ground?

The Majoritarian Minority Complex

Since independence in 1948, ethnic tensions have undermined the peaceful, multireligious, multiethnic picture that most Sri Lankans aspire to be part of. Sri Lanka’s post-colonial leaders at all levels have exploited the Sinhala voter base on coming to power. No Sri Lankan leader propounded an agenda for a truly united Sri Lanka; instead, the rhetoric in the public space was shaped by the Sinhala-Buddhist narrative, the narrative of the majority. The domination by one single ethnic group in government paved the way for separation and division that found expression in the legislation of the country, from the first postcolonial constitution, the Soulbury Constitution, over to the first republican constitution to, finally, the second republican constitution.

Sri Lanka’s post-colonial history never addressed the byproducts of political alienation and discrimination that metamorphosed from a general sense of collective grievance into frustration, anger, and ultimately, mass violence. For Sri Lankans, the effects of this sense of collective grievance and alienation are particularly significant. The ingrained sense of discrimination that persists among various communities directly affects their sense of identity, colors their perceptions of their place in the nation’s social structure, and weakens their faith in the possibility of long-term reconciliation and peaceful coexistence after two decades of civil war.

Eminent Sri Lankan historian K.M. de Silva once pointed out that the Sinhala Buddhists had no time for such norms such as multiculturalism or multiethnicity. He stated: “In the Sinhala language, the words for nation, race, and people are practically synonymous, and a multiethnic or multicommunal nation or state is incomprehensible to the popular mind. The emphasis on Sri Lanka as the land of the Sinhala Buddhists carried an emotional popular appeal, compared with which the concept of a multi-ethnic polity was a meaningless abstraction.”

Professor Nira Wickramasinghe of Leiden University has argued that “the three constitutions of post-independence Sri Lanka helped demarcate and define a majority from within the citizens, pitting them against non-Buddhists and non-Sinhala speaking minority communities.” The Sinhala community, eventually, became a “majority with a minority complex,” encircled and threatened by Dravidians and in particular Tamils around them, as Sinhala Theravada-Buddhism was their only reference point for identity in the country and region.

K.M. de Silva correctly ascertains that “an intimate connection between land, race, and (Buddhist) faith foreshadowed the intermingling of religion and national identity, which has always had the most profound influence on the Sinhalese.” According to one view, Buddha has foreseen the island’s destiny to the Sinhalese people, bestowing upon them the role as guardians of his teaching. Given this historical background, Sinhala argue that the practices of all Sri Lankans come from Buddhist and Sinhala traditions; they further their arguments by demanding an institutionalization of those practices in the current political system.

The United Nations, a Trojan Horse?

Given the emphasis on a besieged majority, united by ethnicity, nationality, and religion, it’s easy to see what the efforts of the UN in Sri Lanka are not appreciated. To fully understand the backlash, however, requires a basic knowledge of the theoretical critiques as well, criticisms from scholars like James Thuo Gathii, who argues that “imperialism is in ingrained in international law as we know today.”

Another vocal scholar, Professor Anthony Anghie, holds that the distinction between the civilized and the uncivilized is a common feature of imperialism, crucial to the formation of sovereignty doctrine. Colonialism is central to the formation of the idea of state sovereignty and it is only due to colonialism that international law became universal; Anghie argues that the dynamic of difference, the civilizing mission, that produced this result continues into the present. Anghie’s argument is that colonialism not only shaped the outlines of international law, but was explicitly devised for the very purpose of suppressing the Third World — and thus very precisely corrupted and distorted the originally neutral doctrine of sovereignty. Colonialism ended in name only, he argues; in practice, it was replaced by neocolonialism, characterized by the ongoing systematic subordination between powerful and powerless, rich and poor.

Anghie elaborates further that after obtaining sovereignty, Third World states faced backlashes: many of the leaders of these postcolonial states were elites themselves with close ties with the West. The postcolonial state, then, engaged in its own brutalities: women, minorities, peasants, indigenous peoples, and the poorest were the victims. Anghie underscores that the international human rights law, the revolutionary centerpiece of the United Nations period, offered a mechanism of correction and remedy. However, human rights law was controversial as it allowed the intrusion of international law in the internal affairs of a state and provided the basis for justifying Western intervention in the Third World.

Sri Lanak’s Insular Policy Toward the United Nations

In Sri Lanka, politicians often experienced UN action as postcolonial interference in their own matters, especially when such actions came on behalf of the country’s minorities. Sri Lanka’s official policies became increasingly insular by using the shield of national sovereignty to impede any UN involvement in domestic matters. The majoritarian postcolonial narrative closed down on any foreign or international intervention to further human rights issues in the country. Hence, Sri Lanka — even while signing and ratifying most of the major human rights treaties — fostered and maintained a hostile climate towards the United Nations. Any interference, especially toward the end of the vicious civil war in 2009, was rebuked and met with hostility at best or with a stratagem of intimidation at its worst, as an internal review report of the United Nations revealed.

In the latest international attempt to provide the ground for accountability for the alleged crimes in Sri Lanka toward the end of the civil war in 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution, A/HRC/25/1, in March 2014 on “Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka,” requesting the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct a human rights investigation. The OSIL, the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka, presented its report in September 2015. Its introduction made clear how unwelcome its efforts were in Sri Lanka: “The Government of Sri Lanka rejected the investigation, and accused the Office of being unprofessional and biased. At the same time, the Government mounted a campaign of intimidation, harassment, surveillance, detention and other violations against human rights defenders and others, which was clearly intended — directly or indirectly — at deterring engagement with OISL.””

The Argument for an Open Constitutional Liberal Democracy

It is evident that there are major weaknesses in the national human rights infrastructure, which — in the case of Sri Lanka — was shaped by a postcolonial, majoritarian narrative that excluded minorities from their fair share in nation-building. To right these wrongs, compliance with a broader normative human rights framework at the supranational level becomes necessary, as the global human rights regime indeed relies on national  implementation of internationally recognized human rights. Norm creation needs to be internationalized, and past flaws corrected. Today, the enforcement of authoritative international human rights norms is left almost entirely to sovereign states. German scholar Stephan Hobe writes that the development of international human rights protection is the ongoing emancipation of the individual, moving from domestic to international protection.

The international human rights infrastructure has been demonized by Sri Lankan policymakers as an imperial tool to circumvent sovereignty. However, just as the current constitution stipulates, it is the existence and exercise of human rights that effectuates state sovereignty. Sovereignty is the sovereignty of the people, as reflected in the Preamble and in the substantive provisions of the Sri Lankan constitution.

International non-governmental organizations and international organizations, such as the UN, will have to play a direct role in supporting international norms – but this role depends on the perspectives of the participants. International human rights law must translate to the ground and domestic political actors and civil society must play their part.

As Sri Lanka is in the process of writing its third republican constitution, it is a pivotal moment to consider and reflect upon the international human rights engagement undertaken so far. Promoting and protecting human rights transcends time and is “older than the United Nations.” The struggle for human right is not purely domestic, but the realization of human rights is tied to wider global forces. Human rights awareness and mobilization based on the tension between knowledge of one’s rights and their oppression is the starting point in the Asian context, as the traditional Western approach through legalistic and court-centered means is yet too difficult to come by. Only an open constitutional liberal democracy is conducive to the proliferation of human rights, while the international human rights bodies under the UN aegis can support and assist in the elaboration of a human rights infrastructure.

This is a necessary assertion when international human rights bodies become an element in a weak state structure. Supranational bodies shall have the authority to take decisive action on matters of human rights if a state party is either unable or unwilling to promote, protect, incorporate, and disseminate international human rights principles. The current framework in Sri Lanka is sclerotic – only a vivid engagement with the UN will usher in the era of human rights dominance in Sri Lanka.

Thamil Venthan Ananthavinayagan studied law in Germany (University of Bonn and Marburg) and in The Netherlands (University of Maastricht). He holds a LL.M. in Human Rights and is currently a Ph.D. researcher and Fellow at the Irish Center for Human Rights, Galway, Ireland.

The politics of the ‘missing’

Thursday, 11 August 2016

The Paada Yaathra in March 1992 led by Mahinda Rajapaksa, the 47-year-old SLFP Parliamentarian from Hambantota, was epic. Over 17 days, the marchers travelled 280 kilometres from Viharamahadevi Park in Colombo to Kataragama, in the deep southern heartland that the Rajapaksa family calls home. 

The trajectory of the 1992 Paada Yaathra intentionally cut through Sri Lanka’s Southern Province, once a hotbed of Marxist activity, where the JVP ran its training camps and hideouts for insurgents. In the ensuing UNP Government crackdown on the JVP insurgency in 1988-89, thousands of young people disappeared from remote villages in the districts of Matara and Hambantota, on suspicion of being Marxist insurgents.

For politicians like Mahinda Rajapaksa and his former SLFP colleague Mangala Samaraweera who represented the Matara District, the issue of disappearances was much more than only a question of human rights and state terror; the ‘missing’ were also their constituents. Mahinda Rajapakasa’s Paada Yaathra in 1992 was a campaign to pressure the UNP regime into investigating enforced disappearances during the JVP insurgency. Twenty-four years ago, his slogans were against state oppression, privatisation of state resources and ironically, demanding a negotiated settlement to the ethnic conflict. Joining him on the historic march from Colombo to Kataragama were leftist politicos Vasudeva Nanayakkara and Wickremabahu Karunaratne.

Two years before the Paada Yaatra and Jana Gosha campaigns kicked off against the excesses of the Premadasa regime, Rajapaksa had travelled to Geneva to lobby country representatives at the UN Human Rights Commission, the international body that preceded the UN Human Rights Council of today. His brief: disappearances.

Mahinda Rajapaksa carried 533 documents containing information about missing persons and 19 pages of photographs (Mahinda Rajapaksa v. Kudahetti & Others, 1992) to make his case to delegations at the UN. His actions angered the UNP Government of the day which accused Rajapaksa of treason over his attempts to ‘internationalise’ Sri Lanka’s domestic problems.

“Treachery?” raged Mahinda Rajapaksa the younger in Parliament in January 1991. “We have a right to tell this to the world. Tears of innocent grieving mothers compel us to tell their story of pain and sorrow to the world. We will do it today, tomorrow and always,” he charged, according to Hansard records from the time.

With Mangala Samaraweera, then a young politician from Matara, Rajapaksa co-convened the Mother’s Front, inspired no doubt by the Argentinean Asociación Madres de Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of Plaza de Mayo) whose children were disappeared by the military Government in that country between 1976-1983. The Madres de Plaza de Mayo were the first to mobilise against human rights violations in 1977, and the association went on to become the standard-bearers in the fight to end impunity and seek justice in Argentina.

Sri Lanka’s Mothers Front, a grassroots organisation comprising an estimated 25,000 women who campaigned beside the SLFP against the disappearances of their husbands and children were a similarly powerful symbol, the visible victims of Government brutality and excess. They tried to storm Kaliamma temples to demand vengeance against their children’s oppressors and staged sit-ins in the capital Colombo. The Front’s objectives included the creation of an independent commission to investigate the disappearance of thousands of people since 1987 and an inquiry into the fate of the disappeared and compensation for dependents of victims. According to media reports published at the time, the Mothers Front also demanded that the Government remove all oppressive laws, disband paramilitary death squads and reveal the names of persons being detained by the state.

Divergent paths

Two decades later, the paths of the two SLFP disappearance activists Rajapaksa and Samaraweera could not be more divergent. In accordance with commitments made at the UNHRC in Geneva in September last year, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Government is proposing to set up a permanent office to investigate and trace missing persons, with an open-ended timeline that does not restrict the institution’s mandate to the duration of the separatist conflict.

Successive Governments in Sri Lanka have used enforced disappearances to stifle dissent and punish detractors for decades and the country has the dubious honour of being the second largest caseload before the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances. For the first time, in an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the issue, the state is attempting to establish a permanent institution with wide-ranging powers to visit sites of detention, seize documents, trace missing people and determine the circumstances of their disappearance, issue certificates of absence or death and identify avenues of redress for families of the disappeared.

And in spite of claims that the legislation was drafted without sufficient consultations with victim families, the move to set up the office is a moment of victory for disappearance activists across the island whose campaigns against the crime of enforced disappearances have spanned four decades since the first JVP insurrection of 1971.

Twenty years ago, Mahinda Rajapaksa would have been among them. But a nine-year Presidency marked by brutality against opponents has sullied his activist legacy and bolstered his Sinhala nationalist credentials. So when the debate on the bill to set up a Permanent Office of Missing Persons (OMP) kicks off in Parliament today, Mahinda Rajapaksa and his former colleague Mangala Samaraweera will find themselves on opposing sides.

As Foreign Minister, Samaraweera has championed the OMP legislation, making a case for it nationally and internationally as Sri Lanka’s first tentative step in a four pillar transitional justice mechanism to come to terms with a violent past.

In Parliament today, Minister Samaraweera will make a case for the establishment of the OMP, while the former President is expected to oppose the bill by proxy, through his cohorts in the hardline ‘Joint Opposition.’

MP Rajapaksa, whose office regularly dispatches statements attributed to him on questions of economy, international law and human rights, fired a first salvo against the OMP in July, one month after the bill was granted Cabinet sanction and tabled in Parliament.

Resorting to his old mantra often used during his presidency to justify the denial of human rights and civil liberties, Rajapaksa warned that all MPs supporting the legislation in Parliament would be guilty of betraying the nation and the armed forces. While typical of Rajapaksa, the armed forces betrayal is an oddly premature claim. Naturally, the OMP legislation does not identify a perpetrator, being an attempt to set up an institution with the power to trace and investigate incidence of missing persons.

The Rajapaksa faction appears to have jumped to the conclusion that the OMP will find military personnel responsible for enforced disappearances – a prospect that is not beyond the realm of possibility, but is nonetheless a matter for investigation and credible inquiry. The former President’s assumption not only amounts to a tacit admission that the armed forces he commanded for nine years were responsible for thousands disappearances during the final stages of the war. It also indicates that the Rajapaksa bandwagon will continue to prioritise the wellbeing and reputation of sections of the military that may have engaged in illegal activity above the grief and frustration of thousands of families still searching for loved ones disappeared without a trace. 

Myth-busting

MP Rajapaksa’s statement on the OMP bill is full of similar clues that are likely to frame the contours of the Joint Opposition’s arguments against the legislation over the course of the next two days.

Concerns are likely to be raised about powers given to the OMP to raise funds for its operations outside of the financial support it will get from the Treasury operated Consolidated Fund. The Rajapaksa camp uses this provision in the OMP bill to ‘sound the alarm’ about the potential for Diaspora funding from organisations linked to the LTTE and other vested interests.

However, Government lawyers involved in drafting the legislation explain that OMP accounts will be subject to audit by the Auditor General who will present the report to Parliament, meaning that any potentially ‘controversial’ funding can be checked by the legislature.

The Rajapaksa-led Joint Opposition is also taking exception to provisions of the OMP bill that they claim will allow the Office to operate outside the “law enforcement and justice system” but as an independent body incorporated by Parliament whose members can enter “without warrant, at any time of day or night, any police station, prison or military installation and seize any document or object they require for investigations.”

In truth, the OMP bill provides its officials with the power to enter places that a person was known to have been detained without a warrant and seize any documentation contained at the detention centre.

To make visits to any other place, the OMP will require a warrant from a magistrate, which clearly places the office within the jurisdiction of Sri Lanka’s justice system. It bears mentioning that the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka is also empowered to enter detention centres without a warrant, and therefore, Government advocates of the Bill say the OMP will not be reinventing the wheel in terms of extraordinary powers. Like the OMP, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka is also a statutory body, established through an act of Parliament.

The campaign of misinformation about the OMP by the Rajapaksa faction of the UPFA has also caused serious concern for advocates of the Right to Information legislation that was enacted by Parliament last month. RTI activists, including Transparency International Sri Lanka and members of the Joint Opposition that backed the RTI Act, have urged the Government to refrain from passing laws that contravene the Right to Information, now enshrined in the Constitution as a fundamental right by the 19th Amendment enacted in April 2015. The furore over the OMP’s apparent conflict with the newly enacted RTI legislation stems from confidentiality the OMP promises to witnesses testifying before the Office on disappearance cases. The confidentiality clause directly addresses witness and victim protection that previous commissions of inquiry into missing people – including the recent Paranagama Commission – failed to address, often with disastrous consequences for witnesses and victim families.

To protect victims, the OMP draft legislation guarantees non-disclosure for testimony given in confidence. The clause ensures that the OMP cannot be compelled to produce confidential testimony even before a court of law – meaning that this part of the OMP’s work will be an exception to the RTI Act.

Interestingly, the Monetary Law Act of Sri Lanka also contains a similar confidentiality provision that will be a RTI exception. The Monetary Law Act guarantees confidentiality for testimony and evidence that cannot be produced in a court of law. In the case of the OMP, Government lawyers argue that the exception will only pertain to the specific testimony which will be covered by confidentiality, while the right to information would apply even to the rest of the information pertaining to that particular case and all other aspects of the OMP’s work. 

Step to war crimes probe

Despite the OMP’s open-ended mandate to investigate and trace disappearances irrespective of when they occurred, there is little doubt that the Joint Opposition MPs will take pains to ethnicise the debate on the draft legislation.

Already nationalist constitutional lawyers have claimed that the OMP is aimed at addressing disappearances in the North and East while ignoring cases in the island’s south. The pro-Rajapaksa Joint Opposition sees the establishment of the OMP as a first step towards a credible investigation into allegations of war crimes, which it is bound to oppose tooth and nail. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s determination to oppose any form of accountability for the violence and brutality during the final stages of the war over which his administration presided, supersedes considerations of his own activism in the 1990s and the evidence of 40 years that provides ample justification for just such a mechanism to deal with thousands of missing.

Without denouncing the OMP, the first of four pillars in the Government’s proposed structure for truth seeking and justice, Rajapaksa cannot tear down the mechanisms to follow. Besides, families of the disappeared in the north and east have been the most potently visible victims of the Rajapaksa Government extrajudicial adventures, and they remain powerful symbols in the campaign to end impunity for gross human rights violations in Sri Lanka.

So Rajapaksa will begin a campaign of sustained assault against the Government’s transitional justice efforts now, with the OMP.

The Government itself acknowledges that the OMP will be the least controversial mechanism in a structure that will ultimately include the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Special Court to prosecute alleged war crimes. With those next mechanisms the Rajapaksa-led Joint Opposition will take things further, mounting legal challenges and mobilising nationalist forces against attempts to “send the military to the gallows”. Political observers point out that the Joint Opposition may have refrained from challenging the OMP bill in court after it was gazetted in June, because it was almost certain to receive an endorsement by the Supreme Court, which would then invalidate many of the arguments against proposed legislation the pro-Rajapaksa faction is making. 

Paada Yaathra 2.0 

The Joint Opposition Paada Yaathra led by Parliamentarian Mahinda Rajapaksa was supposed to kindle some nostalgia. It was supposed to help people to recall his shining moments as a firebrand opposition activist, mobilising the masses against Government injustice and provide a springboard for his eldest son and Hambantota District MP Namal Rajapaksa to take over the mantle as an organiser of mass demonstrations against a predominantly UNP regime. In the end though, despite garnering a significantly large crowd, Paada Yaathra 2.0 lived up to few expectations. Rajapaksa MP, now a 70-year-old politician accustomed to the luxuries of presidential office, did very little marching. He joined the march by sandwiching the crowds with his Mercedes Benz, or through the sunroof of a vehicle. When he did a little walking, he made sure his car was never too far away. And this time, the former disappearances activist led a march that brandished slogans and banners vehemently opposing the establishment of an office to trace Missing Persons.

In 2016, the tears of mothers will not move him. The victims will be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency and ethno-centric politics. This time, the human rights crusader of 1992 will mobilise his parliamentary group against the search for answers. Which begs the question: was political expediency and pandering to his constituency the sole aim of the Rajapaksa activism against enforced disappearances in the 1990s? In Mahinda Rajapaksa’s universe, does the fate of the missing from the North and East matter less than the fate of thousands missing in the South?

Fortunately, the Joint Opposition sound and fury is unlikely to manifest in any major success in Parliament when the vote is taken on the OMP bill, but it could create enough noise to move amendments to the text of the draft in committee stage.

The Tamil National Alliance with its 16 seats is widely expected to back the legislation, which also has the support of the sections of the SLFP currently ruling in coalition with the UNP. With only a simple majority required, the OMP Act should pass easily at Friday’s vote.

The crime of disappearance is a terrible thing. Death is different. Death, painful and heart-breaking, also brings finality and closure. Uncertain of a missing person’s fate, families of the disappeared keep searching; hoping against hope that a loved one is languishing in a secret facility somewhere unable to find his way home. Until proven otherwise, families of the missing keep believing that there is someone worth fighting for, over months and years and decades. The Office of Missing Persons will try to put an end to that search, either by tracing the disappeared or determining the circumstances of the disappearance and providing redress. The truth about these cases may be difficult to deal with, or prove forever elusive, but the families of missing people deserve a real shot at finding the answers.

There is no treachery in the search for answers, no betrayal of anything or anyone. The state is obligated to protect its citizens. When it reneges on that obligation it exposes itself to scrutiny and examination. Mahinda Rajapaksa, the ‘human rights crusader’ himself told us that 25 years ago. 

Sri Lankan PM Wickremesinghe Blames Hidden Debt for Financial Crisis

Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe addresses reporters at a hotel in Beijing, China April 9, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Damir Sagolj

BY REUTERS ON 11/08/2016

Colombo: Sri Lanka’s previous government hid debts of at least 1.36 trillion Sri Lankan rupees on the books of some state and semi-government institutions, aggravating the debt crisis, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said on Wednesday.

He said the global economic downturn was also making it more difficult for Sri Lanka to boost state finances.

The IMF, which approved a $1.5 billion, three-year loan in May, said a durable reduction of the fiscal deficit and public debt through a growth-friendly emphasis on revenue generation should be a priority for the nation’s fiscal policy.

Total debt stood at 8.77 trillion rupees as of March 31, the latest central bank data showed.

The prime minister told parliament: “We still don’t know the exact total debt number.” He said it would only become clear after a three-member committee reported following an investigation. It was not immediately clear when that would be.

The previous government of Mahinda Rajapaksa, in office for nine years until January 2015, borrowed heavily on commercial terms to fund infrastructure projects after a 26-year war ended in 2009.

Total government debt rose more than three-fold to 7.39 trillion rupees under Rajapaksa’s government, central bank data showed.

Rajapaksa has rejected the allegation that he hid debts and said his government borrowed money to develop the country.

The central bank estimates government debt will fall to 74% of gross domestic product this year from last year’s 76%.

Wickremesinghe said the government had to increase revenue, streamline taxes and create jobs through foreign investment.

 சுமந்திரன் முன்னிலையில் மகிந்தவை விசாரணைக்கு அழைக்கவேண்டும்-என்கிறார் பிரதமர்

11-Aug-2016

அரச கணக்குகளில் இருந்து மறைத்து வெளிநாட்டு கடன்களை பெற்றுக்கொண்டமை தொடர்பான விசாரணைக்காக தமிழ்த் தேசியக் கூட்டமைப்பின் நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் சுமந்திரன் தலைமையிலான நாடாளுமன்ற குழுவின் முன்னிலையில் முன்னாள் ஜனாதிபதி மஹிந்த ராஜபக்ஷவை அழைக்கவேண்டுமென பிரதமர் ரணில் விக்ரமசிங்க தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

நேற்று (புதன்கிழமை) இம்பெற்ற நாடாளுமன்ற அமர்விலேயே அவர் இவ்விடயத்தை தெரிவித்தார். பிரதமர் தொடர்ந்து குறிப்பிடுகையில்-

”நாடு தற்போது 9.5 மில்லியன் கடன் சுமையை எதிர்நோக்கியுள்ளது. இதுகுறித்து ஆராய்வதற்காக கடந்த மார்ச் மாதம் முதல் மூவரடங்கிய குழுவொன்று செயற்பட்டு வருகின்றது. அவர்களது அறிக்கை வெளியான பின்னர் கடன் குறித்த சரியான தகவலை வெளிப்படுத்த முடியும்.

கடந்த அரசாங்கத்தைப் போன்று தொடர்ந்து கடன்பெறுவதால் இப் பிரச்சினை தீரப் போவதில்லை. நாட்டின் வருமானத்தை அதிகரிப்பதன் மூலமே இந்த அபாயகரமான நிலையிலிருந்து நாட்டைக் கட்டியெழுப்பலாம். அதற்கென புதிய வரி நடைமுறையொன்றையும் வருமானத்தை அதிகரிப்பும் திட்டமொன்றையும் எதிர்வரும் 2017ஆம் ஆண்டுக்குள் அறிமுகப்படுத்துவது அவசியமாகும். இதுகுறித்து சர்வதேச நாணய நிதியத்திடமும் நாம் பேச்சுவார்த்தைகளை நடத்தி வருகின்றோம்” என்றார்.

இதன்போது குறிக்கிட்ட நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் நளின் பண்டார கடந்த ஆட்சிக்காலத்தில் ஜனாதிபதியே நிதியமைச்சராக செயற்பட்ட நிலையில், அவரது அனுமதியை பெற்றா கடன்கள் பெறப்பட்டதென கேள்வியெழுப்பினார்.

இதற்கு பதிலளித்த பிரதமர் ”நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் சுமந்திரன் தலைமையில் நிதிக் குழுவொன்று உள்ளது. முன்னாள் நிதியமைச்சர் என்ற ரீதியில் முன்னாள் ஜனாதிபதி மஹிந்தவை அழைத்து விசாரணைகளை மேற்கொள்ள முடியும். அதன் பின்னர் குறித்த அறிக்கையை எம்மிடம் கையளிக்கலாம்” என்றார்.

Two-Year Scorecard For Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Combo

By Vishwamithra1984 –August 10, 2016

“Life only demands from you the strength that you possess. Only one feat is possible; not to run away” ~ Dag Hammarskjold

It’s not yet two full years, yet close enough. And close enough for us to pass our verdict on theSirisena–Wickremesinghe Combo that is holding reins in Sri Lanka’s polity today. Passing judgment on performance on the political field is hard enough, yet the appetite for judgment shown by the masses and so-called intelligentsia might propel one to that inevitably dangerous haste: ‘rush to judgment’, and if wrongfully arrived at, may lead more to the peril of the judge than those who are judged.

Ascending to power on the backs of a voter who was yearning for a better organism of governance, a brighter scope of future and a more equal sense of justice, the weight that imposes on the Combo of Sirisena-Wickremesinghe is undeniably heavier than one would ascertain. But the burden of that ‘Cross’ should not retard the swift stride that they had pledged to undertake at the Hustings, nor should they begrudge its unusual weight. The burden of leadership is exceptionally weighty and they and they alone should carry that burden. No passing of the buck should be welcome. The ordinary folks would not render any leverage in favor of the carrier, for that burden was not placed on them, Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Combo, by the ordinary man or woman. It was sought after and placed on their shoulders by the carriers themselves. They should have realized the short and long-term effects, the incredible faith and trust that are inherent in the responsibility of leadership of a nation.

The luxury and extravagance of political power carries within itself a much more uplifting and awesome quality of responsibility. Those who cared only about the luxuries of power and the natural magnetism to it from the susceptible voter, those who disregarded the supreme sacrifices one had to make in order to be at the helm, would eventually be punished, without mercy, by the voter at the elections. Yet as demonstrated during the past decade when the Rajapaksas held those reins, they took it for granted that that power, instead of being of utterly fleeting nature, granted them a warrant to preside over the whole gamut of Sri Lankan polity. An umpteen number of unforced errors committed by them ultimately swamped them into a comfort zone from which they could not extricate themselves. A tragic political dynamic took over the persona of the regime and the more corrupt elements of that coalition got attracted to the center that was the First Family.

Read More

Sri Lanka: Join us to make the necessary and vital change

Text of speech by Minister of Development Strategies & International Trade Malik Samarawickrema at the Presidential Export Awards 2016.

by Malik Samarawickrema

( August 11, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Today, we are celebrating the excellence of the export community who is the live wire of the national economy and in order to encourage exporters to diversify into new ventures in keeping with the changing international market, I am informed that a few new categories have been introduced to the Presidential Export Awards.

The external environment in which you have to do business today is extremely volatile. Many economies that we are trading with are either slowing down or are pursuing policy reforms which are affecting the demand and competitiveness of products that are being exported by Sri Lanka. Even the emerging markets that we are trying to diversify are either slowing down or static, given the weakening global economy.

Against this background, it is indeed very appropriate that we reward and recognize your efforts in order to encourage and give you confidence that the government is with you and doing the utmost to facilitate your progress.

I would like to very confidently say that with the measures we have introduced, we are looking at long term sustainable development to make Sri Lanka ready to face even the worst challenges of tomorrow and give the opportunity for you to have a level playing field in the global market.

Let me now touch on a few measures of the Unity Government’s economic reform agenda. We are framing outward looking trade and investment policies, which aim to revitalize Sri Lanka’s export competitiveness and integrate the country more closely with the region and the rest of the world.

We are also in the process of implementing a series of reforms to uplift the country’s trade and investment performance. This includes ‘Ease of Doing Business’.

A new Trade Policy Framework is being formulated, which focuses on reducing the anti-export bias in our policies. These reforms are being complemented by improved trade facilitation, which will enable Sri Lanka to capitalize on its strategic geographic location and excellent port facilities to become a distribution and logistics hub.

While internal reforms are undertaken, it is important that we simultaneously look to integrate with the rest of the world to connect and compete to achieve wider market access.

The global trading environment is changing rapidly with global production networks and global and regional value chains. The developments are a result of product fragmentation; cross border dispersion of component production/assembly. Each country specializes in a particular stage of production sequence and trades the value added components which ultimately results in the final product. Product fragmentation were first seen in apparel and electronics and now it has spread to automobiles, electrical machinery, telecommunications, etc.

The factors that have led to product fragmentation is rapid advancement in production technology, technology innovation in communication and transportation and liberalization policy reforms in investment and services.

As all of you are aware, export growth can no longer depend on traditional export markets such as USA and the EU, where demand is slack. Therefore, it is imperative that Sri Lanka finds new markets and carve out preferential market access to them. That is why the government has embarked on a strategy to deepen the exiting FTAs with India and Pakistan and working out new FTAs with growing Asian economies like China and Singapore.

Sri Lanka is currently at a juncture where it could no longer depend on debt-financed development. Thus a viable development strategy that will bring in more foreign exchange to the country is needed via promoting exports and attracting FDIs. For export promotion, FDI will support to enhance the supply capacity of export and make best use of the wider market access gained via FTAs. Making the transition from debt-burdened public investment to a private sector-led export and FDI-based development strategy, remains challenging. But it is the only option available for Sri Lanka at present.

If we look at South Asian countries in the SAARC, Sri Lanka is far behind others in working out duty-free or preferential market access to other countries. In SAARC, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Afghanistan, by virtue of them being LDCs, qualify for duty-free access to the EU and Indian market. In fact, 84% of SAARC LDC exports have duty-free access to the world at large.

India has preferential market access to ASEAN, Japan, South Korea through various FTAs and CEPAs it has signed during the last decade. Pakistan has FDAs with China, Malaysia and Sri Lanka and benefits from GSP+ in the EU market. In contrast Sri Lanka has access only to India and Pakistan and some preferential access to APTA members, China and Korea for which Bangladesh and India also qualify.

Sri Lanka lags behind even with its South Asian neighbours in having preferential market access to its trading partners. When Sri Lanka’s standing in the global and regional framework is behind others, it becomes, all the more important to sign more Trade Agreements.

The world around us is increasingly moving forward with regional and bilateral Free Trade Agreements, as the multilateral trade liberalization process led by the WTO has come to a standstill. According to the WTO website, there are 419 Regional Trade Agreements. Also 133 of them of them have been now converted into Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) or other forms of deeper Economic Agreements.

These agreements basically deepen and broaden the FTAs with selective reduction of the negative list and incorporating investment and services liberalization. 50% of the global trade now take place through regional or bilateral FTAs.

The Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ETCA) can increase Sri Lanka’s competitiveness in industrial exports and also increase the supply capacity to better utilize the market access to India. In addition, ETCA negotiations are addressing outstanding non-tariff barriers as well as many of the existing procedural barriers and delays in Indian ports of entry.

The intention is to deepen the current Agreement in goods by reducing the negative list on the basis of less than full reciprocity and widen it to include services, investment, technology and training. This will clearly open new opportunities for local and foreign investors to locate in Sri Lanka to access the markets of the fastest growing economy in the world on a preferential basis.

We are also negotiating a new FTA with China and invigorating our existing FTA with Pakistan. Under the China FTA, we are focusing on apparel, tea, gems & jewellery, rubber products, coconut and spices as key industries. We plan to include a priority tariff line for competitive Sri Lankan products that would go into immediate effect on signing of the Agreement.

Sri Lanka’s agreements with Pakistan also provide an opportunity for Indian investors to access that market on a preferential basis by locating in Sri Lanka. We could explore the possibility of re-directing some of the Indo-Pakistan trade currently transmitting through Dubai.

Sri Lanka’s Agreements with India, Pakistan and China will give companies located in Sri Lanka preferential access to a market of around three billion people. This could be our unique selling point (USP).

We have also launched negotiations on a FTA with Singapore. This will open up the entire ASEAN market for Sri Lanka and will create opportunities for hi-tech innovative products to be exported to this region. In addition, possible FTAs with South Korea and Malaysia are in the pipeline.

We are negotiating these agreements with an open mind but with the intention of getting the best possible deal for the country.

We are very confident that GSP+ will be restored in about six months’ time. With BREXIT, a separate agreement will have to be worked out with the UK, which is a destination for about 10% of our exports. I do not see any difficulty in doing so. Also we will be initiating a five-year programme to boost trade and investment with the USA.

In conclusion, I would like to urge this eminent crowd here, the forerunners of the country’s economy, to look beyond the horizon and to join hands with the government to make the necessary and vital changes, not for short-term but for long-term sustainable benefits for you and the people of this country.

Lasantha murder: CID to review bank accounts of 63 intelligence officials



August 11, 2016

The Criminal Investigation Division (CID) has been given permission by the Mt. Lavinia Magistrate’s Court to analyze the bank accounts of 63 intelligence officials in connection with the assassination of journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge, Ada Derana reporter said. 

The order was issued when the case was taken up for hearing before Additional Magistrate Sulochana Weerasinghe this afternoon (11). The account of the intelligence official who is already in custody will also be inspected. 

Accordingly, the CID is expecting to obtain statements of the bank account details of the officials from 32 financial institutes, the reporter added.

 Meanwhile, the Magistrate also ordered the official to be further remanded until August 25. He will be produced for an identification parade on the same date. 

Police said that the army officer was arrested over the abduction, unlawful detention and questioning of an individual, who was the driver of Wickrematunge’s vehicle at the time of the assassination.   

  The CID was granted permission to detain and interrogate the suspect for 48 hours after he was produced before court earlier.  

Wickrematunge, founding editor of privately-run newspaper Sunday Leader, was shot dead while he drove to work in January 2009.  Wickrematunge was a staunch critic of the administration of then-president Mahinda Rajapaksa, which has insisted it had no role in the editor’s killing.  

Sri Lanka’s new government had reopened investigations into the murder after coming to power in January last year. In February, the police released sketches of two persons who are suspected to be involved in the assassination. The Army Commander had recently appointed two Court of Inquiries to investigate the misplaced documents in the cases pertaining to the murder of Wickrematunge and the disappearance of journalist Prageeth Eknaligoda. 

Thajudeen murder: Ex-JMO responsible for missing body parts: Health Min.



2016-08
Secretary of the Ministry of Health, Nutrition and indigenous Medicine, Anura Jayawickrama, today informed court that according to the inquiry conducted by the Ministry the former Chief Judicial Medical Officer Ananda Samarasekara had acted irresponsibly, while conducting the first autopsy on Wasim Thajudeen’s body by not taking appropriate steps to protect body parts. 

According to the inquiry conducted by the Emergency Raids Unit of the Ministry, the Secretary confirmed that the former JMO was responsible for the missing body parts.

 The inquiry was carried out upon a court order over the body parts of Wasim Thajudeen that had gone missing after the first autopsy. 

Thajudeen was murdered on May 17, 2012 under the disguise of a fatal road accident. 

The Secretary informed Colombo Additional Magistrate Nishantha Peiris that the former JMO had retired officially from his position in June 2013 and continued to serve as the JMO until the appointment of current JMO Ajith Tennakoon, therefore to direct the CID to carry further legal actions against Mr. Samarasekara. (Shehan Chamika Silva) 

SUGER IN FOOD DRINKS: LABELS THAT HIDE THE POISON

( Proposed colour labeling to show sugar content)

10/08/2016

Their colours are as dazzling as their claims. Make a bee line to your nearest supermarket or favourite kade down your lane and you will find them prominently displayed on the shelves or front counters. 

Packed in different forms, colours and sizes, sold at different prices, there is no question that the market for fruit drinks whether artificial or natural is growing by the minute.

“Since the proposed regulations would require tea boutiques (small cafes), food outlets and restaurants to provide sugar and salt separately instead of adding these to the meal or drink, it took five years for the gazette notification to be implemented”

All thirsty adults and children nowadays never fail to pluck them off their shelves ignoring the less appealing bottled water, once the most ‘in-demand’ drink in the market, until their prices soared recently.

Bottled, packeted, in plastic cups sealed with covers and the newcomers – mini tetra packs with matching straws stuck with cellotape on the outside, have become a source of worry for most health experts since 99% of them contain sugar, one of the main causes for the unprecedented surge in type 2 diabetes , hypertension, cardiac arrest and other non communicable diseases ( NCDs.) in Sri Lanka and world over.

In a recent statement by Director General Health Services Dr P.G. Mahipala it was revealed that over 40 percent of the Lankan population were pre-diabetics or already had diabetes which had not been diagnosed. Worse still, more than 13 % of children, some below 12 years were now being diagnosed as pre-diabetics leading to special clinics being set up for them, to bring down their sugar levels, the result of high sugar and high carb diets.

Diabetic epidemic

As a first step to ending this diabetic epidemic, the Health Ministry, last week, announced a ‘Traffic Lights’ Colour Coding system. Beginning from this month ( August) the Health Ministry said, it would be mandatory for all sugary products to display colour codes according to the sugar content percentage they used. If the sugar content was over 11g per 100ml the colour of the label should be red, if it was between 2g to 11g it should be amber or yellow/amber and if below 2g the label should be in green to indicate it was safe to drink.

So, how does this new labelling scheme which uses traffic light colours that every road user is familiar with, benefit the consumer?

“Colour coding tells you at a glance if food items have high, medium or low amounts of fat, saturated fat, sugars and salt. Red means the food or drink is high in a particular nutrient and warns the public to consume such foods with due precautions. Amber indicates that one may consume such foods in medium amounts. Green signifies the healthiest choice. Following this Code will help control the spread of non- communicable diseases,” a Health Ministry official said.

He said, a meeting with soft drink manufacturers registered under the Sri Lanka Chamber of Commerce had been held recently to discuss the implementation of colour coding from August 1 as all soft drinks should display their sugar levels according to the contents.

Health Minister Dr Rajitha Senarathne has also been quoted as saying , ” The Ministry had made it mandatory for all to abide by the gazette notification, as the Health Ministry has been working towards the implementation of the rule for the last five years.”

Why five years? What does the Food Act say about wayside cafes serving excessive quantities of sugar in tea ? Is there a provision regarding this in the new traffic lights code for sugary drinks? Who is responsible for monitoring it? Who has the authority to deal with offenders violating it?

Since answers to these questions were not forthcoming from the Environment and Occupational Health unit, as its Director, Dr Gamlath refused to enlighten us, saying, “clearance was needed from higher authorities”, we quote a news report which cites Health Minister Dr Rajitha Senarathne as saying, “Since the proposed regulations would require tea boutiques (small cafes), food outlets and restaurants to provide sugar and salt separately instead of adding these to the meal or drink, it took five years for the gazette notification to be implemented.”.

How much sugar should we take? Is there a maximum limit?

The Director NCD Unit said: “The World Health Organisation has said the maximum amount of sugar a person should take is 30 grams per day ( 5 teaspoons). If the public follows these guidelines, we can control diabetes and all other NCDs in the country,” he said.

Nutritionists we talked to, agreed. They said, the average Sri Lankan consumes about 60 grams of sugar a day. About 70 percent of the nation’s deaths occur due to non-communicable diseases linked to the increased intake of salt and sugar over a long period,” they said.
Gaps

While it looks good on paper, the Traffic Lights Colour Code does have some inherent gaps which seem to have been overlooked .

The Head of the National Poisons Information Unit Dr Waruna Gunathileka is quick to mention them as he welcomed the system as a “step forward and timely initiative in controlling NCD spread.”

“Why is it targeting only sugary drinks?. Why not cereals, milk substitutes, biscuits and other foods that are also high in sugar content”? he asked. He said NCDs were the result of a combination of components and factors.

“When people think about Non Communicable Diseases ( NCDs) they think sugar is the only killer component that causes these chronic long term diseases. I believe one must also take into consideration foods that cause high Lipid Profile and High Blood Pressure as well,” he said. “We need to look at the bigger picture as NCDs are the result of a combination of components and factors,” he pointed out.

He also noted, most containers of fruit juices simply state that the product contains so many calories per serving. “But how does the average consumer count those calories in a small mini pack of juice when all he wants is to drink it and go? The display of nutritional information is another weak area.
Display

“All packs whether fruit juices or food products with sugar must have these codes. If the product has a high degree of sugar it should carry a red label , and green if it is safe to drink.

“That will help consumers to make an informed choice”, he said. ´There must be more awareness on this for the consumer and more education for manufacturers,” he stressed.

What about Energy bars said to enhance physical activity?

“Avoid them, if you are a pre-diabetic. They contain sugar and glucose which could send your blood sugar levels soaring,” he warned.

He also drew attention to the manner in which vendors of fruit juices and other food items display their products. “All distribution outlets must display these colour code charts along with their nutritional facts at prominent places. If that clause is not in the new Code, it must be included immediately,” he said.
Health impacts

Asked about chemicals and preservatives which could be found in these drinks he cites the 2011 circular under the Food Act which refers to chemicals such as Ethereal, Ethephon , Chlroethyl and Phosophonic Acid, used to artificially ripen fruits.

” Excess use of chemicals or the use of chemicals below the required level can cause allergies to the consumer”, he warns.. He said, the use of Calcium Carbide to ripen the fruits artificially has been banned in many countries.

” Calcium carbide once sprayed on fruits could react and produce cyanide”, he warned.

So is there an alternative ?

” Eat fresh fruits rather than in juice form. Made into juice form it will result in a very high sugar content.” -GMOA

Government Medical Officers’ Association ( GMOA) spokesman Dr Nalinda Herath commenting on the colour coding for fruit juices, also welcomed it as a ‘ good move by the Health Ministry’, adding, it should be implemented immediately. He also drew attention to the unethical advertising of beverages by leading manufacturers during sports events e.g. cricket and rugby matches and inter school matches. “We have seen several huge bill boards and cut outs in school matches and some certificates even carried their logos,” he charged.

What do our readers think?

By Carol Aloysius / Sunday Observer