Parkinson's could potentially be detected by an eye test

Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK

18 August 2016

Researchers may have discovered a method of detecting changes in the eye which could identify Parkinson's disease before its symptoms develop.

Scientists at University College London (UCL) say their early animal tests could lead to a cheap and non-invasive way to spot the disease.

Parkinson's affects 1 in 500 people and is the second most common neurodegenerative disease worldwide.

The charity Parkinson's UK welcomed the research as a "significant step".

The researchers examined rats and found that changes could be seen at the back of their eyes before visible symptoms occurred.

Professor Francesca Cordeiro who led the research said it was a "potentially revolutionary breakthrough in the early diagnosis and treatment of one of the world's most debilitating diseases".

"These tests mean we might be able to intervene much earlier and more effectively treat people with this devastating condition."

Symptoms of Par

kinson's include tremors and muscle stiffness, slowness of movement and a reduced quality of life.

These symptoms usually only emerge after brain cells have been damaged.

But there is currently no brain scan, or blood test, that can definitively diagnose Parkinson's disease.

Parkinson's does not directly cause people to die, but symptoms do get worse over time.

Well known sufferers

• Legendary boxer Muhammad Ali died at the age of 74, decades after developing the degenerative brain disease Parkinson's. Although his brain disease did not kill him - Ali died following complications linked to a chest infection - it was arguably one of his greatest challenges.
• Michael J Fox is another high profile sufferer. He revealed in 1998 that he had been suffering from Parkinson's since 1981. He took a step back from acting to battle the disease.
• Billy Connolly revealed in 2013 he had been diagnosed as having the initial symptoms of Parkinson's disease, for which he is receiving the appropriate treatment.
• Sir Roger Bannister, the first man to run a mile in less than four minutes, was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2011 when he was 82. A neurologist himself, he said he was having troubles with walking.

'Urgent need'

Dr Arthur Roach, director of research at the charity Parkinson's UK, said there was "an urgent need for a simple and accurate way of detecting the condition, particularly in its early stages".

"Although the research is in its infancy and is yet to be tested on people with Parkinson's, a simple non-invasive test - such as an eye test - could be a significant step forward in the search for treatments that can tackle the underlying causes of the condition rather than masking its symptoms," he added.

Dr Roach pointed out that the charity was funding parallel research which is trying to identify Parkinson's bio-markers, which are measureable changes in people with the condition.

"Having a biomarker for Parkinson's would help diagnose Parkinson's earlier, when people are most likely to benefit from the new treatments aimed at slowing progression," he explained.

The UCL researchers used medical equipment that doctors already use and say the potential new method could also be used to monitor how patients respond to treatment.

The researchers also found that treating their test animals with a newly formulated version of an anti-diabetic drug led to less cell damage.

They said that was another area they would be keen to explore in human trials.

Their research is published in Acta Neuropathologica Communications.

Invisible crime, recurring nightmare

Thursday, 18 August 2016

“The Report of the 1994 Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate the Disappearances of Persons noted that its investigations echoed the common yearning; Never Again” – Dr. Vasuki Nesiah, Clarifying the Past & Commemorating Sri Lanka’s Disappeared

It all happened in a flash of black and the terrifying sound of shots fired in the dark. It was 10 December 1989, the height of the Government’s counterinsurgency against the violent 1987 Marxist uprising.

Shantha Pathirana watched helplessly as his twin brother Sudath was dragged out of his Borella home by pistol-wielding men dressed all in black. Shantha and Sudath looked remarkably alike. The abductors were taking no chances. They wanted the ‘insurgent’ in the family.

“They couldn’t tell us apart, so they demanded to see our national IDs first. Once they identified Sudath it happened in a flash,” Shantha recalls. “They dragged him out and shut the door. My mother was screaming and crying. To drown out her cries they shot twice into the air. That was the last time I saw my brother.”

The gunshots fired into the night skies had not only put an abrupt end to the women’s weeping. It also ensured curious neighbours stayed well away from the scene of the abduction.

Sudath Pathirana was a trade union activist at the Jayewardenepura Hospital, working for the Nawa Sama Samaja Party (NSSP) then led by Vasudeva Nanayakkara. A fellow activist, Somaweera was also abducted from his home at the same time on 10 December 1989. Neither has ever been heard from again.

Disappearance is an invisible crime; there are no bodies, no graves and no traces of abuse. There is only silence. And trauma relived day after day by families who have watched loved ones being snatched away, never to be seen again.

For the Pathirana family, the search that began in 1989 has never ended.

Shantha’s father Wijeyadasa Pathirana joined the ranks of thousands of families of the disappeared that were being mobilised by Nanayakkara and his erstwhile activist colleague, the SLFP MP Mahinda Rajapaksa.

After working underground for a few months, Wijeyadasa would go on to found the Organisation of Parents and Family Members of the Disappeared (OPFMD) that joined movements including the Mothers’ Front convened by SLFPers Mahinda Rajapaksa and Mangala Samaraweera. These groups joined the struggle against an increasingly brutal UNP regime, together with civil society activists, academics and journalists that were agitating for a change in the status quo. In 1994, the 17-year reign of the UNP ended. Chandrika Kumaratunga, who had also campaigned alongside the families of the disappeared and other victims of the former regime’s brutality, was elected President. 

Going before Commissions

When Kumaratunga established a Presidential Commission of Inquiry into involuntary disappearances in 1994, Shantha’s father mobilised thousands of families under the OPFMD umbrella to testify.

The Commission documented more than 20,000 complaints and established that more than 16,000 amounted to enforced disappearances. The Commission identified several thousand suspected perpetrators in more than 1,000 cases. Less than 500 were indicted and even fewer convicted.

The Commission also recommended the establishment of an independent Human Rights Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute human rights violations in general and disappearances in particular (US Institute for Peace: Commissions of Inquiry, Sri Lanka). Key recommendations of this Commission, suggesting reforms to end impunity for the crime of enforced disappearances, were not implemented under the Kumaratunga administration. Abductions and extrajudicial killings continued in the conflict zones.

The Rajapaksa administration that would follow executed its own era of state terror. During the Rajapaksa regime’s crackdown on human rights activists, critics and civilians in the North suspected of insurgent activity after the end of the war, enforced disappearances became a fearful weapon in its arsenal.

Under pressure internationally to deal with this fresh wave of impunity, the Government established the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and the Paranagama Commission after the war ended. The LLRC called for a probe into enforced disappearances while the Paranagama Commission documented over 20,000 complaints of disappearance, predominantly in the formerly embattled North and East.

During the Paranagama Commission’s public sittings in the Northern Province, hundreds of families testified about family members who had disappeared after surrendering to the armed forces at the end of the war in May 2009. The LLRC had recorded similar testimony during its hearings. Many of those who had surrendered had been members of the LTTE, some of them very young conscripts.

Post-war, the disappearances in the North and East continued. A spate of abductions by white vans around the island struck fear in the hearts of citizens. Many of these abductions took place in the capital Colombo and its suburbs and involved high-profile journalists and human rights activists. Impunity for these abductions was so widespread that there were allegations that the abduction squads had also begun to run private operations, abducting businessmen for ransom and extortion. 

Sustained impunity

For activists like Shantha, it was like a recurring nightmare. Sustained impunity for the crime of enforced disappearance had emboldened successive Governments to use the repressive tactics they had campaigned against while in the opposition.

Disappearances were not the exclusive domain of any one political administration. It had cut across decades and political parties; across class and ethnic boundaries; across insurgencies and civil war. And since 1971, as decade followed decade, thousands of families of the missing have joined a never-ending search for answers.

It is against this backdrop that legislation to establish a permanent institution to trace missing persons, investigate the circumstances of their disappearance and recommend redress for their kin was controversially passed in Parliament last week, amid howls of protest by the pro-Rajapaksa ‘Joint Opposition’ cadre.

It stands to reason that if key figures of the Premadasa administration responsible for the brutal counterinsurgency in 1989-90 were represented in Parliament last Thursday, the move to set up the OMP would have met similar resistance.

The OMP’s open-ended timeline makes it a mechanism to serve victim families of two failed Marxist insurrections, a 26-year civil war and its aftermath. This should have made it acceptable to former President Rajapaksa, a disappearance campaigner in the 1990s. But the OMP was initially proposed at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, as a first step in a mechanism that will conclude with the establishment of a special court or chamber to prosecute alleged war crimes.

The Office of Missing Persons will have no power to prosecute perpetrators of disappearances. Yet the ex-President’s real worry is the special court that will undoubtedly probe allegations of indiscriminate shelling, extrajudicial killings and sexual violence during the final stages of the war his Government presided over.

With the OMP legislation through the House, the Government will soon shift focus to establishing the second and third promised mechanisms; a truth and reconciliation commission and a special court and independent prosecutor to try gross human rights abuses. Derailing efforts to get the OMP legislation enacted would have stymied Government plans for future mechanisms to deal with wartime abuses that would face much stiffer resistance from political parties represented in Parliament. This was the Joint Opposition brief when Parliament convened to debate the OMP bill last Thursday, and they set about it with a vengeance. 

OMP debate brought forward

On 5 August, former President Rajapaksa set off on a tour to South Korea. It was around that time that the Government learnt of the Supreme Court Determination striking down the VAT bill that was due to be taken up for debate in Parliament on 11 August.

The decision meant that the VAT bill could not be debated in its current form and would have to be reintroduced at a later date. The OMP Bill was originally scheduled to be debated on 23 August. The Government made a split-second decision over the weekend to bring the debate on the OMP Bill forward to 11 August, since the VAT bill could no longer be taken up on that day.

At the Party Leaders’ meeting in Parliament on Tuesday, the Government announced it wished to present the OMP Bill for debate on Thursday (11). The main opposition Tamil National Alliance was in agreement, but the JVP initially strongly disagreed. When the Government argued that the OMP was a critically important piece of legislation that needed to be enacted as soon as possible, and proposed a debate and vote on Thursday and Friday, the JVP insisted that there was no reason to rush the bill, which could be taken up for voting when Parliament sat in the third week of August.

The JVP had proposed amendments to the OMP Bill which the party was keen to see discussed and included in the final draft. The Joint Opposition strongly backed the JVP position on the debate and vote. On Wednesday when the party leaders met again the Government reiterated the importance of enacting the OMP legislation. The JVP finally agreed to postpone an adjournment motion it was scheduled to move on Thursday, 11 August, in order to allow debate on the OMP bill to continue till 6.30 pm that day.

The TNA, which also had an adjournment motion scheduled that day on the issue of political prisoners, agreed to defer the motion to permit an extended debate on the OMP Bill. The agreement between party leaders last Wednesday (10) was that the OMP bill would be debated till 6.30 p.m. on Thursday with the debate resuming the next morning (12) and a vote on the bill at 11.00 a.m.

Nonetheless, when Parliament reconvened on Thursday, Joint Opposition MPs filed into the chamber sporting black armbands and neck-ties and proceeded to argue with the decision made by party leaders on Wednesday about the debate schedule.

When Speaker Karu Jayasuriya refused to budge on the issue, the JO MPs stepped into the Well of the House creating a ruckus. Continued disruptions forced Speaker Jayasuriya to suspend sittings for 45 minutes. During this suspension of proceedings, party leaders met again with UPFA MP Dinesh Gunewardane representing the Joint Opposition. 

Mass protests?

The JO Parliamentary Group was demanding a two-day debate on the OMP Bill on Thursday (11) and Friday (12) followed by a vote to be taken when Parliament reconvened during the third week of August.

Government MPs suspected that the demand for a drawn out timeline on the OMP legislation was a delaying tactic by the pro-Rajapaksa faction.

The ex-President was to return to Colombo on the afternoon of 12 August. If the Government stuck to its schedule on the OMP vote, the legislation would be enacted by the time Mahinda Rajapaksa touched down. While it is unclear why the JO appeared to be under instructions to delay the vote, political observers suspected that the UPFA rebels were planning public demonstrations and sit-ins to protest the OMP legislation, with Rajapaksa leading the fray once he returned from overseas.

By whipping up popular opinion against the OMP, the Rajapaksa strategists would have hoped to sway a jittery SLFP faction in the ruling coalition into backtracking on the legislation. While this may have created a crisis in the ruling coalition, it would not have put the bill in danger of being defeated in any way, since the TNA and JVP would have backed the UNF-led Government to pass the legislation.

During the party leaders meeting which took place while proceedings were suspended last Thursday, Gunewardane insisted on a longer debate on the OMP. The TNA and the JVP, both parties having decided to defer their adjournment motions scheduled for 11 August, suggested debating the bill until 9.30 p.m. that night and continuing the debate the following morning. Agreeable to this proposal, the Government also agreed to push back the vote until 2.00 p.m. on Friday. But Gunewardane still insisted that this was not enough time. “We have 51 MPs. All of them want to speak on this bill,” he claimed.

“Then Dinesh, let’s sit throughout the night and debate the bill,” suggested Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan. None of the proposals found favour with Gunewardane, and when sittings resumed the JO continued to disrupt proceedings. Gunewardane charged that the Government was being undemocratic by refusing to permit sufficient parliamentary debate on the bill.

Speaker Jayasuriya decided to plough through the proceedings, calling on the Government to present the OMP Bill. Minister Mangala Samaraweera presented the bill to the House, amid deafening disturbances and heckling by the JO. Continuing to ignore the JO, the Speaker called upon TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran and JVP MP Bimal Ratnayake who were also listed to speak during the OMP debate.

Realising the JO was determined to delay affairs, Government strategists decided to outwit them. Messages were sent to MPs Sumanthiran and Ratnayake, requesting them to wind up their speeches because the Government was going to put the bill to the House immediately. The Speaker offered the JO an opportunity to speak at the debate, but only if all 25 MPs returned to their seats. When the calls went unheeded, the OMP Bill was put to the House in its Second and Third Reading, followed by a chorus of ‘ayes’ from Government and Opposition benches which comprised the TNA and the JVP.

Gunewardane, standing in the Well of the House, was demanding a vote on the bill, but not being near a microphone, he was neither heard nor recognised by the Chair.

And so amid the pandemonium, the OMP Bill was passed into law without a vote and with no participation by the pro-Rajapaksa faction officially recorded. In the confusion, it is yet to be made clear which amendments that had been proposed to the Bill had been put before the House in the Third Reading. 

The road ahead

As a first step in a process to come to terms with a violent past, the OMP Bill was an important piece of legislation that should have been subject to robust parliamentary debate and committee. But pointless disruptions by the pro-Rajapaksa faction and the Government’s concern that the legislation was at risk if delays helped to mobilise public support against the OMP, led to its enactment in a less than ideal way.

The Government’s own communication failures as it pushes forward on establishing institutions to deal with the past is empowering the Joint Opposition and permitting the small faction of UPFA rebels to seize the narrative on the Government’s truth and justice project.

In many ways, the debate on the Office of Missing Persons was an eye-opener about challenges ahead for the Government as it seeks to set up ever more controversial mechanisms to deal with wartime abuses.

Minister Samaraweera, who fought tooth and nail for the OMP legislation, is determined to push through with the next steps. He hopes to bring legislation to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission by September or October this year and have a rough framework for the Special Court to prosecute major rights violations by March 2017. He will have his work cut out for him as he battles hardliners at home while ensuring his Government lives up to its international commitments.

With the enactment done and dusted, the next task before the Government will be to appoint independent and credible commissioners to run the Office of Missing Persons. Families of the disappeared have gone before multiple commissions, repeating their stories to panel after panel in the hope of finding answers. The Government will need to act decisively to empower the OMP with individuals and resources that will demonstrate to thousands of victim families that this time will be different. 

Truth-seeking

The fundamental task of the OMP should be truth-seeking, says Shantha Pathirana, who has been searching for his brother for the past 20 years. “Where are the bodies? Where are the graves? Where were they held? These are the answers we want,” he insists. As a disappearance activist, Shantha also points out that investigations have been the weakest aspects of commissions of inquiry on disappearances, with special police units and the Attorney General’s Department tasked with probing and prosecuting complaints. “Without independent investigators any process to trace the disappeared is flawed. This is a lesson the OMP must learn from commissions that have gone before,” he explains.

Advocates of the OMP legislation enacted by Parliament last week explained that the permanent office would have the power to hire investigators, including independent law enforcement officials.

People like Shantha who campaigned against enforced disappearances alongside the former President remain incredulous about his current opposition to the establishment of a permanent Office of Missing Persons. But he also admits that over the years, disappearances activists have repeatedly been betrayed by their own.

Frustrated by the Kumaratunga administration’s failure to deliver on justice and redress for families of the missing, Shantha and his OPFMD strongly backed the candidature of Mahinda Rajapaksa at the 2005 presidential election. The disillusionment that would follow was unprecedented. The OPFMD was fractured during the Rajapaksa years, as irreconcilable political differences emerged, with one faction backing the President while the other condemned his Government’s policies.

It was uncanny how the tables had turned, says Shantha, reflectively.

“We worked so hard for his election. We had so much hope. This was Mahinda. He was our friend. Yet somehow during his presidency, we became the enemy.”

Are they fools or knaves or both?

DR.Vickramabahu Karunaratne-2016-08-18

While the Joint Opposition (JO) is shouting in the streets and within Parliament that the government is selling the country to the Western imperialists, the government is reported to have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with China with the assurance to encourage Chinese investments and to implement key projects including the Colombo-Ratnapura Expressway.

What the JO leaders predicted was that Sri Lanka will be isolated from the East and lose friends in the East, in particular China.
Without Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka will be dragged behind the West, claimed the JO leaders. However, while Hela Urumaya leaders were hailing, the Development Strategies and International Trade Ministry had signed the agreement on behalf of the Sri Lankan Government with the Chinese Commerce Ministry signing on behalf of China. Among the proposed Chinese investments to be implemented on a priority basis are the Hambantota Integrated Development Project, the Hambantota Port Phase II, Hambantota Port Dockyard, the Mattala International Airport Integrated Project, Southern Railway Project from Beliatta to Hambantota, the International Technology Institute and the construction of a part of the Central Expressway. Several other projects such as Development of Hambantota and Moneragala will also be carried out on a priority basis under the MoU. Kandy North Water Project has also been outlined in the project. The two sides have agreed to promote and support financial institutions subject to the relevant conditions and existing law, to fund and facilitate the execution of these projects. The China-Lanka Joint Committee will be the implementation unit of this MoU.

JO leaders still claim the Human Rights agreements supported by the West will push us away from the East and create hostility with the East, mainly Asian countries. Prof. G.L. Peiris says, "During our time, we never agreed to these sorts of things. We stood for the intent and interests of the country, its armed forces. Don't forget the fact that all Asian countries, three-fourths of the African countries are included, the Arab world, Russia, China and all supported us. Even Japan, India and Australia were against foreign judges. But, all those countries were silenced by the fact that Sri Lanka cosponsored the resolution. All this happened by irresponsible, cavalier commitment without considering whether these are constitutionally possible or implementable." However, the Proposed Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ETCA) with India, the pact, which would be an improvement over the existing Free Trade Agreement (FTA), may soon be a reality.

Funnily enough JO leaders have promoted the critics of ETCA. Indian leaders have answered such critics on 70th Independence Day. "It is up to Sri Lankans themselves to decide on the contours of any agreement that they sign with a foreign country." While opposing friendship with India JO leaders showed confidence in Western powers. "There was never a question of sanctions. Take for example the apparel sector. Some of the largest companies in the United States were sourcing products from Sri Lanka. American and British companies were accustomed to dealing with Sri Lankan companies which have fulfilled the highest standards in terms of quality, timely delivery and research for the future. Those companies are not going to detach and go elsewhere. It is not a question of philanthropy or morality. It is also self interests. These are long-standing relations. In our time, no word was spoken about sanctions. That is a bogey created by some people for their own ends." Are they fools or knaves or both?

வன்னியில் வலை விரிக்கும் நிதி நிறுவனங்கள்!

ஆக 12 2016 01:44

கடந்த காலப் போர், பொருளாதார நெருக்கடிகள், அதன் பின்னரான இடப்பெயர்வுகள், இழப்புகள் என்பவற்றால் போரிலும் பாதிக்கப்பட்ட நிலையில் மீள்குடியேறியுள்ள கிளிநொச்சி, முல்லைத்தீவு மாவட்ட மக்கள் பல்வேறு சிரமங்களை எதிர்கொண்டு வருகின்றனர்.

வாழ்விட வசதிகளை ஏற்படுத்த வேண்டியமை, வாழ்வாதார செயற்பாடுகளை முன்னெடுக்க வேண்டியமை என பல்வேறு சவால்களை அவர்கள் எதிர்கொள்ள வேண்டியுள்ளது. இவற்றை ஏற்படுத்திக் கொள்வதற்காக பல்வேறு இடங்களிலும் கடன்களைப் பெற்று அவற்றை மீளச்செலுத்த முடியாமல் ஏராளமான குடும்பங்கள் பாதிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

வங்கிகளிலும் தனியார் கம்பனிகளிலும் நுண்கடன் நிதிநிறுவனங்களிடமிருந்தும் பல்வேறு வட்டி வீதங்களில் தொழில் தேவைகள் கருதி பெற்றுக் கொள்ளும் கடன்கள் அந்த நோக்கத்திற்காக செலவிடப்படாமல் வேறு தேவைகளுக்காகப் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்ட நிலையில் அவற்றை மீளச் செலுத்த முடியாமல் பல குடும்பங்கள் உள்ளன. இதனை விடவும் தேவை கருதி வங்கிகளில் கடன் பெற்று அந்தத் தேவைகளுக்கு அப்பணம் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்ட போதும் அதனால் போதிய வருமானம் கிடைக்காமையினால் கடன்களை மீளச்செலுத்த முடியாமலும் அவர்கள் காணப்படுகின்றனர்.

இவ்வாறான பல்வேறுபட்ட கடன் சுமைகளால் மீள்குடியேறிய குடும்பங்களிடையே குடும்பப்பிணக்குகள், குடும்ப வன்முறைகள், தற்கொலைகள் என்பன அதிகரித்து வருகின்றன.

யுத்தத்தின் பின்னரான காலப் பகுதியில் மீள்குடியேறிய மக்களின் தேவை கருதி நிதி நடவடிக்கைகள் தொடர்பாக முன்னெடுக்கப்பட்ட பல்வேறு வேலைத் திட்டங்களில் பாதக, சாதக விளைவுகள் ஏற்பட்டுள்ளன என மத்திய வங்கியினால் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளமை குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.

கிளிநொச்சியில் தற்போது அரச, தனியார் வங்கிகளென 21 வரையான வங்கிக் கிளைகள் இயங்கி வருகின்றன. கடந்த 2009ம் ஆண்டுக்கு முன்னர் நான்கு வங்கிகள் மாத்திரமே இயங்கி வந்தன.

இதனை விட நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் குத்தகைக் கம்பனிகள் என அழைக்கப்படக் கூடிய லீசிங் கம்பனிகள் ஏராளம்.இதனை விட நுண்நிதிக் கம்பனிகள் எனப்படுகின்ற மைக்றோ பினான்ஸ் நிறுவனங்கள் இயங்குகின்றன.

அத்துடன் கிராமிய வங்கிகள், சமுர்த்தி வங்கிகள் என்பனவும் இயங்கி வருகின்றன. அத்துடன் வட்டிக்குப் பணம் கொடுப்பவர்கள், அடகு பிடிப்பவர்கள் என பல தரப்பட்டவர்கள் நிதி நடவடிக்கைகளை கையாளுகின்றனர்.

இவற்றில் வங்கிகளில் கடன்களைப் பெற்றுக் கொள்வதற்கு மிகவும் இலகுபடுத்தப்பட்ட வகையில் கடன்கள் வழங்கப்பட்டு வருகின்றன.

கிளிநொச்சி மாவட்டத்தில் வங்கிகளுடாக வழங்கப்பட்ட கடன்களில் பத்து வீதமான கடன்கள் மீளச்செலுத்தப்படாமல் உள்ளன.

இவ்வாறு கடன்களை செலுத்த முடியாதவர்கள் அதிகமாக நுண்கடன் நிதி நிறுவனங்களை நாடி அதிகூடிய வட்டிக்கு கடன்களைப்பெற்று அதனை செலுத்த முடியாமல் பெரும் சிரமங்களை எதிர்கொண்டு வருகின்றனர்.

அதாவது வங்கிகளில் அல்லது நிதி நிறுவனங்களில் கடன்களைப் பெற்றுக் கொண்டு உரிய காலத்தில் மீளச்செலுத்தப்படாமல் இருக்குமாயின் கடன் பெற்றவரின் பெயர், தே.அ.அட்டை எண் என்பன கொடுகடன் தகவல் பணியகத்திற்கு அனுப்பி வைக்கப்படும். இவ்வாறு அனுப்பி வைக்கப்படும் பட்சத்தில் அவரது நிதி ஒழுக்கம் எவ்வாறுள்ளது என அவதானித்து எதிர்காலத்தில் கடன்களையோ அல்லது ஏனைய நிதி நடவடிக்கைகளையோ மேற்கொள்ள முடியும்.

இவ்வாறான நிலையில் மத்திய வங்கியில் பதிவு செய்யப்பட்ட 46 நிதி நிறுவனங்களில் கிட்டத்தட்ட 26 இற்கும் மேற்பட்ட நிதிநிறுவனங்கள் தற்போது வடக்கில் இயங்கி வருகின்றன.

இவை மத்திய வங்கியில் பதிவு செய்யப்பட்ட நிதி நிறுவனங்களாகும். இதனை விட மத்திய வங்கியின் ஆளுகைக்குட்படாத நுண்பாக நிதி நிறுவனங்களும் இயங்குகின்றன.

இவ்வாறான நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் கொடுகடன் தகவல் பணியகத்தின் தகவல்களில் பெயர் விபரங்கள் இருந்தால் என்ன, இல்லாவிட்டால் என்ன பின்தங்கிய கிராமங்களில் உள்ள மக்களின் வீடுகளுக்குச் சென்று மிகவும் இலகுவான வகையில் அதிகூடிய வட்டி வீதத்தில் கடன்களை வழங்கி வருகின்றன. அத்துடன் குறித்த நிதி நிறுவனங்களில் சேமிப்புக்களுக்கான வட்டி வீதங்களும் அதிகமாகவே உள்ளன.

இவ்வாறான நிதி நிறுவனங்களில் கடன்களைப் பெற்றுக் கொள்பவர்கள் அதனை மீளச்செலுத்த முடியாமல் பல்வேறு சிரமங்களை எதிர்கொண்டு வருகின்றனர். அத்துடன் கடன்களால் குடும்பப் பிணக்குகள், குடும்பங்களின் பிரிவுகள், தற்கொலைகள் என்பன இடம்பெற்று வருகின்றன.

இவ்வாறான நுண்கடன் திட்டங்கள் தொடர்பாக அறிந்து கொள்ள வேண்டிய தேவையும், அதனை தெளிவுபடுத்த வேண்டிய தேவையும் மக்கள் பிரதிநிதிகளுக்கு உள்ளது.

இவ்வாறான கடன்களைப் பெற்றுக் கொண்டவர்கள் பல்வேறு சிரமங்களுக்கு ஆளாகும் நிலையினை கிளிநொச்சி, முல்லைத்தீவு மாவட்டங்களில் அவதானிக்க முடிந்துள்ளது.

அதாவது கடந்த வாரம் கிளிநொச்சி பொன்னகர் 72 வீட்டுத் திட்டத்தில் இவ்வாறு நுண்கடன் திட்டத்தின் மூலம் கடன்களைப் பெற்றுக் கொண்ட ஏழு வரையான பயனாளிகள் இலங்கை சட்டஉதவி ஆணைக்குழுவினது கிளிநொச்சி மாவட்ட அலுவலகத்தில் தமது முறைப்பாடுகளை முன்வைத்ததுடன் கிளிநொச்சி பொலிஸ் நிலையத்திலும் முறைப்பாடுகளையும் பதிவு செய்துள்ளனர்.

அதாவது வீட்டுக்கே வந்து கடன்களை வழங்கும் தனியார் நிதி நிறுவனங்களில் இருந்து கடன்களை தாங்கள் பெற்றுக் கொண்டதாகவும், அவற்றைச் செலுத்தி வரும் நிலையில் தற்போது தொழில் வாய்ப்பின்மை, பொருளாதார நெருக்கடி, வருமானமின்மை காரணமாக கடனை உரிய காலத்திற்குள் செலுத்த முடியாதுள்ளது. இதற்காக அவர்களிடம் நாங்கள் தவணைகளைக் கேட்கின்றோம். அவர்கள் அதற்கு உடன்படுவதில்லை. இந்தக் கடன்களை செலுத்துமாறு வற்புறுத்தி தினமும் இரவு 10.00 மணி வரையும் அதற்குப் பின்னரும் வீடுகளிலேயே நிற்கின்றனர். வயது வந்த பிள்ளைகளை வைத்திருக்கின்றோம். குடும்பத்திலும் சமூகத்திலும் பல பிரச்சினைகளை எதிர்கொள்ள வேண்டியுள்ளது என்றும் தமது முறைப்பாடுகளில் இவர்கள் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர்.

குறித்த கிராமத்திற்குச் சென்று இவ்விடயம் தொடர்பாக பலரிடம் தொடர்பு கொண்டு கேட்ட போது, வவுனியா நெடுங்கேணி மற்றும் முல்லைத்தீவு மல்லாவி , சாவகச்சேரிப் பகுதிகளில் இயங்கி வருகின்ற நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் அதி கூடிய வட்டிக்கு கடன்களை வழங்கியிருக்கின்றன.

இதில் 90 வீதத்திற்கும் அதிகமானவர்கள் பெண் தலைமைத்துவக் குடும்பங்களே இவ்வாறான கடன்களைப் பெற்றுள்ளன. கிளிநொச்சியில் மிகவும் பின்தங்கிய கிராமங்களில் மக்களுக்கு அதிகூடிய வட்டி வீதங்களில் கடன்களை வழங்கி விட்டு அவற்றை அறவிட்டு வருவதுடன், உரிய காலத்தில் கடன்களை செலுத்தத் தவறின் பயனாளிகளிடம் அதற்குப் பதிலாக மிகவும் பெறுமதி வாய்ந்த வீட்டுப்பாவனைப் பொருட்களை பறித்துச் சென்றுள்ளதாகவும் பாதிக்கப்பட்டவர்களால் முறைப்பாடு தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது,

அதாவது கிளிநொச்சி பொன்னகர் பகுதியில் இரண்டு அங்கத்தவர்களைக் கொண்ட பெண்தலைமைத்துவக் குடும்பத்தில் உள்ள ஒருவர் தனியார் நிறுவனம் ஒன்றில் பணியாற்றி வருகிறார். அந்த குடும்பத்திற்கான மாத வருமானம் 18000 ரூபாவிற்கும் குறைவான தொகையாக உள்ள நிலையில் குறித்த குடும்பம் இவ்வாறான நிதி நிறுவனங்களிடமிருந்து நான்குக்கும் மேற்பட்ட கடன்களைப் பெற்று மாதம் ஒன்றுக்கு சுமார் எண்பதாயிரத்திற்கும் மேற்பட்ட தொகையை வட்டியும்முதலுமாக செலுத்த வேண்டிய நிலையில் உள்ளது.54000 ரூபாவிற்கு வாங்கிய தொலைக்காட்சிப் பெட்டியை குறித்த நிறுவனங்களில் ஒன்றுக்கு 20000 ரூபாவிற்கு கட்டாயத்தின் பேரில் அவர் கொடுத்துள்ளார்.

மற்றைய கடனைச் செலத்த முடியாமல் உள்ள நிலையில் குளிர்சாதனப்பெட்டியைத் தருமாறு நிதி நிறுவனத்தினர் வற்புறுத்துகின்றனர் எனவும் அவர் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

"கடன் அறிவிடுபவர்கள் கடனைக் கட்டுமாறு வீட்டில் வந்து நிற்பார்கள். இரவு 10.00 மணி என்றாலும் அவர்கள் போக மாட்டார்கள். அதனால் மேற்படி தொலைக்காட்சிப் பெட்டியைக் கொடுத்தேன். இவர்கள் இரவு வேளைகளில் வீடுகளில் இருப்பதனால் நாங்கள் இருவரும் பெண்கள் என்பதால் பல்வேறு சமூகப் பிரச்சினைகளை எதிர்கொள்கின்றோம். இனி தற்கொலைதான் செய்து கொள்ள வேண்டும்" எனவும் அந்தப் பெண் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

இதேபோன்று நுண்கடன் நிதி நிறுவனங்களிடமிருந்து கடன் பெற்ற இளம் குடும்பப் பெண்ணொருவர் அதனை செலுத்தத் தவறிய நிலையில், "கடன் அறிவிடுபவர்கள் தினமும் வருவதனாலும் இரவு வேளைகளிலும் பகல் வேளைகளிலும் காலநேரமின்றி இவர்கள் வருவதனாலும் எங்களது குடும்பத்தில் ஓரே பிரச்சினை. அத்துடன் எனது கணவனின் உறவினர்கள் மத்தியில் நான் தவறாகப் பார்க்கப்படும் நிலை கூட காணப்படுகின்றது" என்று தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

இதேபோன்று முல்லைத்தீவு மாவட்டத்தின் மிகவும் பின்தங்கிய கிராமங்களில் இது போன்ற சம்பவங்கள் அதிகளவிலே இடம்பெற்று வருகின்றன.

அண்மையில் மாந்தை கிழக்குப் பிரதேசத்தில் கடன் பெற்ற பயனாளி ஒருவரின் வீட்டிற்கு இரவில் சென்று கடன் செலுத்துமாறு வற்புறுத்திய நிலையில் இவ்விடயம் பிரதேச செயலாளரின் கவனத்திற்குக் கொண்டு வரப்பட்டது. இரவு வேளை குறித்த இடத்திற்குச் சென்ற பிரதேச செயலாளரால் நிதி நிறுவனப் பணியாளர் எச்சரிக்கை செய்யப்பட்டு வெளியேற்றப்பட்டமை குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது. இவ்வாறு நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் கடன்களை அறவிடுவதாயின் பிற்பகல் 5.00 மணிக்குப் பின்னர் பயனாளிகளின் வீடுகளுக்குச் செல்லக் கூடாது என தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ள போதும் பின்தங்கிய பகுதிகளில் இவ்வாறான செயற்பாடுகள் இடம்பெற்று வருகின்றன.

இதேவேளை கடன்களைப் பெறும் பயனாளிகள் அதனை செலுத்தத் தவறிய நிலையில் பகல் வேளைகளில் வீடுகளைப் பூட்டி விட்டு வேறு இடங்களுக்குச் சென்று விட்டு இரவு வேளைகளில் வருவதும் இடம்பெறுகிறது.

இவ்வாறான கடன்அறவீடுகள் தொடர்பாகவும் இதனால் ஏற்படும் பிரச்சினைகள் தொடர்பாகவும் கிளிநொச்சி மாவட்டத்தில் செயற்படும் பெண்கள் அமைப்புகள் மற்றும் மக்கள் பிரதிநிதிகளால் மாவட்ட அரச அதிபர் மற்றும் மேலதிக அரச அதிபர் ஆகியோரின் கவனத்திற்குக் கொண்டு வரப்பட்ட நிலையில்,அண்மையில் நடைபெற்ற பால் நிலை மற்றும் பால்நிலை அடிப்படையிலான வன்முறைகள் தொடர்பாக மாவட்ட செயலகத்தில் கலந்துரையாடல் நடைபெற்றது. இக்கலந்துரையாடலில் பிற்பகல் 5.00 மணிக்குப் பின்னர் எவரும் பயனாளிகளின் வீடுகளுக்கு செல்லக் கூடாது என்றும் இவ்வாறு செல்வதனால் மாவட்டத்தில் பல்வேறு பிரச்சினைகள் ஏற்படுகின்றன என்றும் அவ்வாறான முறைப்பாடுகள் கிடைக்கும் பட்சத்தில் இறுக்கமான நடவடிக்கைகள் மேற்கொள்ளப்படும் எனவும் மாவட்ட அரச அதிபரால் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளமை குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.

இவ்வாறு நுண்கடன் நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் மற்றும் அதிகூடிய வட்டி வீதங்களைக் கொண்டவர்களிடமிருந்து மக்கள் பல்வேறு தேவைகளுக்காக கடன்களைப் பெற்றுக்கொள்கின்றனர்.

குறிப்பாக வீட்டுத் திட்டங்களை நிறைவு செய்தல் மற்றும் வாழ்வாதார தொழில் நடவடிக்கைகளை மேற்கொள்தல் போன்ற பல்வேறுபட்ட தேவைகளுக்காக இவ்வாறு முறைகளற்ற விதத்தில் அதிகூடிய வட்டிக்கு கடன்களைப் பெற்றுக் கொள்கின்றனர்.

சு. பாஸ்கரன் பரந்தன் குறூப் நிருபர்

The Office on Missing Persons: A New Chapter or Another Empty Promise?

Image courtesy Amnesty International

BHAVANI FONSEKA on 08/18/2016

11 August 2016 was an important day for the victims of past abuses in Sri Lanka. This was when Sri Lanka’s Parliament enacted legislation to establish the first permanent entity to investigate and inquire in enforced and involuntary disappearances and missing persons. For the victims, many who have gone before numerous investigations with no follow up, the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) may finally be able to provide them answers and end the silence.

While 11 August was significant for the victims, the events in Parliament demonstrate the immense challenges faced by Sri Lankans in terms of reckoning with the past. Although the OMP bill was gazetted by Parliament in May 2016 and ample time was provided to challenge and move amendments, a few MPs acted in the most despicable manner to disrupt parliamentary proceedings and essentially attempted to scuttle any hope of thousands finding the truth. The antics of a few MPs robbed many others of a debate to discuss a critical issue relevant to reconciliation and for Sri Lankans to attempt to confront the past. Although that opportunity was missed, the government ensured that the bill was not held hostage to the antics of a few. With the support of all the key parties including the TNA and JVP, the legislation was passed in Parliament, thus enabling the OMP to be established.

Although we now have legislation establishing a permanent body to investigate into disappearances and the missing, no official figures are available on the exact numbers of disappeared and missing in Sri Lanka. The recently concluded Paranagama Commission received over 25,000 complaints of missing persons. Over the years multiple commissions have received thousands more complaints. This demonstrates the thousands across Sri Lanka continuing to search for answers. In many instances family members go from one investigation to another, clinging to the hope of finding their loved ones or at the very least, getting answers. The search, despite the many difficulties and challenges, is a basic ask: what happened to my loved one?

What is the OMP?

The OMP is an independent office with seven members appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. The members of the OMP are meant to be independent individuals with expertise on human rights, international humanitarian law, humanitarian issues, fact finding among other areas. There is also a fixed term of three years and limitation of two terms per member. The office will be headquartered in Colombo with the option of having field offices. Many victims have been vocal that the OMP must have field presence which will facilitate access for them to engage with it.

The OMP has the mandate to trace, search and investigate into complaints brought before them on cases of both the missing and disappearances. Thus, a crucial and basic point that must be raised at the outset is that the OMP is a truth seeking body, a permanent entity that victims can engage with in the search for answers. Due to its permanent nature, there is no fear of whether the mandate will be renewed or not, as faced by many commissions. This provides for the OMP to conduct investigations thoroughly and not be rushed by any deadlines. The legislation provides for a tracing unit but specifies that the OMP also has the discretion to establish other units or divisions, ensuring that the office is able to obtain the necessary expertise and technical assistance required to investigate into cases, some spanning decades.

A missing person is broadly categorised in the legislation as those affected by the conflict in the North and East of Sri Lanka, its aftermath or a person classified as “missing in action”, or affected by political unrest or civil disturbances or as a case of enforced disappearance as defined in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. The broad categorisation ensures that both cases of enforced disappearances and missing persons are included but the downside of this is the fear of overwhelming the OMP with a large number of complaints. Furthermore, despite the mandate to examine both enforced disappearances and missing, a concern raised by some victims is the absence of a reference to enforced disappearances in the OMP’s title. This hopefully can be clarified in the advocacy around the OMP, ensuring that all victims understand the broad scope.

The mandate of the OMP very specifically provides for specific powers to investigate and these powers are clearly articulated in the legislation. Some critics have deliberately distorted facts by claiming that the OMP is a Trojan horse and will open the door to accountability of the war heroes. The question to those critics is how such a task is possible when the OMP mandate has no specific mention of prosecutions or trials but only provides for investigations that can eventually give answers to victims. For those who maybe unaware, the right to truth is a basic fundamental right of victims and one championed by successive Sri Lankan governments. One assumes the rationale to appoint numerous past commissions was meant to unearth answers, although many who went before such commissions are still waiting for answers.

Other critics refer to the exclusion of the Evidence Ordinance in the investigations of the OMP, with a possible situation where false evidence is collected for prosecutions. The point above stands: the OMP is merely a fact-finding body with a mandate to search for answers with no prosecution powers. The Evidence Ordinance is only applicable for those pursuing criminal justice. Similar provisions can be found in the Human Rights Commission Act.

There are also some commentators who make factually erroneous statements with regards to the inapplicability of the newly enacted Right to Information Act to the OMP. This is false. The Right to Information Act will apply to the OMP except for a limited instance where information is given in confidence. One should read Section 15(1) of the OMP Act which provides that “members, officers, servants and consultants of the OMP shall preserve and aid to preserving confidentiality with regard to matters communicated to them in confidence. The provisions of the Right to Information Act shall not apply with regard to such information”. This should then be compared to the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, enacted by Parliament in 2015. Article 14A contained in the Amendment introduced the right to information provision with specific restrictions in the application including “such restrictions prescribed by law as are necessary in a democratic society….for preventing the disclosure of information communicated in confidence….”. Similarly, restrictions on accessing information provided by a third party to a public authority in confidence is protected in the Right to Information Act 2016 within Sections 5(1)(f),(g),(h)and (i).

If Article 14A to the Constitution and the Right to Information Act are read in full, one will be able to ascertain that only a few restrictions are placed, with good reason, on accessing information. Everything else is open to the ambit of the Right to Information Act. Thus, it is clear that the OMP is not precluded by the Right to Information Act. On the contrary, it will need to provide information unless in specific instances as provided by law. It is indeed unfortunate that commentators and critics passing judgement on this issue fails either to fully comprehend relevant constitutional provisions and legislation or deliberately attempts mischief by spreading false information, or possibly both.

Apart from the legal safeguards, there is also the practical issue of requiring a degree of confidence in the information given by a victim and/or witness. Past experiences highlight situations where victims and witnesses were threatened, harassed among other things, for engaging with official investigations. The Paranagama Commission was the most recent commission where individuals faced security threats and surveillance. Any independent investigation genuine in its mandate to search for the truth will need to ensure that information provided in confidence is secure and that identities are protected. The absence of such a safeguard will not generate trust with the OMP and may lead to possible protection concerns.

How is the OMP different to past initiatives?

Sri Lanka has had a long list of state driven investigations including numerous commission of inquiry. Several have solely been on enforced disappearances and/or missing persons. Thousands of victims have gone before these numerous initiatives, recounting past events and abuses. Many have done this multiple times, going from one investigation to another, repeating experiences to multiple persons and entities. 

Several times I witnessed families going before recent commissions such as the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and the Paranagama Commission, to speak about their disappeared and missing loved ones and plead for answers. In many instances their dignity was robbed. For most, their questions remained unanswered. Such experiences involved complex emotions of hope, frustration, anger, fatigue, anticipation, disappointment and much more. For many, state initiatives by successive governments have failed and there is no trust another commission will make a difference.

All of the above begs the question why the OMP will be different to past initiatives?

• Firstly, it is not an investigation with a limited time span but a permanent body that is meant to have the necessary resources and expertise to investigate cases of disappearances and missing
• It is established by an Act of Parliament with specific powers to investigate and is an improvement on the structurally flawed commissions appointed previously.
• The OMP has no restrictions in terms of time period or geographic area and can look at all cases of disappearances and missing
• Anyone can go before the OMP to give information or make a complaint
• OMP can share information with victims, without waiting for others to take action
• OMP can work with other government entities to ensure victims are provided reparations and steps are taken to prevent recurrence of violence
• The OMP’s protection powers can ensure security issues are addressed and victims do not face reprisals for engaging with the OMP. Similarly, information provided in confidence to the OMP will be protected and witnesses do not need to fear reprisals for sharing such information.

These are welcome measures as it provides the OMP with resources, expertise and independence to work in a credible manner without the fear of interference and ensuring a victim centered approach is taken. It is now critical that the Government and others raise awareness of what the OMP is, provide it with required resources and expertise and ensure the victims are able to trust it as a credible mechanism to investigate and provide them with answers.

Why is the OMP important now?

Successive government have attempted and failed to provide answers to a significant number of people from across Sri Lanka on the whereabouts of their missing loved ones. Investigations, inquiries, committees and commissions over the years have all failed in this basic task of finding answers. Despite the lack of confidence with such initiatives, thousands continue to engage with the hope that the next initiative may provide answers. Failures with past initiatives and structural flaws are the very reasons for a new entity with the necessary powers to investigate and find answers.

Sri Lankans have been promised ambitious reforms. A new constitution is in the offing as well as reforms addressing reconciliation and development. The reforms hold the promise of a new Sri Lanka, an exciting time for many Sri Lankans. Despite this, a significant number across Sri Lanka do not know what happened to their loved ones. For these families, the promise of a new constitution and infrastructure are hollow. For them, the fundamental right to know, a right many of us take for granted, is still an illusion.

The OMP provides a chance to correct these wrongs. This is the time to go beyond the rhetoric and to establish a mechanism that can finally, after years of failed attempts, provide answers to the thousands still searching for their loved ones. It is also finally an opportunity to say Nunca Mas (Never Again).

Editors note: Also read The Process Behind OMP: Video interviews and OMP – When labels take precedence over content.

COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF SRI LANKA

( CERD Sri Lanka session in progress)

18/08/2016

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on 16 August concluded the examination of the combined tenth to seventeenth periodic report of Sri Lanka on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Ravinatha Aryasinha, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the new Government of Sri Lanka was committed to provide stability, protect human rights and strengthen democracy.  He listed a number of measures aimed at strengthening human rights protection and the rule of law, particularly the introduction of the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution, the recent establishment of an Office on Missing Persons, and current consultations relating to the National Human Rights Action Plan 2017-2021.  He referred to past abuses by separatist terrorist groups and said that several issues had remained unaddressed since the end of the conflict in 2009, including violations of human rights and humanitarian law by both sides.

During the ensuing discussion, Experts welcomed the new Government’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights in Sri Lanka, but noted that despite efforts, discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities persisted, referring particularly to discrimination against Muslims and against plantation communities.  Experts referred significantly to the armed conflict, and asked a number of questions regarding efforts toward truth and reconciliation, as well as transitional justice and reparation for victims.  Other issues raised by the Committee pertained to the independence of lawyers, pre-trial detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the application of customary law, hate speech and citizenship.

In concluding remarks, Jose Francisco Cali Tzay, Committee Member and Country Rapporteur for Sri Lanka, congratulated the Government for its commitment to peace in Sri Lanka, and urged it to pay due attention to the situation of racial discrimination.  It was important to take lessons from the past in order to ensure non-repetition, he said.

In his closing remarks, Mr. Aryasinha said that the review had been very helpful for Sri Lanka to understand remaining challenges.  Experts’ comments would be fully taken on board, including with the adoption of the National Human Rights Action Plan.  He noted with appreciation that Experts had acknowledged the significant change that had recently taken place in Sri Lanka. 

The delegation of Sri Lanka included representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Attorney General’s Department and the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 26 August at 3 p.m. when it will close its ninetieth session.

Report

The combined tenth to seventeenth periodic report of Sri Lanka can be read here: CERD/C/LKA/10-17.

Presentation of the Report

RAVINATHA ARYASINHA, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the report before the Committee today had been prepared following a consultative process involving non-governmental organizations.  In January 2015, there had been a change of leadership in Sri Lanka following national elections.  The new Government of National Unity was committed to provide stability, protect human rights and strengthen democracy.  An illustration of the Government’s commitment was the recent establishment of an Office on Missing Persons.  The Ambassador also referred to the current process of Constitutional Reform with the involvement of a Public Representations Committee and other governmental bodies.  The Government’s renewed engagement with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was another illustration of its commitment to human rights.  Sri Lanka was at present in the process of engaging in consultations for the drafting of the National Human Rights Action Plan 2017-2021, which would address all recommendations to be made by the Committee.

Read More

The Continuing Political Ills Of Sri Lanka 

By Thambu Kanagasabai –August 18, 2016

Thambu Kanagasabai

One can hardly deny the fact of various political ills plaguing and denting Sri Lanka’s image since 1956. A nation labelled as peaceful and prosperous until 1956 shed this image from then on to become a nation wracked with communalism, hegemony and ethnic strife promoted by power seeking politicians to score election victories with broken promises and a culture of impunity being the order of the day! If Sri Lankan powers that be, particularly the present regime, ideally situated to end the continuing conflict, won’t open its eyes, it’s time the international community recognises the urgency and puts pressure to force Sri Lanka into taking meaningful steps to break the logjam and bring a fair and just settlement.

[ 1 ] COMMUNALISM AND MAJORITY HEGEMONY 


The Sinhala Only Act 1956 – it was not just a Sinhala Act  but ‘Only Sinhala Act’  which effectively sealed the marginalisation and exclusion of the Tamil Language and by extension, Tamils. This piece of politically motivated and necessitated legislation heralded the polarisation and unbridled growth of Sinhalese nationalism allowing for the rise of Tamil nationalism and ethnic rift with extremists taking upper hand and exploiting the opportunities whipping up hatred and hostility between the two communities which have been hitherto living happily and socially mixing with no hidden feelings of fear or suspicion.

1956 was an important year which also thrust the Buddhist monks into politics and opened up a third front in the running of governments. The prescribed role of monks as advisors to rulers in times of need, preachers of  Buddhism has now extended to full blown political activities including contesting elections to win seats while indulging in unsavoury political propaganda and even in violence like other die hard politicians. As a fall out, this act gave way to discrimination of Tamils in employment, appointments to state institutions, including recruitment in the security services.Even in education, this discrimination is continuing and universities functioning in the North and East which foster and preserve Tamil culture and traditions are now facing a policy of planned increasing of Sinhalese students in the universities in the North and East [Tamils traditional and historical homeland] creating tension and clashes as to who should have the right of decision in university functions and related matters.

These ills of marginalization, exclusion and discrimination have taken a heavy toll on the Tamils in all sectors of appointments and employments, like judiciary, security sector, public service, state institutions and banks etc. There is also no sign of any redemption or removal of this injustice and it appears almost irretrievable and entrenched.

Another ill is the detestable practices of favouritism, nepotism, and politicisation which have been continuing with common acceptance and even endorsing  it as part and parcel of political lives in Sri Lanka. These malpractices always accompany persons holding  political power particularly soon after they capture power. Their rule commences with appointments of family members, personal friends, loyalists and political stooges to top positions in state Institutions, Judiciary. Boards, Banks, Ministries and Missions abroad including Cabinet positions. Due to this unhealthy practice, efficiency, eligibility, merits and even seniority are discarded while opening the gates for abuse of power and position, bribery and corruption and even disregarding rules of procedure.  A change in Government can only bring an end to this sad state of affairs while allowing a new front for above malpractices to resume. As an example, family members of former President Mahinda are facing investigations for bribery and corruption with an uncertain outcome.

Read More

Human Rights in Sri Lanka: Year After Parliamentary Elections

report by INFORM

( August 18, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The parliamentary elections of August 2015 brought into power a coalition government between the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the United National Party (UNP), the two major political parties that had ruled Sri Lanka since independence from the British in 1948. This elections reaffirmed the leader of the UNP as the Prime Minister, to work with the leader of the SLFP who had been elected as President in January 2015. The alliance also receives the support of major political parties representing ethnic minorities, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), despite the TNA leader being the Opposition Leader. A faction of the SLFP and some smaller parties, calling themselves “Joint Opposition”, remain loyal to defeated former President Rajapakse and opposed to the ruling alliance. But despite street protests and vocal outbursts over media, their strength in parliament appears to be less than 50 out of 225, way below the required strength to oppose even constitutional changes which requires two thirds majority.

Human-Rights-in-SL-one-year-after-parliamentary-elections-INFORM-18Aug2016.pdf by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

DifferentYetEqual: A campaign for equality and democracy

Aug 17, 2016

On the evening of 15 August 2016, we, a group of citizens from diverse backgrounds,

gathered together under the banner DifferentYetEqual, at Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo

07.

We began discussing the need for such a campaign, to promote equality and justice in our

society, as many of us are deeply concerned by the continued atmosphere of racism and

intolerance in recent times. We have been particularly concerned with several incidents of

attacks against Muslim and Christian communities and their places of worship, around Sri

Lanka

. We have read countless reports (in 2016) of mobs disrupting Christian and Muslim

religious activities and gatherings violentlyii

. We are concerned by the ongoing campaign by

some groups to claim Sri Lanka as a ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’ nation. We are also acutely aware of

our responsibility as citizens to proactively counter these discriminatory ideologies. We are

firm in the understanding that no community needs to be treated less than equal for this

nation of ours to move forward. It is our diversity and pluralism than makes Sri Lanka the

nation it is.

We began as an informal group, disseminating our ideas and thoughts through social media

and other networks to a larger community of concerned citizens. We collectively organised

yesterday’s vigil, of our own volition as a citizen-led collective, using our own personal

funds. Everyone who attended the vigil came of their own accord. There were people of

diverse communities and from diverse backgrounds present at the vigil.

Soon, the vigil was disrupted aggressively by a group of people claiming to be

representatives of the ‘SinhaLe’ group. This group proceeded to carry out their campaign of

the promotion of racism and hate-speech. Conflict between the two groups ensued, as the

‘SinhaLe’ group goaded the vigil-attendees constantly. It only subsided finally because all

those at the vigil were able to be non-aggressive, non-confrontational, peaceful and tolerant,

while making their point assertively and strongly. Finally, the DifferentYetEqual group

disbanded collectively, peacefully, after singing songs of unity and peace and making their

statements to the media in Tamil, Sinhala and English. We disbanded before the ‘SinhaLe’

group did; this was our choice.

We are not an organisation, nor do we have any affiliations whatsoever to any political party

or personality and wholly reject any such claim.

The Media

As those gathered to demand a more just and equal Sri Lanka for us all, we were disappointed

by the behaviour of most of the media present there yesterday. Instead of covering the event

they had come there to cover – the DifferentYetEqual vigil for equality – many immediately

diverted all their attention to the disruptive elements. Most of the media present seemed more

interested in quickly turning their cameras to the unfolding drama, rather than seeking

balanced perspectives from those who had gathered for the vigil.

Several media reports following the vigil contain factual errors about DifferentYetEqual,

which are a sign of this unprofessionalism. This could easily have been avoided had the

journalists been interested in seeking out the facts; there were prepared media spokespeople

present, and we would have been happy to answer any questions.

We urge the media to take its responsibilities more seriously;

to ensure that they give equal time and effort to documenting and presenting multiple

perspectives so as to commit to impartiality and professionalism.

We are grateful however, to the non-mainstream media on social media platforms giving the

vigil coverage, and to mainstream media who worked hard to provide accurate reports.

The Police

The Cinnamon Gardens Police were informed of our plans for a silent, peaceful vigil days

before, by representatives of the group. We believe they had and have a continued

responsibility to stand by us, and all other citizens who are attempting to rally for equality in

a peaceful, non-disruptive manner.

Many police officers gathered at the site of the vigil, once the disruptive elements had

arrived. While members of the DifferentYetEqual group reasoned with officers asking them

to step in and do something, the officers did nothing until much later, when the OIC arrived

on the scene. By then, there was a strong police presence and we believe they could have

contained the situation more effectively and efficiently.

The police did step in strongly towards the end, but mostly to reason with the

DifferentYetEqual vigil group, and ask us to not engage and prolong the confrontation. They

did also try to reason with the ‘SinhaLe’ group, but we believe and feel they could have done

more. The ‘SinhaLe’ group also carried a distorted version of the national flag – a crime as

far as we know – and we urge the Police, in the future, to at least act strongly on matters like

that.

However, we are thankful for their presence there.

Finally, we are inspired at the way all vigil-attendees stood strong and responded peacefully

yet assertively in the face of aggression and hate. We believe in the power of citizens’

collectives and urge more citizens to join together to stand up against discrimination.

Together, we have immense power and we cannot be silenced. The vigil was not the end of

the DifferentYetEqual campaign; it was only the beginning. We hope to continue using social

media and public events to bring people together, to stand against racism and all other forms

of discrimination.