Is the army there to stoke hatred, animosity and build Buddhist temples in the North or provide security and create harmony.?

-By Wimal Dheerasekera

(Lanka-e-News -21.Aug.2016, 11.30PM) During the past when peace was being restored in the country , most infamous  Major General Hendavitharne ,an advisor to an equally or more notorious  ex defense secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse influenced by a Trincomalee three wheeler association ,while  attempting to install a Buddha statue by force in Trincomalee incited a racial  conflict among the population there . In like manner by trying to build a Buddhist shrine by the army now  in front of the residence of the chief incumbent of  the Kanakambikai Amman Kovil, Iranamadu, Kilinochchi , a tense communal situation has erupted among the people.

When the Northern Provincial Council (NPC) passed a resolution on the 16 th that this construction shall be halted , the pro Rajapakse extremists of the South began  stoking  and stirring  up unrest and chaos  by shouting and screaming that the Buddhists can erect a Buddhist shrine anywhere in the country.

Of course none can dispute  their claim. A Buddhist ought to  have the right to build a Buddhist shrine  anywhere in the country. A Hindu should have the right to build a Kovil anywhere in the country, and likewise a Muslim should have the right to build a Mosque anywhere in the country.

The crucial question at issue in Iranamadu is not that but the construction of a Buddhist shrine in front of the residence of the  chief incumbent of the main Hindu Kovil by the army.

On the other hand ,if this construction is being carried out by the Buddhists in Iranamadu , it is understandable. Yet , in that area , it is difficult to find even a single Buddhist resident . Therefore this is a deliberate attempt of the army to use its powers to provoke a section of the people of another religion. That is , the aim and objective is to sow seeds of  animosity and hatred among the people in that area.

It is not for nothing the army is conspiring  to build a Buddhist center in the area where there is not a single Buddhist , and after  forcibly acquiring 4 acres land belonging to the Kanakanambikai  Amman Kovil , Iranamadu , Kilinochchi.

This is a cruel and most base oppression of another  religion. If Buddha is living today among these sinners who are committing sacrilege in the name of the very Buddhism   he preached , he would no doubt go in search even of ten jungles to escape from these satans and brutes to carry on his meditation rather than be among them.

If the army is similarly building Kovils  in front of the quarters  of Galagoda Aththe Gnanassara or Bengamuwe Nalaka’s after acquiring the lands belonging to their Temples, certainly   it can be excused on the grounds  , the army is trying to create religious harmony among the people , even if the army had used its powers and exerted force . Sadly, there is no such thing taking place. 

Long ago ,  Emperor Asoka with a view to spread the Buddha Dahama in Sri Lanka ordained his only son , and thereafter when the latter  reached ‘rahath’ state , along with more ‘rahats’ met King Piyatissa of Sri Lanka at  that time and preached to him. It is therefore significant to note the King did not send his army to construct a temple forcibly in Mihinthale. It is the followers who subsequently built the temples. 

It is best if these so called  ‘great’ stupid adherents  of Buddhism understand this in the right perspective. In a country , the armed forces are a non-religious government entity . They are there not to construct temples , Kovils and mosques. Of course it is most welcome if they intervene to re construct a place of religious worship if that was destroyed following a national disaster. 

The present situation  is not like that . Hence , it is very evident this is an abominable  conspiracy like in the past aimed at  creating murder and mayhem in Trincomalee through religious animosity . The spirits and satans spawned by  devil incarnates like  Hendavitharanes  and Gotabayas are still lurking within the forces. It is very obvious these evil sinister forces are conspiring to strike with a view to vent  their venoms and vengeances exploiting  religion , and to create turmoil and turbulence in the country.

By Wimal Dheerasekera 

Translated by Jeff

(our thanks to Dinasena Rathugamage  who provided us with the necessary information to make this report)

---------------------------
by     (2016-08-22 02:03:28)

For Raviraj’s killing Attorney General turns a deaf ear

Aug 22, 2016

The officers of the criminal investigations department have revealed that in order to proceed with the investigations into the killing of the former Member of Parliament Nadarajah Raviraj the assistance given by the authorities of the Attorney General department is rather negative.

It is reported that the chief suspect in this case is a resident of Switzerland Sivakanthan Viwekananthan alias “Swiss Charan”,To proceed with the hearing in the case he has to be arrested and brought to Sri Lanka under the mutual understanding of the two countries in terms of MLA-Mutual Legal Assistance. The officers of the CID had attempted to arrest him and bring over to Sri Lanka over a period of one year with the assistance of the officials of the Attorney General’s department. But according to the officials of the CID the cooperation received by the related authorities of the Attorney General’s department had been at a very low ebb.

 

This request had been made by the CID from the Attorney General’s department on the 15th September 2015. Those who appear for the Attorney General for this case are the person in charge of the crimes division Additional Solicitor General Attorney at Law Dippula Livera and the Assistant Solicitor General , Attorney at Law Palitha Ranasinghe.

 

It is reported that to arrest Swiss Charan international Red Warrant had been issued as it had been confirmed by the Switzerland Embassy in Sri Lanka. Hence in terms of the MLA procedure the suspect Swiss Charan could be brought to Sri Lanka. This is what the officials of the CID are expecting to happen.

 

All details pertaining to the suspect, nature  and details of the crime of the have been furnished by the police which have been handed over to the Attorney General.After which the duty of the officials of the Attorney General’s department is to hand over the report to the secretary to the ministry of justice. After which the papers should be handed over to the secretary to the ministry of foreign affairs. The secretary to the ministry of foreign affairs should thereafter hand over the case to the Ambassador of the country of the suspect. Then an order has to be issued by the judiciary authorities of that country to send him to this country. This process would take about three to four months.

In this regard a spokesman of the Attorney General’s department had   quipped that this process of the MLA is not something that could be done easily.What had been told was that the law of that country need to be studied. That process would take about six months to one year.

 

The spokesman for the Attorney General’s department had said that this file is handled by a son of a former Chief Justice. Although his work is slow he does an immaculate job. He had said not to worry very soon the matter would be done.

 

Nevertheless this request had been made by the CID over a year ago. There is a suspicion that this delay has been made purposely for the benefit of the two Navy officers who are held in custody. It is reported by the officials of the CID  suspect that the interested parties are the former additional Solicitor General, legal advisor of the Navy Rear Admiral Attorney at law Shavendra Silva and one of his very close associates Uppula Livera who are attempting to prolong the case.

 

 However it has been proved that these two Navy officers  and  the former Chief Minister of  Eastern Province  Shivaneshathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pillayan had been involved directly into the murder of the former Member of Parliament Nadaraja Raviraj.

 

However why this murder was planned and for who’s intention is not known yet. If the main he main suspect in the case Swiss Charan is arrested and brought to Sri Lanka and interrogated these reasons could be revealed. Some facts  have been collected about a responsible person, a high official in the then intelligence service.

 

At the same time in the year 2006 for Raviraj’s killing opposite the Army hospital in Narahenpita to file action against the suspects in the high courts, the officials of the Colombo Magistrates courts have decided as there are sufficient evidence. The charge sheets against them have been furnished. It is learnt that a suspect a close associate of Pilleyan Palanasamy Suresh has fled the country.

Achieving Balanced Regional Development through Devolution

By Laksiri Fernando-August 21, 2016, 9:23 pm 

 

Whatever the weaknesses of the 13th Amendment or devolution in the present constitution, there is a clear socio-economic philosophy behind it, for the benefit of the people living in the provinces. That is the objective of ‘balanced regional development’ which can hardly be achieved under a complete unitary state. This is something which needs to be carried forward and strengthened in a new constitution.

It is generally accepted that ‘uneven development’ is one underlying reason for many of the ethnic and other social conflicts in the world. This is similar to the thesis put forward by Tom Nairn in his ‘Break-up of Britain’ in 1977. Youth unrest, rebellions and thereafter armed struggles developed both in the South and in the North primarily in the country’s poor and underdeveloped provinces. The acceptance of this fact is not about economic determinism or rejection of other political factors such as the dreadful ethnic discrimination/suppression in the case of the civil war in the North/East, but placing those conflicts in a broader socio-economic background.

Sri Lanka’s constitution making is perennially weak in conceptualizing the principles behind institutions, structures, authorities and resultant powers in the governing system. They are mostly dry and boring legal documents. If they refer to concepts at all, they are mostly abstract in nature or repetition of what appears in text books (e.g. people’s sovereignty). The 13th Amendment is also the same in most of its formulations. However, there are some gems among the stones. ‘Balanced regional development’ undoubtedly is one of those gems.

Objective of Balanced Development

Although the ‘balanced regional development’ is tagged to the Finance Commission (FC) in the 13th Amendment, its objective can be considered one of the main pillars of devolution in general. It is not clear whether the provincial councils or the central government ever took this objective into proper account. It was always relegated to the FC and considered just as a formula for financial allocation, yet within the strictures of the Treasury. What the Article 154 (R) (5) says on ‘balanced regional development’is the following.

"(5) The Commission shall formulate such principles with the objective of achieving balanced regional development in the country, and shall accordingly take into account -

(a) the population of each Province;

(b) the per capita income of each Province;

(c) the need progressively, to reduce social and economic disparities; and

(d) the need, progressively, to reduce the difference between the per capita income of each Province and the highest per capita income among the Provinces."

The above is the present (legal) status. Even in the future,it might be advisable to have a truly independent commission to assist the provincial councils and even the central government in formulating ‘such principles with the objective of achieving balanced regional development’ not only among provinces but also within.There is such a commission in South Africa called the ‘Finance and Fiscal Commission.’ In the case of Sri Lanka, it might be better to call it the ‘Finance and Planning Commission’ as there are major planning matters to be sorted out apart from finance and fiscal matters.

However,‘balanced regional development’ is primarily a task for the provincial councils and the government in mutual cooperation, and not for the FC in isolation. The best model for Sri Lanka in this case is ‘cooperative devolution.’ When you take the population of each province, per capita income, socio-economic disparities, and the ‘difference between the per capita income of each province and the highest per capita income among the provinces,’ the massive uneven development in Sri Lanka is very clear. What is missing in this inventory might be the ‘disparities in natural resources and environmental conditions.’ These also have to be taken into account in trying to ameliorate uneven development in the country.

‘Uneven development’largely is a product of colonialism and lopsided capitalist development. It is not clear whether the pre-colonial situation was even or balanced. Perhaps not. However, we have more accurate information since the colonial period. It is mainly the Western province that became ‘developed’ under (British) colonialism and the unitary state. The unitary state, and politics controlled from Colombo,contributed to this debacle. Even though major surpluses were extracted from the tea plantations, the central province remained underdeveloped as the benefits were not distributed to that province or the people.

This was underdevelopment within underdevelopment. In the provinces, although major towns such as Jaffna, Gale, Trincomalee, NuwaraEliyaor Kandy were developed, the purpose was mainly administrative and not socio-economic. This is the trend which has to be reversed, and one of the main ways that could be done is through devolution. Take the one time popular saying in the south, ‘kolombatakiriapatakakiri,’ literally meaning ‘milk for Colombo and melon for us’ or ‘everything for Colombo and nothing for us.’ There is an undeniable truism in this saying even today.

Obstructing Uneven Development

There has been a very clear ‘centre-periphery dichotomy’ in Sri Lanka both in the economy, and in the socio-political sphere since independence, the Western province dominating. This dichotomy becameoverwhelming under the open economy after 1977. Let me give some empirical evidence in the following Table (GDP Share by Province, 1990-2015) for the last 25 years.

According to these figures, the Western province still remains dominant in the economy (41.2), but since the end of the war, some course correction is underway. The GDP share of the province was 40.2 in 1990, but increased during the war, peaking in 2000-2005 period. The figure for 2005 was 50.8 percent. The Eastern province, traditionally called the ‘granary of the country,’once contributed 14 percent, but declined under the open economy and then the war.

‘Open economy’ is a policy that Sri Lanka cannot avoid, but to counter the adverse effects, a ‘balanced regional development’ is necessary. By 2015, only the Central, the Southern and the North Western provinces could achieve a 10 percent contribution. Among the other provinces, while the North Central (5.4), Uva (5.2), Eastern (6.0) and Sabaragamuva(7.0) struggling above the 5 percent mark, the Northern province is still lagging behind around 3.5 percent, even after the end of the war. Uneven development and regional underdevelopment not only highlight the need for devolution, but emphasises the requirement for rethinking as to the way it should proceed in the future.

Some Causal Reasons

The argument here is not about having equal share of GDP for all provinces. This is unthinkable given the provincial disparities in population among other factors. The population share of the Western province for example is around 29 percent, and it is natural therefore for that province to achieve a higher share of the GDP also given the fact that physical capital (i.e. infrastructure) and the human capital (i.e. education, health) are comparatively higher. The following Table 2 gives a comparative picture of the population share (2012) and the GDP share (2015) for the provinces.

It is obvious that a province like the North Central or Uva might not achieve a share like the Western. The population shares are different. This applies to the other provinces, and also to the North and the East. However, given the vast areas of land in all these provinces what they can achieve in agricultural production might be immense, if the agriculture is modernized (largely physical capital) and the agricultural labour is better skilled (human capital). It is also too obvious that financial capital does not flow, internal or external (FDI), unless there are sufficient base for physical and particularly human capital in the provinces.

Considering that difference in physical and human capital is the main reasons for uneven share of GDP among different provinces, a major task for devolution would be to bridge these disparities. While reliable data are not available for a proper comparisons, some of these disparities are also visible. When you travel from Colombo to the North (North Central included), East, Uva or the deep-South, you come across underdevelopment, poverty and poor infrastructure facilities. What you might not see visibly are the social or human development conditions. These are the poor conditions particularly in health and education and also gender inequalities.

‘Sri Lanka Human Development Report 2012’ (UNDP) gives a valuable comparison from pages 15 to 19. According to these information, calculated primarily onthe district basis, Gampaha, Kalutara and Colombo, stands the highest in that order in the human development index (HDI), while the Northern Province is the lowest as a province. As districts outside the Northern Province, NuwaraEliya, Batticaloa and Badulla stand the lowest in HDI. As these information also show, the disparities are not only between provinces, but also within provinces, both at the district and divisional levels. That is one reason why the devolution has to go deeper, and into the divisional or local government levels.

There are some welcome developments when the year 2015 is compared with 2014. This however should not be exaggerated considering the progress that needs to be achieved in the future. As the Central Bank reported, the share of the GDP of other provinces (other than the Western) increased from 58.3 in 2014 to 58.8 percent in 2015.All these provinces performed better in 2015 except Uva recording a decline. The Eastern province doubled its growth rate while the North achieving a12.1 percent growth rate. Both provinces were rising from a lower base, and the growth was in agriculture and not in industries or services.

A Possible Way Out

There are obvious two extremes to be avoided if balanced regional development needs to be achieved in the country through devolution. One is the ‘unitary’ thinking where the dominant politicians and the bureaucrats believe that regional development can be achieved or projected from Colombo. This can and have happened even under devolution. The other is the emotional political demands or ‘separatist’ thinking of many minority politicians neglecting the socio-economic factors of the issues involved. Both are self-serving devices on the part of the elitist politicians. Sri Lanka has experimented both, but has failed miserably.

While the initial national economic plans, first the ten year (1956-65) and then the five year (1970-75), geared from Colombo failed to achieve balanced regional development, the ‘bull in a china shop’ approach of the open economy (since 1977) had been a colossal disaster in this respect. The present predicament is that both the ‘unitary’ thinking and ‘separatism’ still dominate the devolution debate as well as its crooked practices. One consequence is the vast disparities in income distribution throughout the country. According to the available figures, the poorest 20 percentof the population receives only 4.5 percent of total household income, while the richest 20 percent receiving 54.1 percent, although the absolute poverty is now comparatively low.

A major reason for this situation is the vastly ‘underdeveloped’ outer provinces. Despite the immense income inequalities in the Western province itself, the per capita income is 140 percent higher than all the other provinces combined. Thus a major objective of devolution should be ‘balanced regional development.’ There is nothing particularly wrong in having a ‘megapolis’ in the West or ‘smart cities,’ but there should also be ‘smart cities’ in other provinces as well. In reformulating what appears in Article 154, in clarifying the primary objective/s of devolution, it could be said:

‘Both the provincial councils and the national government shall formulate such principles with the objective of achieving regional development in the country, with the assistance of a Finance and Planning Commission, and shall accordingly take into account –

(a) the population of each province;

(b) the per capita income of each province;

(c) the level of physical and human capital of each province;

(d) the disparities in natural and environmental conditions between provinces;

(e) the need progressively, to reduce social and economic disparities; and

(f) the need, progressively, to reduce the difference between the per capita income of each province and the highest per capita income among the provinces."

What might be necessary in achieving such a ‘balanced regional development’ obviously is ‘cooperative devolution.’ It is also clear that if such an objective is accepted in a new constitution, more research needs to be done particularly in assessing the existing levels of ‘physical and human capital’ and also quantifiable ‘natural and environmental conditions’ in and between provinces.

Paranagama Panel Suggests Domestic Judicial Mechanism And 'Accountable Amnesty'

By P.K.Balachandran- 21st August 2016

COLOMBO: The Justice Maxwell Paranagama Commission which went into the issue of missing persons and violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in the last brutal phase of Eelam War IV, has recommended the establishment of a domestic, all Sri Lankan, Judicial Mechanism to investigate and try cases of violation, and also a Truth and Reconciliation Commission which could give “accountable amnesty” to those who pleaded guilty and expressed remorse.

Speaking to Express here on Sunday, Justice Paranagama said that if anyone is charged for violations of Human Rights or International Humanitarian Law, he should be tried by a Special High Court. Cases should be conducted by Sri Lanka’s Attorney General; heard by Sri Lankan judges and investigated by Sri Lankan investigators, he said.

“Of course, if the investigators need foreign expertise they could acquire them and the Special High Court could allow foreign observers,” Paranagama said.

As regards the Truth and Reconciliation Commission he said that it is meant to allow people to speak out about their experiences and give vent to their grievances. And perpetrators of atrocities could own up, express regret and seek amnesty.

“The T and R commission could then consider giving some of those who pleaded guilty an accountable amnesty. They will not be allowed to go scot free but will be given an appropriate punishment,” Paranagama said.

The Sirisena-Wickremsinghe government is yet to accept the Paranagama Commission’s report, but it is most likely to accept it as there is a strong feeling in Sri Lanka’s majority Sinhalese community that the heroic armed forces which defeated the dreaded Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) must not be pilloried, and that foreign judges and investigators with preconceived notions and anti-Sri Lankan agendas should not be allowed to conduct investigations and sit in judgment.

But the Tamil minority is unlikely to be happy with Justice Paranagama’s prescriptions because it has been vociferously demanding an International Judicial Mechanism with foreign judges and investigators on the grounds that Sri Lankan judges and investigators will be biased against them.  A resolution jointly moved by the US and Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on October 1, 2015 also envisaged an international Judicial Mechanism.

However, since that resolution was passed, the leaders of the government of Sri Lanka have been repeatedly assuring the Sinhalese majority that foreign involvement will be limited to getting foreign technical expertise in investigations. President Sirisena has said times without number that the Judicial Mechanism will be a local one and Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera has said that foreign participation can be of various kinds and that Sri Lanka has options to explore in this regards.

Given the friendly relations the present regime in Colombo has with  Washington and the West, the latter are unlikely to press the Sri Lankan government to go for an international Judicial Mechanism. High level visitors from the State Department have said that the nature of the Judicial Mechanism will be left to be decided by Sri Lankans themselves. They have also hinted that US interests lie in the survival of the present regime and in the promotion of US-Sri Lanka economic and business  relations and not in the pursuit of human rights goals.

New Policy To Protect Rights Of IDPs

Former IDPs at a camp after the war

Monday, August 22, 2016

A new National policy on war displaced, which was approved by the cabinet last week, will ensure the rights of internally displaced persons is protected and all their issues are addressed.

The full cabinet paper submitted by the Minister of Prison Reforms, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs D.M. Swaminathan and seen by The Sunday Leader, goes into detail on all the issues concerning war displaced which needs to be addressed.

The policy paper notes that the provision of durable solutions to displacement, whether this is return to places of origin, local integration, or relocation in other areas of the country, is central to addressing the rights of IDPs and displacement-affected populations.

The provision of durable solutions is also inextricably linked with the wider political task of healing the wounds of war and forging a strong sense of unity within a diverse polity.

The policy takes a conflict-sensitive approach, paying due regard to the perspectives of the various groups of displaced communities, as well as communities hosting IDPs, to ensure that assistance is designed and implemented in a manner that resolves rather than exacerbates tensions, strengthens peace and promotes justice, unity and reconciliation.

Minister Swaminathan notes in the policy paper that the rights of IDPs must be respected, protected and fulfilled while they remain in displacement, and at all stages of their search for durable solutions. More than six years after the war, it is time for urgent and comprehensive solutions that leave noone behind.

The new government has since 2015 made its intention clear that the displacement relating to the war needs to be urgently addressed and durable solutions found for IDPs, returning refugees and those who have chosen settlement options but are still struggling to find durable solutions.

The development of the National policy has been based on wide-ranging consultations with key stakeholders, both in the war-affected areas and the centre, consultations that began in June 2015 and culminated with a presentation to, and endorsement by, the National Steering Committee (NSC) on resettlement in Colombo on 21 March 2016.

The draft also drew upon earlier efforts to address the displacement issue including the 2011 Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report which recognised the importance of finding durable solutions for IDPs in the medium and long term and noted that, absent this, “a sustainable and all-inclusive reconciliation process cannot be achieved.” It incorporated the findings of the September 2008 National Consultation on the Status of Internally Displaced Persons (due to conflict) within the framework for Durable Solutions; the Draft bill on Protection of IDPs (2008 August, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka) and the MoR’s Draft Resettlement Policy (2013).While the government has taken measures, including drawing up this policy, with a view to rapidly ending the war-related displacement, this policy notes that for specific populations the struggle to achieve durable solutions, particularly in securing adequate shelter, employment, safety, security, and equal access to essential services, may take longer and will require targeted assistance.

Land to be returned

One of the major obstacles noted in the police to address the IDP issue is the land issue, particularly the occupation of civilian land by the military.

The cabinet approved National policy notes that Ministry of Defence in coordination with the Ministry of Law and Order must ensure that an accurate mapping is made of all land that is or was owned, claimed or used by civilians and is currently occupied by any of the three security forces – army, navy or air force – or by the police.

All such lands, particularly private land, should be released and returned to civilian use and ownership urgently, unless the State determines that it is required for public purpose.

The policy paper also notes that the purpose, be it national security or development, should be carefully scrutinised, including to ascertain that no alterative land can be found for the stated purpose. This also means, inter alia, releasing land that is being used by the military for purposes not related to security including but not limited to agricultural production,  tourist enterprises, or recreation. It must be ensured that land that is released is made safe from unexploded ordnance or other sources of danger, and returned in a state that can be used by former residents and owners for their residential or economic pursuits.

The National policy also notes that there are a number of cases where government departments and authorities, including but not limited to the Forest Department, Wildlife Department, Archaeology Department, Mahaweli Authority, and Urban Development Authority, have demarcated lands for state usage that were formerly owned and occupied by persons now in displacement, sometimes without consulting district and provincial level authorities or adequately informing those affected.

“It is imperative that the relevant Ministries take steps to address this practice and to take corrective measures to ensure that the land and property rights of those being prevented from returning to their land and/or property are recognised,” the policy paper notes.

It says where government departments or authorities have gazetted or otherwise laid claim to land belonging to displaced persons, these cases need to be reviewed in consultation with district-level authorities in a transparent manner, and where possible the land must be restored to the rightful owner.

The National policy also states that in exceptional cases if IDP land and property is required for public purposes, then this land will be acquired as per the existing laws. Those affected must be accorded their full rights in accordance with Sri Lankan law and national standards, including the NIRP. The owners/former occupants of that land and property must receive acceptable alternative land, and/or appropriate  compensation for their lost land/property.

For persons who have to relocate, needs such as shelter and livelihood should be met, access to essential services should be provided and social integration issues should be addressed.

Assisting refugees to return

The government has also been told to take  policy decisions and actions to address key problems faced by refugees who are attempting to return. This includes, inter alia, outreach and information campaigns to refugee communities abroad, facilitating the provision of key identification documents, assisting refugees to transport goods and personal possessions acquired in exile, ensuring that refugee returnees will be eligible to receive the same types of assistance that are available to IDP returnees, ensuring that educational and professional qualifications earned abroad are recognised where applicable including for school admission requirements, and that security screening programmes are conducted without undue delays.

Targeted assistance programmes, including for livelihoods and for social integration, need to be developed.

Refugee returns are likely to continue over a period of several years and will extend beyond the period targeted for ending internal displacement. While the Ministry of Resettlement will play an active role in this task, including in ensuring more effective monitoring of refugee returnees at the district level, Swaminathan says it will require the assistance of other ministries including Education, Health and Social Services amongst others.

The policy recognises that displaced persons, returning refugees and displacement affect communities are not just recipients of assistance but also key partners in governance, development and peace, and play a vital role in finding and implementing durable solutions for themselves.

The policy also recognises community-based organisations (CBOs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), citizens’ committees, other civil society actors and humanitarian agencies, and relevant private sector actors – both national and international – as partners in dealing with the issue of displacement and durable solutions.

In order to take the proposed National policy forward, it has been proposed that In the Northern and Eastern Provinces, the Provincial Governor and the Chief Minister  convene and co-chair regular Provincial Steering Committee meetings,  which bring together members of the Provincial Council and relevant officials at the district and divisional level.

These committees will be established to ensure that assistance and development needs and the protection of IDPs, refugee returnees and displacement-affected individuals and communities are provided for and integrated into national and provincial economic plans, housing and infrastructure programmes, livelihood projects, and other areas of durable solutions support falling within their responsibility.

In every district where there are IDPs or refugee returnees, a Grievance Panel will be established to hear, decide and act on complaints filed by IDPs or refugee returnees and other persons of concern under this policy. These Panels will include District Secretaries or their representatives, district-level Social Service officers, district level officials from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), representatives from civil society and retired public officials among others.

Sri Lankan Justice Has No Place for ‘Accountable Amnesties’

Commission Recommendation Conflicts with UN Resolution

It’s time to add “accountable amnesties” to notable oxymorons like “open secret” and “working vacation.”

EXPAND

A Tamil woman cries as she holds up an image of her family member who disappeared during the civil war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) at a vigil to commemorate the international day of the disappeared in Colombo August 30, 2013.

© 2013 Reuters

James Ross-AUGUST 22, 2016

According to Sri Lankan media reports, the Presidential Commission to Investigate Complaints Regarding Missing Persons is recommending those accused of human rights abuses during the final months of Sri Lanka’s war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) be allowed to seek so-called “accountable amnesty.”

The commission reportedly says in its final report that those charged with violations of international human rights or humanitarian law should be investigated by local authorities, prosecuted by the attorney general, and tried before local judges in a special high court. This is contrary to the United Nations Human Rights Councilresolution last October, which recognized the need for “Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators” in a Sri Lankan tribunal.

The commission also says that those charged should be given an opportunity to explain their actions before the planned Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Commission chairman Maxwell Paranagama told the New Indian Express the commission should “consider giving some of those who pleaded guilty an accountable amnesty. They will not be allowed to go scot free but will be given an appropriate punishment.” This would apparently amount to paying fines and forfeiting promotions.

Were the Sri Lankan government to adopt this approach, a military commander or government official may be able to buy their way out of a criminal prosecution for summary killings, torture, and enforced disappearances by admitting their crimes to a non-judicial body and presumably not having to face evidence presented against them.

It’s true that South Africa’s post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission provided full amnesties to those who confessed their guilt. As Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera has recognized, this approach is now regarded as outdated and falls short of international standards.

Sri Lanka is obligated to prosecute those responsible for serious crimes in violation of international law. A slap on the wrist for grave crimes is not justice – even if it comes with public admissions of guilt. The thousands of victims of abuses and their families from all sides in Sri Lanka’s war should not be left out of the accountability process. All Sri Lankans need to see those responsible for atrocities appropriately punished.

“Accountable amnesty” evokes all the seriousness of “jumbo shrimp” – it’s not a real way forward. Transitional justice in Sri Lanka needs to involve genuine trials, with the added expertise and protection offered by foreign judges, prosecutors, and investigators – and impose punishments that the fit the crime.

The Tamil Leadership After The 1977 Elections

By Rajan Hoole –August 20, 2016 

Dr. Rajan Hoole

1979 – 83: The Mounting Repression – Part III

Amirthalingam had many flaws as a politician. A non-violent struggle to which he was verbally committed would have meant building up a mass-movement. The Federal Party (the TULF’s predecessor) had developed as a mass-movement in the latter 1950s, but this was on the wane in the 60s for reasons including the nationalisation of schools, which made many school teachers government servants overnight. Moreover, a feasible goal for non-violent action would have been step-by- step reform, such as the Bandaranaike- Chelvanayakam Pact of 1957. A goal such as a separate state that was bound to heighten emotions on both sides was not an appropriate goal for non-violent action.

Thus by default of not building a mass movement and having to face electoral competition, the TULF was led to stir chauvinistic emotions, brand its opponents traitors and directly or indirectly rely on the militant youth. But its real programme was reform. Its dealings with the militant youth form a dark and dishonourable chapter. When it came to the demand for UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) in early 1982, Amirthalingam knew that it would unnerve the Government and that the Tamil people were in no position to bear the consequences. Yet, the absence of political movement on the part of the Government to resolve the problem placed the TULF in a difficult position. In the meantime, the militant youth were coming into their own.

Perhaps, Jayewardene’s nervousness after the questionable 1982 Referendum (see below) and the actions resulting from this did not let him see that he and Amirthalingam either stood together or fell together. By 1983, any political solution that Amirthalingam could win from Jayewardene was bound to be opposed as inadequate by the militant sections. But Amirthalingam alone among the Tamil leaders of that time, had the self-confidence of a leader and the fighting qualities to take on the militants when he had a solid basis for doing so.

The PTA and its Effects

Another episode of which we will have more to say later is the passing of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in July 1979 and the order given by President Jayewardene to Brigadier Tissa (Bull) Weeratunge, the Army’s Chief of Staff and his relative. Weeratunge was also a brother-in-law of Jayewardene’s new IGP, Ana Seneviratne, who like Weeratunge, but before him, proved his suitability for the top job, through services of a questionable nature in Jaffna. The order from Jayewardene gave Weeratunge six months, until 31st December 1979, “to eliminate, in accordance with the laws of the land, the menace of terrorism in all its forms from the Island and more specifically from the Jaffna District.” The order placed at Weeratunge’s disposal ‘all the resources of the State’.

Read More

WE, TNA, ARE VERY WORRIED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT -TNA MP D. SIDHARTHAN

OMP bill was passed Thursday without a vote. How confident are you that the OMP bill will ensure justice for the Tamil people?

21/08/2016

A: What is more important is the implementation of the bill than passing it. Any bill can be passed but there is no purpose if it cannot be implemented. The efficiency and commitment of the commissioners is left to be seen. Only time will prove if OMP will be of any use. This we cannot decide at this juncture. We have to wait and see.

The implementation is the most important factor, and we must see who will be appointed to this commission and what powers will be given to them etc. The bill as it is now may contain some weaknesses; but TNA amendments and all, it’s a good start. The government has stepped in the right direction. As the co-sponsors of the UN resolution, they have started moving in the right direction. However, it’s too early to speculate.

 Former president Mahinda Rajapaksa had said that anyone who supported the bill was a traitor to the country and its armed forces. Do you agree?

A: I think it’s more of a political statement. It will not happen that way. I don’t think that the OMP has powers to indict anyone. What Mahinda said should not be taken too seriously as his is nothing more than a political statement.

As many Tamil organisations have expressed, do you find some lack of focus on accountability in this bill?

A: Yes it does; still I think that this is just a start in right direction. I witnessed the turmoil in parliament when this bill was brought in, so it must move slowly.

On the accountability factor, the government has made many promises, and I feel that their promises are genuine. However, we cannot predict anything at this point; we should wait and see how things progress. The country’s situation is such that we have to give it time.

 The OMP was established during the previous regime. How do you see the commission doing anything different now?

A: At that time the commission was functioning under the president. This time it’s under the laws of the country. That is the main difference. This government is also a party to the UN resolution and they have made certain commitments. They have to keep their pledges, so this time the commitment is more serious. If the government fails to keep their promises, the international community will lose faith in them. So there is a vast difference between the previous government’s and that of the present one. We believe that this government will keep their pledges.

What are the drawbacks that you see of the OMP bill?

A: I really can’t say at this point. Right now, all we see is the joint opposition’s disapproval of this bill. They are on the view that this bill will betray the army, which I don’t agree with. Other than that, I don’t see anything negative about this bill right now, mainly on the political side.

The government made certain pledges to the UN that the foreign judges will be included in the investigations. However they later stated that no foreign judges will be accommodated. Under this backdrop, how credible do you think the current regime is?

A: We are pushing to full implement the UN resolution. That is with the input of international participation in the inquiry. Even top members of the government make conflicting statements in this regard. However, they have to fulfill their obligation as co-sponsors of the UN resolution. They can’t just shrug their obligation off and decide on a totally domestic inquiry.

I am not sure how the government plans to fulfill their promises to the international community. We just have to wait and see. I don’t want to comment on the issue prematurely. Let’s see how the government conducts themselves.

 Are you satisfied with the progress of the reconciliation efforts?

A: It is very slow. Certain things that the government should have done, they have failed to do. This has created a lot of mistrust among the Tamil people in the government. Unless something positive is done, the gap of distrust will widen. The government, therefore, should conduct in a manner that will build that trust; unfortunately that is not happening. We, TNA, are very worried about this development.

We supported this government and are giving them our fullest support even in parliament. However the pressure is mounting on us as well that we are maintaining silence when the government is letting down the Tamil people, in terms of the missing persons, releasing of lands etc. The government is very slow to address these issues. Providing employment opportunities for the people in the North is also slow. These things have created a lot of mistrust and the government has to address these issues ASP.

Excerpts from the “We’re Giving Government Our Fullest Support – D. Sidharthan” article published in Sunday Leader

Sri Lanka’s Election Commission Undermined

by Ratnajeevan H. Hoole

Member, Election Commission

( August 23, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Independent Commissions have been long sought by the public. Their rationale is that certain decisions ought to be made independently of political considerations and therefore are best done by those not beholden to their political masters. Rulers have favored centralization while advocates for democracy preferred decentralization.

The Seventeenth Amendment of 3 Oct. 2001 provided for a Constitutional Council (CC), which would recommend people for independent commissions running the public service and the police, besides other commissions. The amendment turned out to be toothless, a damp squid, when the President failed to appoint the CC. Instead, like a slap on our face, we had the Eighteenth Amendment removing term limits for the president.

The Nineteenth Amendment

The Nineteenth Amendment was a progressive step pushed by civil society after the 2015 elections. We have something positive in the CC. The presidential term limit was restored. Nine commissions were created.

After appointing the nine Commissions, the government claimed credit for democratizing Sri Lanka and got much mileage in international circles.

However, the trends towards centralization and aggrandizement of power continue just like before. A key Commission under the Nineteenth Amendment that we were promised, the University Grants Commission, was not listed among the new independent commissions, seemingly deliberately to exercise political control of our universities.

Aggrandizement and Usurpation of Powers

I was appointed to the Election Commission by the President on 13 Nov. 2015. The letter of appointment mentioned no salary or terms except the 5-year period. I suppose it was assumed that we would be so flattered that we would not ask about money!

We were summoned for a 19 Nov. meeting with the CC. The CC Chairman, the Speaker, congratulated us  that ours is the most important of the nine Commissions. The intent, we were told, was that where things had been done by one person, the Commissioner of Elections, decisions would now be taken by three independent persons. After further pleasantries, we were told that our Chairman would get Rs. 150,000 a month and we members Rs. 100,000. In addition, the Chairman would get a car but not us members. We would get Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 5,000 a month for transport and communications.

Mahinda Dehapriya: Chairman, Election Commission

I suppose we were so happy that we did not stop to ask if the CC had any authority to promise us that. Under§41B.3 of the Constitution, the CC  has only the power to recommend names for members of the Commissions and three names for each post of Chairman from which the President decides whom to appoint, all the while reflecting the “pluralistic character of Sri Lanka, including gender.” Like the many mistakes in the short Nineteenth Amendment, these three names for Chairman is contradicted by §103.1 which lets the President appoint as Chairman one of the three recommended by the CC for the Election Commission. I wonder how many mistakes there will be as we rewrite the whole constitution!

The CC failed to do its job to reflect pluralism.  There are hardly any women on the Commissions and none on the Election Commission. Yet it was poking its nose into what is not its business. That authority to set our salaries is explicitly given to Parliament in §103.8 of the Constitution which says “A member of the Commission shall be paid such emoluments as may be determined by Parliament.”  Note that Parliament means the Cabinet, not the CC, has to initiate it. Further, Emoluments means salary, not our travel and communications. The CC has few duties after recommending names and yet they have to meet at least twice a month Hence this meddlesomeness.

The money promised by the CC never came.

A Pattern Violating the Law

I have pointed out elsewhere the numerous errors in the Nineteenth Amendment. The Prime Minister has not cared to correct the laws since we pointed out the flaws last November. We then get used to saying the law must be violated as a practical necessity or we cannot function. The CC, most of them big lawyers, even President’s Counsel, agreed to this and other violations!

Soon no one will care for the law. Is that what the government wants? What will happen when the new Constitution comes? Could we assume mistakes when we think a clause wrong and violate it? What the PM expects of our new constiution is seen in his contracting the Financial City laws to Britain’s Baker&McKenzie for $2.3 mn.

Surviving

After several months without any pay, our Chairman, Mahinda Deshapriya, was able to negotiate permission with his SLAS colleagues to pay us Rs. 25,000 a month as an advance. This was felt to be the minimum that Parliament would approve so that accountants could sign off on the payments.

Nalin G. Abeysekara, PC, Member Election Commission

I understand that the Delimitation Commission was meeting in the home of a member with her making tea and serving lunch because there was no budget. Perhaps it is the CC’s way of dignifying women to reflect our “pluralistic character”! Recently the Delimitation Commissioners were begun payments because the Constitution did not require Parliament to set their salaries. Some Commissions have not even met.

However, the government has got credit from the International Community for the Commissions in Geneva. The US is praising the government without quite realizing that promises are kept only in form.

Undermining Parliament: Reversion to a One-man Commission

Someone must have realized that the CC’s promise was meaningless even though the PM, Speaker, and Leader of the Opposition are CC members. A Cabinet Paper subsequently set our salaries at Rs. 100,000 and Rs. 75,000 a month for the Chairman and Members, and Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 5,000 as travel allowance and telephone allowance respectively. There is no warrant for the Cabinet to set our travel allowance. Only salary (emoluments) is to be set by Parliament. The Commission must have the freedom to set off genuine expenses incurred as a part of work. After all, §104B.1 of the Constitution, gives the Commission the right to “exercise, perform and discharge all such powers duties and functions” relating to elections, and  under §104B.1   the Commission is “responsible and answerable” only to Parliament, which has set for itself in enacting the Nineteenth Amendment the power to set emoluments, not our travel expenses.

Rather astoundingly, the Cabinet Paper claimed to make the Chairman full time and the two members part time. The Chairman automatically becomes Executive Chairman. There is no warrant for any of this in the Constitution, which simply speaks of a Chairman and two members. Nor do our Letters of Appointment mention part-time. When the intention is to have an Executive Chairman, usually the legislation says so – e.g., the Universities Act,§7.1, about the UGC Chairman. Our quorum of three with three members also implies Parliament’s intention to have all three present for decisions, although this is taken with some justification as a practical absurdity and violated with CC-permission.

The Salaries Commission also I understand slashed our salaries further and there has been yet another cabinet paper on our salaries which I am not privy to, but still no salary or even intimation of what it will be.

Without adequate travel expenses and the two members in part-time capacity, the Commission reverts to a one-man commission against all the intentions of Parliament. Part-time implies that the two members are out of important Commission meetings. Lack of adequate travel facilities means absenting oneself when, say, the PM, President or the Joint Opposition suddenly ask for a meeting with the Commission.

The Delimitation Committee says their report will be ready by 31 Aug. We have said we can hold elections 90 days thereafter. The relevant Minister and President say elections will be next year. It is easier for the government to prevent the Commission from holding elections when only one person is present at meetings.

Although the Chairman of the Commission tries his level best to include the other two members, there are limits with these restrictions. To be frank, I do not know much of what is going on at the Commission despite the Chairman providing translations of many documents. The boast of 3-person decision-making is merely a dream with these restrictions.

Permission for Leave

The latest inroad into the powers of the Commission concerns leave. §103.5 allows a member of the Commission to absent himself from two meetings with the permission of the Commission. §103.7 permits the President to grant a member leave from discharging his duties for up to two months. Now suddenly the CC wants us to apply to it for leave as if they, and we, have nothing better to do.

We have now been working for almost ten months without a salary as if we are part-time. For we have nothing to say whether we are full-time or part-time. Today I am wondering how to go to Colombo on a Rs. 25,000 a month advance on a salary that may never be approved by Parliament. I need to free-load with relations for the night to save money. And it is indeed too much of a strain on them when I stay with them because I have weekly meetings, sometimes for two or three days at a time. Or I wonder whether to take a night bus and return by the next night’s bus, sitting half asleep through the meeting in between to spare my relations. I cannot afford a hotel, nor can I stay in a cheap dingy room.  And all that for an underpaid, undefined job?

The government’s promises inherent to the Nineteenth Amendment are yet to be reality. The President’s promise of a “Red Carpet Welcome” to returning expatriates made in a special speech in parliament has also turned out to seem a promise made without sincerity. Few believe any more in any of the umpteen boasts by the government. They are just hype.

Many Sri Lankans rooted for this government and were very happy when it was elected. The ship of state must correct course before it is too late, and the people sour of this government too. Once cynicism sets in, democracy will suffer irreparably.