Study Reveals Bacteria Are the Real Boogeyman Hiding Inside Your Bed

They thrive on old mattresses and unwashed sheets.

By Robin Scher / AlterNet-August 28, 2016

There are few greater fears for a New Yorker than the threat of bed bugs. The only advantage to those blood-sucking critters is that you discover them pretty quickly. In general until that day comes, there’s little cause for bed-related concerns. At least that’s what we’d all like to think. But what about all the organisms living in our beds we can’t see with the naked eye?

This was precisely what the mattress company Amerisleep recently sought to uncover through a study of bacteria present in our beds. Spoiler alert: the findings are pretty disturbing. (The rather obvious disclaimer here: yes, this was a study conducted by a company that sells mattresses and is thus probably worth reading with a grain of salt.)

For the study, Amerisleep conducted a microscopic analysis of three volunteers’ bedding that went unwashed over the course of a month. At the start of each week, the volunteers’ sheets and pillowcases were swabbed for bacterial samples. A different set of volunteers also provided samples taken from their mattresses ranging in age from one to seven years old.

Here’s where it gets gross. According to the findings, after week one the bedding contained between “three million and five million CFUs (colony-forming units) per square inch.” By the end of the study that figure had roughly tripled. To put that in perspective, according to the study in just a week an unwashed pillowcase accumulates up to 17,000 times the amount of bacteria typically found on a toilet seat. Some other fun comparisons are listed below.

OK, now we know that unwashed beds gather a lot of bacteria. So what? According to the study “gram-negative rods” were the most common of the “four main strains of bacteria” identified at over 41 percent. For the unacquainted, these are the very same bacteria that cause “pneumonia and other kinds of infections” as well as contributing to “antibiotic resistance, according to the CDC.” Bacilli was another popular bacteria identified, and when it’s not living in your bed you can find it causing food poisoning.

As far as distribution of the bacteria goes, the study found that sheets tended to carry more of the gram-negative rods, while pillowcases were more burdened with bacilli, as shown below.

The findings for the mattresses were similarly off-putting. In seven years, mattresses go from housing around three million CFUs of bacteria to over 16 million. And just like the bedding, by year seven the mattress had all four types of bacteria.

Regardless of whether you’ve been driven to purchase a new mattress, there are several important takeaways provided by this study. For one, don’t wait a month to wash your sheets. If this wasn’t self-evident before, the next time you get sick keep in mind what sort of surface you’ve been sleeping on.

Oh and of course the part you were expecting, because washing a mattress is not really an option, Amerisleep suggests replacing yours “typically every seven years.”

 

Robin Scher is a freelance writer from South Africa currently based in New York. He tweets infrequently @RobScherHimself.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon to visit Jaffna during Sri Lanka trip

Ranil Wickremesinghe - Aug 26, 2016

United Nations: United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will visit a resettlement site in Jaffna in Northern Province of Sri Lanka and meet President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe during his trip to the island nation later this month.

Ban will leave for Singapore later this week, on the first leg of the trip that includes visits to to Myanmar and Sri Lanka for official visits, to China for the G20 Summit and the Lao People's Democratic Republic for the annual ASEAN-UN Summit.

On 31st August, he will travel to Colombo to meet Sirisena and Wickremesinghe as well as other members of the Lankan government and Parliament.

A file photo of Ban Ki-moon. AP

Ban will also deliver a keynote speech at a public event on the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Goal 16, dedicated to the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development.

"While in Sri Lanka, the Secretary General will also visit a resettlement site in Jaffna in north of the country and participate in an event on the role of youth in reconciliation and coexistence in Galle, in the south of the island," Ban's spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told reporters on Wednesday.

In Singapore, the UN chief is scheduled to meet Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, as well as other government officials.

He will be conferred an Honorary Doctorate by Singapore President Tony Tan Keng Yam at the National University of Singapore.

In Myanmar, Ban will meet President U Htin Kyaw and Commander-in-Chief of the Myanmar Armed Forces Senior General Min Aung Hlaing as well as other political and civil society leaders. He will also meet State Counsellor and Foreign Minister Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

On 3 September, he will be in Hangzhou in China for the G20 Summit, which will also be attended by Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama.

For the concluding visit if his trip, Ban will travel Vientiane in Laos, for the eighth ASEAN-UN Summit meeting on 7 September and the 11th East Asia Summit on 7 September.

This will be Moon's second visit to Sri Lanka.

He toured the island in May 2009 immediately after the Sri Lankan troops defeated the LTTE ending the three decades old civil war.

Since that visit, Lanka came under close UN scrutiny for its war crimes accountability during the war with the LTTE.

The UN Human Rights Council have passed three resolutions since 2012 to urge accountability for warcrimes blamed on both the government troops and the LTTE.

Turmoil & The Art Of Governance

By Rajan Hoole –August 27, 2016

Dr. Rajan Hoole

1979 – 83: The Mounting Repression – Part IV

Whatever the merits of the Open Economy introduced in 1977, corruption made life harder for the ordinary people by contributing to an inflation rate of 20%-30%. An event highlighted by the SLFP journal in the early 80s was the purchase of 7 Tri-Star jets for Air Lanka, each purchased at double the listed price of USD 25 million. There was much simmering anger and a desire for change. In anticipation of this, President Jayewardene had appointed a commission which put his most potent rival, Srimavo Bandaranaike, out of the way by recommending a suspension of her civic rights for alleged abuse of power. He won the presidential election in October 1982 against Hector Kobbekaduwe, a weaker opponent, obtaining 53% of the vote.

There had been a good deal of anger within the SLFP, knowing well that Jayewardene would use all means fair and foul to thwart their victory. Understandably, some strong, angry and perhaps violent remarks were made within the SLFP’s higher circles. On the basis of some hearsay remarks conveyed to him, Jayewardene pulled another rabbit out of his hat – the famous ‘Naxalite Plot’ involving some leading SLFPers to kill democrats like himself and establish a totalitarian regime. Jayewardene was loath to lose his five-sixths majority in parliament which enabled him to adopt a new constitution and amend it at will – four times by then – always to further entrench his power. Citing the ‘Naxalite Plot’, he proposed to replace the parliamentary elections that were due, by a referendum to extend the term of the existing parliament by six years. People were called upon to vote and surrender their right to elect.

The referendum was won by Jayewardene, using widespread violence, intimidation and ballot stuffing. A particular method used was related to us by a magistrate in a provincial town.

By then the Police had been meddled with to ensure that the right officers were in place. The UNP bigwigs got the Police to arrest SLFP organisers and polling agents on trumped up charges. They were then taken to the magistrate with a view to remanding them. Every magistrate knew that if he did not oblige, his career prospects would be dim. Today’s magistrates become tomorrow’s high court judges, appeal court judges and supreme court judges. The training of the judiciary was under way.

Here was a new and novel practice. The President discovers a plot and the Police look for evidence and come up with a report. The report does not go to court in the form of charges against individuals. It is submitted to the Press. Ironically, the serialisation of the police findings on the ‘Naxalite Plot’ in the press took place during the July 1983 disturbances. To shift the blame for the latter the President discovered yet another plot, which fitted neatly into the earlier one, and banned several Left parties.

Many things happened in the run up to the July ’83 violence. Bye-elections were held in 18 constituencies where the sitting UNP members who had been given another term by the Referendum, on the basis of a poor showing in the Referendum poll in their constituency, were deemed to have lost their support. The elections on 18th May 1983 were marred by the violence of the ruling party. This was particularly so in Kesbewa and Mahara, both won by the UNP. The new MP for Kesbewa was Gamini Lokuge. Vijaya Kumaratunga, the rising star then in the SLFP, lost in Mahara by a mere 45 votes. So the UNP won 14 of the 18 seats, and its supporters who were influential in the Press argued that it continued to retain its popular base. The Referendum was thus given a whitewashing.

Jayewardene seemed to be succeeding in rolling up Sri Lanka’s electoral map. Some of the SLFP’s senior members complained about Anura Bandaranaike consorting with the UNP and making statements inimical to the party. They wanted Mrs. B to check her son, which she seemed reluctant to do. Two senior members, Hector Kobbekaduwe and T.B. Illangaratne, resigned their party posts.

On the 18th May again, local elections were held in Jaffna in the face of a boycott call by the LTTE. A soldier guarding a polling booth was killed, consequent to which the Army burnt a number of houses at Kantharmadam. At least 3 UNP candidates or supporters were killed by the LTTE during that period. The boycott call was the first time the LTTE challenged the TULF in this manner. Amirthalingam was in a quandary. On the one hand he was being blamed as an ineffective leader, failing to condemn the killing of non-TULF candidates and unable to exert any moderating influence on the militants. Amirthalingam was close to admitting helplessness as the Government had left him with DDCs, which were worthless and was not prepared to go any further. His position (e.g. Sun 14.6.83) was that he was prepared to place before the Tamil people a solution based on the ‘right to self-determination’. It was an unenviable position for a leader. He had not built up a base for mass action. He had to depend on wisdom dawning on Jayewardene, or some outside agency driving some into him.

Read More

UN Chief non-committal on international judges for war crimes probe here

In an exclusive interview, UN Chief Ban Ki Moon talks to Thalif Deen at the United Nations, ahead of his visit to Sri Lanka on Wednesday

Sunday, August 28, 2016

NEW YORK—UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who will be on an official three-day visit beginning Wednesday, singled out the “ tremendous progress” made by Sri Lanka in overcoming development challenges, including in the health and development sectors. “Successive Governments have promoted strong growth policies that have reduced poverty and increased living standards throughout the country,” he noted. In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Times, Ban spoke of the peaks and valleys in the UN’s politically-fluctuating relationship with Sri Lanka, while at the same time, lamenting the slow movement towards implementing “transitional justice and reconciliation.”

Speaking on the eve of his departure to Colombo, the Secretary-General said it is important for Sri Lankan society and the country’s future to finally undertake a credible and impartial investigation into past human rights abuses, uncover the truth and hold perpetrators of the vicious crimes accountable.Asked if the UN would go along with President Sirisena’s insistence that investigations into charges against the country’s armed forces will not involve the participation of foreign judges or jurists, he was diplomatically non-committal. “Sri Lankans are currently engaged in an important debate on the design of the transitional justice mechanisms, including the judicial components, and I do not want to pre-judge those outcomes,” he declared.

Still, “victims and affected communities believe that international participation can ensure a credible process that will finally deliver justice,” said Ban who will step down as Secretary-General when his two-term, 10-year tenure ends December 31. There is widespread rumour – which he has neither confirmed nor denied — that he plans to run for the presidency of South Korea, a country with whom Sri Lanka bartered its Asian Group endorsement for a rotating non-permanent seat in the UN Security Council back in 1995, in return for increased aid, investments and jobs. As a result, South Korea was elected unopposed for a Security Council seat for 1996-1997 facilitated by Sri Lanka’s voluntary withdrawal.

Excerpts from the interview:

•  Since your days as Foreign Minister of South Korea, you always claimed to be a friend of Sri Lanka. Still, Sri Lankans complain that you uniquely appointed a panel to advise you on the applicable law on human rights violations in the last stages of Sri Lanka’s conflict while you did not appoint any such a panel with regard to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Yemen despite well documented cases of human rights abuses and civilian killings. Is the UN using different yardsticks to measure human rights violations by big powers and smaller nations?

UNSG: The UN’s call for accountability in Sri Lanka is not unique. In fact, accountability for international crimes and gross human rights violations constitutes a central plank of the UN’s human rights agenda. It is a call that we make in all countries in all regions of the world where violations of international human rights and humanitarian law have occurred Accountability in the cases that you mention has been dealt with by the Security Council and, in some cases, through human rights investigations conducted pursuant to a Human Rights Council mandate. I created the “Panel of Experts on accountability in Sri Lanka” in 2010 on the basis of commitments made in my joint statement with former President Rajapaksa in 2009, which underlined the importance of an accountability process.  As for myself, I have always been a friend of Sri Lanka and its people, and I will remain so. I am very much looking forward to this visit.

•  President Sirisena has repeatedly said that any investigations into “war crimes” charges against the country’s armed forces will not involve the participation of foreign judges and jurists — and will essentially be conducted by “national independent judicial mechanisms.”? Is this acceptable to the UN?

UNSG: Sri Lankans are currently engaged in an important debate on the design of the transitional justice mechanisms, including the judicial components, and I do not want to pre-judge those outcomes. Due to the delays in the pursuit of an effective accountability process, ongoing concerns over the independence of judicial and law enforcement institutions in Sri Lanka, and due to the magnitude and complexity of the alleged crimes, victims and affected communities believe that international participation can ensure a credible process that will finally deliver justice. This is why the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human Rights Council, as well as the Council’s resolution 30/1, affirmed the importance of international participation, precisely because it would enhance the credibility, independence and impartiality of the process in the eyes of the victims.

I, therefore, hope that the Sri Lankan Government will remain committed to the Human Rights Council resolution and fully implements it. The Human Rights Council resolution presents a comprehensive transitional justice agenda, which, aside from a judicial mechanism, also includes truth-seeking, reparations, and non-recurrence dimensions. It is important to recognise the broad-based nature of the Council’s resolution, and I hope that the discussion regarding international participation will not overshadow a larger debate that must include the other critical elements The UN remains ready to support the Government’s efforts in establishing an accountability mechanism that suits the needs of Sri Lankan society at large and meets international standards.

•  Has there been any significant or dramatic changes in your relationship with Sri Lanka after President Sirisena took office in January 2015 compared to your on-again, off-again rocky relationship with the previous government of President Rajapaksa?

UNSG: During my last visit to Sri Lanka in 2009 in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, former president Mahinda Rajapaksa and I met to discuss the post-conflict challenges, such as the tragic humanitarian situation, resettlement needs and the recovery of the conflict affected areas. In our Joint Statement at the time, we also agreed to work towards a lasting political solution to achieve a durable peace, including through socio-economic development, the implementation of the 13th Amendment and dialogue with all the parties. The Joint Statement also underlined the importance of an accountability process to address the violations of international humanitarian and human rights law with a view of achieving reconciliation. Sri Lanka has made significant progress with regard to restoring and redeveloping war torn areas, and the Northern and Eastern Provinces have witnessed rapid economic development.

•  What has been the ongoing relationship between the UN and Sri Lanka?

UNSG: Over the years, the Government and the UN have worked in close partnership to resettle hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, and we continue to do so. In this regard, the recent adoption of a national policy on durable solutions for conflict-affected displacement demonstrates the current Government’s continued commitment to further support and reduce the remaining IDPs.  Despite this, efforts to address ongoing grievances, including the continued militarisation of civilian life, the replacement of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the implementation of a comprehensive transitional justice agenda that encompasses truth-seeking, reparations, accountability and institutional reforms, as well as a political settlement, have yet to fully materialise.  I am, therefore, encouraged to see that the current Government led by President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has taken tentative steps to resolve many of these outstanding issues. I am hopeful that the Government will continue on this path and accelerate the implementation of proposed reforms.

•  As part of a policy of long-term stability following its 26-year long civil war with Tamil separatists, Sri Lanka has announced four “reconciliation mechanisms”, including an Office of Missing Persons (OMP), a Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and Non-Recurrence Commission, a Judicial Mechanism and an Office of Reparations. Is post-war Sri Lanka moving in the right direction? What can the UN offer to strengthen the new government’s moves towards reconciliation, accountability and economic recovery?

UNSG: The current Government has set Sri Lanka on a very positive trajectory, as evidenced by its commitments to implement a comprehensive and broad-based transitional justice agenda and dedicated efforts to promote harmonious relations among the communities. Aside from the national consultations and the establishment of the OMP, the Government has worked to develop an institutional framework to implement this complex agenda through the establishment of the Office on National Unity and Reconciliation and the Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms, both of which receive support from the UN. This institutional framework should contribute to a smooth, efficient and coordinated approach to transitional justice and reconciliation initiatives.

It will be important for the Government to further develop and adopt an overarching strategy to roll out the transitional justice mechanisms and undertake a concerted information campaign to inform the Sri Lankan public and garner broad-based support. I have made available financial resources under the Peacebuilding Fund and committed technical expertise to support these processes. I am hopeful that the UN’s support, combined with bilateral assistance from the international community, will enable the Government to implement transitional justice and reconciliation. I would like to underline that these processes are fully owned and led by the unity Government. The UN’s support is catalytic in nature, serves to complement the Government’s own efforts and provides assistance where the Government senses it could benefit from our expertise. I am hopeful that the UN’s support will galvanize the international community to make additional financial commitments in support of the Government.

It is important to emphasize the Government’s broader reform agenda, which aims to promote good governance, strengthen democratic values, restore the rule of law, and combat corruption and abuse of power. The adoption of the 19th Amendment, the restoration of the Constitutional Council, the strengthening of the independence of the Human Rights Commission and the passage of a Right to Information Act will improve transparency and provide the people of Sri Lanka with important avenues to hold their Government institutions to account.  Constitutional reform will hopefully address many of the existing grievances among all Sri Lankans, including minority communities, and help deliver a long overdue political settlement. The Government’s embrace of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development will further mobilise efforts to promote an inclusive, peaceful and just society, and the UN remains ready to support.

• Whenever you make an official visit to a member state, you single out some of its major successes and key contributions the country has made to the United Nations. How would you characterize some of Sri Lanka’s achievements over its 60 years existence at the UN?

UNSG: Over the last 60 years, Sri Lanka has made tremendous contributions to the UN system. Many Sri Lankans have worked with great dedication and passion for the Organisation and we have had numerous high level Sri Lankan officials, including Under Secretaries-General. Most recently, Sri Lanka has supported landmark agreements such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change. Sri Lankan soldiers, police officers and civilians have furthermore served with distinction in hazardous peacekeeping operations and contributed to peace and security across the globe.

Sri Lanka has made tremendous progress in overcoming development challenges, including in the health and education sectors. Successive Governments have promoted strong growth policies that have reduced poverty and increased living standards throughout the country. We cannot ignore, however, the decades-long conflict and instability that caused so much pain, grief and tragedy among the many communities in Sri Lanka, and was a period marked by gross violations of human rights perpetrated by all sides.

•  And, on the flip side, what are its shortcomings?

UNSG: Although the conflict ended in 2009, Sri Lanka has yet to come to terms with its past: as the many victims’ families remain uncertain about the fate of their loves ones. They seek the truth, they seek support and they seek justice. And there are many other victims. Those that were forcibly conscripted, including children who were deprived of a carefree youth, a quality education and dreams to aspire to; men and women who were sexually abused and raped; families whose sons and daughters were sent to die in combat or returned with permanent injuries and disabilities. It is important for Sri Lankan society and the country’s future to finally undertake a credible and impartial investigation into past human rights abuses, uncover the truth and hold perpetrators of the vicious crimes accountable.

This is not only an obligation to the victims and their families, but it would also signal that the country is ready to overcome past grievances and move towards greater harmony between the communities so that it will never happen again. The unity Government took an important step when it presented its plans to establish a range of transitional justice mechanisms, including on truth-seeking, accountability, reparations, and non-recurrence and decided to co-sponsor the Human Rights Council resolution in October 2015. The Government has since proceeded by facilitating national consultations on the design of such mechanisms, as well as by establishing the Office of Missing Persons. I am hopeful that the Government will continue to make progress and take concrete steps to establish the full range of transitional justice mechanisms. I would like to reiterate the UN’s commitment and unwavering support to these processes.

•  Do you plan to visit the war-affected Northern Province to see the extent of progress made in post-conflict rebuilding and rehabilitation. And do you plan to meet with representatives of Tamils and Muslims, the latter coming under attacks by right wing religious groups under the former administration?

UNSG: Yes, I plan to travel to the South and the North of the Island and to meet with civil society representatives of both communities, including youth. I look forward to discussing with them how the United Nations can best support Sri Lanka on the path to sustainable development and lasting peace.

SLFP Anniversary and Its Crisis: Opportunity to Join and Strengthen Democracy

by Laksiri Fernando

( August 28, 2016, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) 65th Anniversary of the SLFP this week is marked by a deep crisis within the party, its local organizations and policies. Crisis according to the Chinese tradition is not necessarily a bad thing. The Chinese character for ‘crisis’ is composed of two separate characters meaning ‘problems’ and ‘prospects.’ Therefore, a crisis is a turning point for better or worse. In the case of the SLFP, while there are considerable problems, if these problems can be properly resolved, the situation can be turned into a better situation. This means, in my view, making the party stronger, more democratic and ethnically inclusive; with its policies more appealing to the masses and particularly the modern youth, both rural and urban.

Historical Role

The SLFP was formed, initiated by SWRD Bandaranaike, breaking away from the UNP in 1951. Within five years in 1956, it managed to form a coalition government. Therefore, its first contribution was to break the monopoly of political power held by an urban elite and create a situation where people could select an alternative party/policies. It was because of this contribution that Sri Lanka became a two party (or two coalition) system which is considered a necessary ingredient for a proper parliamentary democracy.  

Previously, when Bandaranaike joined to form the UNP in 1946, as a necessary broad front, his organization was Sinhala Maha Sabha (Grand Council of Sinhalese). He maintained this unity/coalition at a crucial juncture and for five years (1946-51). Therefore, the present SLFP unity government with the UNP is not unusual from this perspective.

The vision of Bandaranaike, as he often said, was to unite the Sinhalese first and then the other communities which was never actually happened during his time or after. The SLFP always had a Sinhala bias and orientation with fluctuating magnitudes. At times, these nationalist forces were uncontrollable. As a predicament of this situation, Bandaranaike was assassinated in 1959. As a national party, no party can ignore the interests of the majority. However, to ignore the interests of the minorities, or other communities, could lend enormous consequences to the party or the country. This was a major reason for the ethnic conflict beginning the Sinhala only policy in 1956.

When the SLFP was formed, as the name signified (Sri Lanka Freedom Party), the objective was to extend the independence of the country and to assert its cultural heritage. This was absolutely correct particularly in the context of submissive Western orientation of that time, or even today. However, it should not have been at the expense of communal harmony in the country or healthy relations with the West or any other camp. SWRD Bandaranaike was one who had thoroughly studied ‘nationalism’ in the world. His writings vouch for this knowledge. He perfectly understood the ‘merits’ and ‘dangers’ of nationalism, let alone communalism. However, he and the party blundered in its practices again and again.

Middle Path and Policies

Bandaranaike and the SLFP espoused a Middle Path. This is the major strength of the SLFP even today, although a difficult path to tread. It would be the history that would judge the success or the failure. A middle path did not and does not mean indifference or neutrality on justice issues. An active middle path is about social justice. For example, in the case of international relations, the policy was not indifference, but to align with the poor and developing countries of the non-align movement (NAM) on economic and social issues. This is exactly the policy which became abused by the past regime by even aligning with the dictatorial regimes against democracy and human rights.

The middle path of the SLFP has been more prominent nationally on issues of capitalism vs. socialism or the private sector vs. the public sector. This is one reason how the party acquired a reputation as a socialist or a socialist oriented party, apart from aligning with the Left parties (i.e. LSSP and CP). This in a way was correct. If one believes socialism as a goal, but not possible or advisable to achieve through revolutionary means, then some kind of evolutionary policy might be the best. But in the case of the SLFP, it always had a bourgeois character at the leadership level, of the nature of a rising rural bourgeoisie. There were times that this trend became more prominent than the other. As a result, certain political regimes of the SLFP allowed quite blatantly for its hierarchy to acquire wealth and capital, obviously through dubious and corrupt political means.

It has been a historical fact, however, that the public sector always expanded under SLFP regimes compared to the UNP, with both strengths and weaknesses. Under a particular international context, nationalization policies of the SLFP became very much popular and even imperative. But under changed international and national circumstances, some of these nationalized enterprises proved to be a liability than an asset. While these circumstances have narrowed the differences of economic policies of the SLFP and the UNP, now for some time, the promotion of a middle path appears to be in the advancement of public-private partnership (PPP) in a pragmatic manner.

Then the question remains how to promote ‘socialist oriented’ or ‘pro-poor’ economic policies under such circumstance. This is undoubtedly a challenge for the SLFP today. It is in this context that new economic models (perhaps social market), income redistribution policies and modern tax regimes have to be innovated while promoting entrepreneurship, small businesses and perhaps advocating non-profit or reasonable profit making businesses. There are emerging literature and debates on these matters in the international scene.   

Socially progressive policies of the SLFP have never been limited to nationalizations in the past. It was the SLFP which initiated the employment provident fund (EPF). It was the SLFP which reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 for the benefit of the politically awakening youth. There was a firm commitment on the part of the SLFP to preserve and promote the welfare system in the country (pension schemes, free education and health etc.) although this determination appear to wane under the pressures of the neo-liberal policies internally and internationally. This is still a challenge.  

The major failures of the middle path undoubtedly came in respect of nationalism and on the national question. It is on record that Bandaranaike was quite remorse when the communal riots took place in 1958. But his capitulation to extremist pressures was responsible for the situation. There were major strides that Mrs Bandaranaike made in foreign policy and on some social issues. However, her policies were more flawed considering the opportunities presented during her leadership. One example was the missed-opportunity of the 1972 constitution to rectify the situation. This is one reason why the opportunity for a new constitution today should not be missed by the SLFP.

Present Crisis

The crisis in the SLFP is not recent. It is a crisis created over several years. One merit of the SLFP was its strong concerns on territorial integrity and national security. However, it should have been proportional to the threats posed. The thrust against terrorism should not have been a thrust against the Tamils or an excuse for human rights violations. The present crisis within the SLFP brewed particularly after the defeat of the LTTE. Taking the opportunity, the power became blatantly abused for family, political or financial reasons, not by one leader but several of them. This is a trend in many political parties or politics in general, but the magnitude was overwhelming.

Political parties in Sri Lanka are still not fully democratic. The leaders have undue authority and the members or other leaders are usually subservient to the Leader almost by nature. A major crisis point in the SLFP was the 18th Amendment. Although many second ranking leaders wanted to oppose, they didn’t for the fear of reprisal. Therefore, the early call for the presidential elections in January 2015 was the opportunity to rebel by the bravest. It was a blessing in disguise. When the rebellion worked, the former leadership crumbled and the others joined the fray. It is only after sometime that the old leadership has managed to regroup and pose a threat to the new leadership. The difference between the two leaderships or the factions in my view is about ‘democracy and authoritarianism’ within the party and the country. 

This is why the new leadership should be supported but critically because of the inbuilt weaknesses.  

This is the crisis today and the old leaders and their followers are in a counter-rebellion mood. The main rallying point of the opposition is the present SLFP alliance with the UNP. Added reason is the extension of that alliance from two years to now five years. Although the SLFP emerged initially from the UNP, throughout years there had been bitterness between the two parties particularly at the ground levels. In addition, there are still substantial policy differences between the two. One accusation of the opposition is that the present SLFP leadership has capitulated to the UNP and through which to an international conspiracy. The purpose of that conspiracy is pictured as to divide the country eventually through a new constitution.  

Opportunities for Change

The personalities, policies and the practices of the opposition are those that became largely defeated at the last two elections in 2015. It is not clear whether the electors would again go back to those old policies and conditions. One can reasonably argue that the new government is not fundamentally different. There are some ‘old guard’ in the new formation. A coalition government by nature is a weak government. A relatively democratic government also may appear as an inefficient government than an authoritarian one. Therefore, there are some natural advantages for the opposition. However, the next parliamentary elections will be in 2020, and the presidential in 2021 (unless something dramatically happens), while there can be local government (LG) elections in early next year.

There are moves for the Joint Opposition to contest independently at the LG polls. There are also moves for the opposition to form a new political party. This must be something that the SLFP leaders are waiting, like the ‘handing over of the leadership’ in January 2015! Party splits, purges or reorganizations are not ideologically alien to a person like Maithripala Sirisena. His political upbringing is equal or tougher than Mahinda Rajapaksa. The spilt in the party and any new formation would favour the UNP. It is unfortunate for the country creating volatility. The SLFP is in a crisis, but not the UNP. It is a crisis generated by the ‘old guard.’ If at all, the formation of a new party would be premature, geared by emotions than any hard calculations.  

It is not my intention here to speculate or predict electoral fortunes for anyone at LG polls or beyond. The concern is about the SLFP as one of the necessary pillars of the democratic system in the country. In this context, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong for the SLFP to work with the UNP at this juncture of democratic transformation. If the mission of the ‘January revolution’ is to be carried forward, the SLFP has to be reformed and reorganized. For a proper functioning of the democratic system in the country, there are several conditions necessary. The following can be the minimum.  

• A more democratic constitution and an effective legal system with rational laws.

• A well trained and enlightened bureaucracy in all state institutions including the armed forces.

• A fully democratic party system with rational and modern policies and leaders.

• A vibrant civil society with trade unions, voluntary organizations and professional associations.  

• A well-educated citizenry with mutual respect for rights and duties of all.       

The January 2015 political change can be attributed to the alliance between the new leaders of the SLFP and the UNP, and the effective contributions by the civil society. There has been reluctance on the part of the civil society activists and intellectuals to join political parties in the past, given the dubious circumstances of those parties and the leaders. As a result, the SLFP and even the UNP have been in a dearth of competent and capable leaders and members. Low educational standards of the parliamentarians and low level of debates in Parliament have been some results.

Professionals, academics and artists also have ‘ivory tower’ conceptions and reluctance to be bound by party discipline or intricate party procedures. These are largely valid. They are also maximalists in general. However, the crisis within the SLFP at present opens up ample opportunities for them and others to join the party and make useful contributions not only for that party, but also for the country at large. This may be equally valid for the UNP. A person who comes to my mind who made such a contribution is late Professor Wiswa Warnapala. This is a tribute to him as well. I express this opinion not on behalf of that party, but for the sake of the country and its democratic future. If joining the SLFP by new blood can be done at a large scale, then the crisis within the SLFP can be turned into a great opportunity.   

US LOBBY FIRM HIRED BY MALIK: MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS

Minister Speaks: The Sunday Times responds.-28/08/2016

We thank Minister Malik Samarawickrama for confirming our story. He should have announced it long before the Sunday Times broke the story. We stand-by every word in our story.

DSC_4040

Malik Samarawickrema

Malik Samarawickrama

While we are happy that the Minister has been forced to come out publicly about his ministry hiring a US firm to lobby, an issue that is the subject of a Presidential Commission of Inquiry for the same exercise during the previous Government, we say that it is the Minister who is economic with the truth about the credentials of the hired US firm and the agreement signed. Readers are invited to read the entire text of the agreement in our website www.sundaytimes.lk – something the Minister ought to have tabled in Parliament, and before we ran the story last week exposing the deal.

Readers are also informed that it was the SundayTimes that first exposed the hiring of questionable US lobby forms by the previous Government.

(Please see the same website archives of http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150920/news/millions-paid-to-us-lobby-firms-to-do-basic-embassy-work-164927.html

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150830/news/the-public-relations-rip-off-to-us-lobbyists-162429.html

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150913/news/the-scandal-of-the-missing-millions-164085.html

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150208/news/bypassing-cabinet-rajapaksa-paid-rs-1-39b-to-us-firms-and-middleman-134974.html)

Our story last week did not go into the merits –or de-merits of Minister Samarawickrama’s Ministry hiring a US lobby firm. It only broke the story. However, the issue whether it is good or bad is dealt with below, separately.

Development Strategies and International Trade Minister Malik Samarawickrema seems to be developing a penchant for behind the scenes manoeuvrings and using a familiar refrain of the previous Government – the media is “irresponsible”, telling “untruths” and not just that, they are even sabotaging the economy. It was “traitors” then. It is “saboteurs” now.

When the Sunday Times revealed in its front page lead story on July 31 headlined “H’tota and Mattala: China declines Lanka’s request.” He got this story denied through the Government Information Department. When we reproduced the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM), despite his accusation that “we are disrupting the economy,”we proved him wrong in our issue of August 7 and made clearer that our account was accurate and factual. The Minister sulked but remained mute.

Now, Minister Samarawickrema has made another statement over our front page lead story last week headlined, “Malik hires another US firm to lobby for Lanka.” Strange but true, it was not copied to the Sunday Times. Only two television networks – the state run Independent Television Network (ITN) and Derana aired it. Not satisfied, he went to Parliament and made a statement on Friday. We publish on this page his statement to Parliament with our comments below each paragraph.

I would like to make the following statement on the article which appeared under the heading ‘Malik hires another US firm to lobby for Lanka’ which is based on incorrect and misleading information in the Sunday Times on 21.08.2016

1. It appears that the mere intention of the article is to unjustifiably make a comparison of the previous government retaining different lobbying firms in the US as an image building exercise of the country with the recent agreement with ST&R. This agreement with ST&R is purely made on an economic rationale to obtain expert assistance to the Ministry of Development Strategies and International Trade to pursue the objective of maximizing Sri Lanka’s access to the United States market at a juncture the country needs enhanced opportunities for trade.

RESPONSE: When the Government keeps saying that the US, the West and the International Community have praised the new Government in Sri Lanka and wants to do business with it, and that the President was welcomed by President Barrack Obama and other world leaders on the side-lines of the UN and G7 summit, Minister Samarawickrama concedes that US lobby firms are still needed to maximize Sri Lanka’s access to US markets. Is there some mismatch in what the Government says and what it does? These were the same arguments put forward by the previous Government to justify hiring US lobby firms, now the subject of a Presidential Commission of Inquiry for money laundering.

There has been a regular parade of senior US officials to Colombo post January 2015 and the Obama Administration has revised US policy towards Sri Lanka already. All this is done by the Executive Branch of the US working with the Senate and the House of Representatives (Congress) because it is also in US national interest to be good with Sri Lanka. So, is this lobby firm being paid to convince the converts, or shall we say, sing to the choir?

2. The scope of engagement as per the agreement signed, after obtaining Attorney General’s approval is as follows;

“The party represents the Ministry of Development Strategies & International Trade in connection with representation of Sri Lanka in Washington, D.C. before government agencies and the U.S. Congress focusing efforts on educating about the peace process in Sri Lanka; exploring options for greater economic and commercial ties between the U.S. and Sri Lanka; identifying and expanding options for market access of Sri Lanka goods into the US; expanding the Sri Lanka Caucus and building a friends of Sri Lanka caucus in the Congress; assisting in visiting delegation agenda development; promptly notifying of any Congressional or Administrative action of importance to Sri Lanka; preparing brief analyses of developments in Congress and the Executive Branch on particular issues of concern to Sri Lanka; interacting with the interested US stakeholders and advising Sri Lanka on its free trade negotiations with other partner countries and possibly the United States.”

RESPONSE: Minister Samarawickrama gives just a portion of the agreement signed. We will give readers the full agreement (Link to full agreement).

3. The said article in the Sunday Times refers to an engagement of a firm for “nonexistent peace process part of the deal” Therefore, it is clear that this statement in the article is incorrect and totally misleading. The scope of engagement includes lobbying of US Congress with a view to introducing and passing a bill to have conflict affected areas and lagging areas of our country as “qualified industrial zones” and thereby obtaining preferential market access to goods produced in these industrial zones.

RESPONSE: Readers will see the reference to a peace process in this agreement. News to us that there is a peace process going on Sri Lanka. Our news item referred to a “non-existent peace process, economic ties and market access” as being part of the agreement. If this does not cover what the Minister says the agreement includes, what does.

4. This contract with the US firm ST&R has been entered into the fullest transparent manner. The proposals have been evaluated by the Sri Lankan Embassy in the US and their recommendations have been obtained. The proposal to enter into a contract with this firm was endorsed by the Cabinet Sub Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) on 25.05.2016 and subsequently approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 14.06.2016 after submitting a comprehensive memorandum which gave all details of the objectives, output of the contract, type of engagement with a comparison of costs among the offers.

It is untrue to say that the Foreign Ministry is unaware of the engagement, as it has been presented to the Cabinet of Ministers and the decision approving the recommendations of the Cabinet Memorandum has been sent to relevant Secretaries including the Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Attorney General’s approval has been obtained for the Agreement before signing.

RESPONSE: We said nothing about who did, or did not evaluate the agreement, nor whether the cabinet did, or did not approve the agreement, nor if the Attorney General approved this agreement. In fact, we did say that the Cabinet Sub Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) “gave the nod” to this agreement; and we stand-by our story that the Foreign Ministry was not aware of this agreement when we made inquiries. From the Minister’s own remarks it seems that he has been dealing with Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Washington DC directly. The Minister’s own statement shows that the Foreign Ministry should have been aware of this agreement only because it has been approved by the cabinet and the decision been sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Clearly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been otherwise kept out of the loop and the agreement has been signed by his Ministry Secretary, not the Secretary, Foreign Ministry. And furthermore, if the cabinet decided on this agreement on 14 June why was it not announced and the Minister make this statement to Parliament until the Sunday Times broke the story last week (August 21). But the issue here is not if the cabinet approved this agreement or not; it is whether this Government is merely doing what the previous Government did in hiring questionable lobby firms in the US, something they howled at when they were in Opposition.

This is whilst a more puzzling event played out in Washington DC months earlier. Sandler, Travis and Rosenberg were already playing the role of publicists for Sri Lanka. On May 2 they issued a news release as our montage on this page reveals. If the agreement was signed on 25 May, 2016 how was Sandler, Travis and Rosenburg able to say all that they said on 2 May, 2016.And why so? Questions; Questions.

Minister Samarawickrema’s statement does not make clear whether there was a transparent, competitive process adopted to pick on this US firm. He does not say who asked the Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington DC to evaluate this agreement and why the Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington DC and not the Foreign Ministry in Colombo should have undertaken the assignment. Our information is that this lobby firm ST&R is a firm specialising in Customs cases in the US and is not among the front runners in the lobbying industry. If the cabinet has indeed approved this agreement, it might want to review it even at this late stage.

Everyone in the US knows that there is a Presidential election in the US this year and a new administration, with new players are going to take office in 2017. Why is the Government hiring a lobby firm when Government in the US is virtually shut down right now. All members of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are up for re-election. A review of the sittings of the US Congress for the rest of the year show that Congress is hardly in session. So, what will ST&R be doing till December 31stwith an outgoing President and a lame duck Congress.

5. Funds for this contract is to be obtained from the national budget from the allocations with Parliamentary sanction for the Ministry unlike in the case previously that such lobbying firms have been paid through the Central Bank costing the country around Rs 1.6 Billion (approximately US $ 11.3 Mn. 

The total cost of the Agreement with ST&R is US $ 630,000 (approximately Rs. 91.3 Mn).

RESPONSE; Not relevant to our story

6. Services of well connected professional advocates, often lawyers who have the access to various powerful networks are hired, to argue for specific legislation in decision-making bodies like the United States Congress and this is the standard practice in the USA. ST&R being a prominent trade services provider with multifaceted experience in engaging in assisting governments to pursue economic growth through enhancing opportunities of trade has been properly assessed by Sri Lankan Embassy in the USA. The previous engagement of the firm ST&R is considered an added qualification.

In view of the above facts, I inform Parliament that the baseless interpretations given in the above paper article is false and such information seriously misleads the public.

Hon Speaker, I am also a strong advocate of Media Freedom. However, the media should not abuse this freedom. Before allegations are made against Politicians, Public Officers and even Businessmen, they should be contacted and clarification obtained before damaging & inaccurate articles are published.

RESPONSE; This brings us back to our earlier response as to why the Government needs to hire a lobby firm in the US to do the work of the embassy there when all these world leaders praise Sri Lanka’s new leaders. Is this an admission that what the Government claims is merely self-aggrandizement and that it still needs lobby firms to get a job done in the US.

Minister Samarawickrama has not told the country who these people are who run the firm hired by his Ministry, Sandler, Travis and Rosenburg PAC (ST&R). And if he knows any one of them, himself.

U.S. Looks to Boost Trade with Sri Lanka In a joint statement issued after an April 28 meeting of the U.S.-Sri Lanka Trade and Investment Framework Council, the two sides said they had adopted a joint action plan aimed at significantly increasing bilateral trade and investment over five years. Objectives set forth in this plan include the following.- reforming Sri Lanka’s trade and investment regime to world-class standards – improving the competitiveness of Sri Lanka’s current exports – developing new markets, especially those that take advantage of Sri Lanka’s status as a regional services hub – promoting greater interaction between the U.S. and Sri Lankan business communities – greater utilization of U.S. tariff preference arrangements – strengthening worker rights and promoting ethical and environmentally sustainable manufacturing practices, especially in Sri Lanka’s ready-made garment sector – reforming the educational sector to make it more responsive to the needs of business – increased mobilization of all sectors of society, especially women, in business and trade A detailed implementation plan is expected later this year.According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. goods exports to Sri Lanka in 2015 totaled $372 million, up 6.2 percent from 2014, while imports rose 7.9 percent to $2.9 billion. U.S. foreign direct investment in Sri Lanka amounted to $111 million in 2014, 8.8 percent higher than the previous year. USTR’s most recent trade barrier report cited a number of problematic policies in Sri Lanka, including a de facto ban on sales of agricultural products derived from biotechnology, import substitution policies, high import tariffs and other taxes on a large number of goods, price controls, and import licenses on more than 400 items. Monday, May 02, 2016 Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report By Sunday Times Diplomatic Correspondent

No Internet Please, We’re Sri Lankan!

NALAKA GUNAWARDENE on 08/29/2016

“You’re an Internet addict!”

That is what a retired professor of mass communications told me publicly at a university media conference four years ago. I was a bit taken aback as he had no clinical training to make such assertions.

The basis for his ‘diagnosis’ was simple and simplistic. I had just told my audience how I was spending increasing number of hours each day online engaged in various functions like searching, reading, blogging or tweeting. He felt that it was rather excessive (= wasted?), compared to his own total use of Internet which was limited to dealing with emails (on which he spent an average of half hour a day).

We agreed to disagree, and our audience was divided. I wish, though, the amiable don either updated his knowledge — or kept his mouth shut on matters he knew little about. (Internet addiction is not measured by the duration spent online.)

That little encounter highlighted a much larger problem: many opinion shapers and decision-makers in Lankan academia, public administration and education sector remain ill-informed and yet highly prejudiced about digital and web based technologies.

My on-going interactions with our university teachers of journalism or mass communication reveal how some of them love to bash the web and mobiles phones – even as they use these technologies themselves! 

There is no research or analysis behind such negativity – the worthies just know it’s bad for you and me!

Even worse, they sometimes cite their own dubious studies to justify this stand. One example is a ‘survey’ by a journalism professor at a leading University that suggests a link between rising divorce rates and growing popularity of Facebook in Sri Lanka! Some Sinhala language newspapers reported this ‘finding’ rather gleefully, probably because it fit their own moralistic worldview. Yet my repeated queries on that study’s sample size, methodology, assumptions and limitations went unanswered. That was two years ago.

With 30 per cent of our population now using the Internet, it is no longer a peripheral pursuit. Neither is it limited to cities or rich people.

So we urgently need more accurate insights into how society and economy are being transformed by these modern tools.

Disappointingly, many Lankan sociologists hesitate to study the socio-cultural impacts of new media – perhaps out of a (misplaced) fear of these issues being ‘too technical’? Meanwhile, IT engineers and other ‘techies’ involved in the digital infrastructure are not much concerned with societal issues arising from their work.

This disconnect has led to dangerous gaps in knowledge and policy formulation. Some are demanding ‘strict regulations’ without evidence. Public discussions about the web and digital media easily get polarized between those who uncritically embrace and others who habitually demonize anything modern or foreign.

I stand in the middle, and often get caught in their crossfire…

Acknowledge Problems

Read More