Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Keeping that bolt of blue lightning alive


There is a trend with which Sri Lankans are unfortunately all too familiar. A new Government comes into town and the air is suddenly shot through with a lightning blue bolt of electric hope. It is as if the ground has been parched with drought for years and then the freshness of the rains is upon us, promising us an intoxicating recovery.

The Sunday Times Sri LankaIs there an increasing state of siege?

But what actually follows is all too pedestrian. Struggling to meet invariably high expectations whilst hemmed in by wonderfully incompetent sycophants looking for new ways of survival, the newcomers retreat as swiftly as they once advanced, with their shields formidably up. Reassurances of collaborating with the media, civil society so on and so forth give way to a more charged dynamic. And the air becomes thick, not with ebullience but rude warnings ‘to behave or else.’

These are historically repetitive patterns of political behavior. And it 
would indeed be a profound pity if the ‘yahapalanaya’ unity Government ushered in last year with enormous goodwill also falls into this common cycle. In recent weeks, we have had increased ministerial belligerence regarding the regulation of the media, including sweepingly generalized statements on the deterioration in standards. While there is considerable truth in this, it goes without saying that the media is but a microcosm of society. Its degeneration is only reflective of a wider reality in Sri Lanka, in public institutions, in courts of law, in academic seats of learning and most discernibly in Parliament itself.

Compounding ministerial belligerence, a Presidential pronouncement was issued no less emphasizing the transparency of civil society organizations a few days ago. In each case, it is not the message per se but the context and manner of its utterance that raises concern. Is the Government increasingly feeling itself under siege?

Selecting one’s battles

True, the Joint Opposition’s cacophony as it beats the ethnic drum is undoubtedly shrill. Moreover the ready enthusiasm with which the electronic media gives prominence to these inflammatory utterances violates all canons of media professionalism.

But it must also be acknowledged that some of the fault for this defensiveness lies elsewhere. The unity Government gravely erred in departing from a good governance agenda articulated with steadfast assurance last year. Accommodating political rejects in ministerial positions and nefarious corruption scandals including the ugly – and yet unresolved – controversies regarding the Central Bank bond scam haunt us.

Meanwhile the political tempo is high as a package of somewhat unwisely expansive constitutional reforms is sought to be put before the public accompanied by a transitional justice process that has taken neither the North nor the South into confidence. It may have indeed been wiser to have selected particular battles to be won with precision and care rather than embracing the whole in a gigantic effort to please all and sundry.

Aim should be to collaborate rather than anger

So in this excruciatingly painful mix, there are certain imperatives. In principle, the ethical functioning of the media and civil society is undoubtedly to the good. It is to the benefit of the media when standards are raised. The print media struggles wearily in the face of significant industry decline even as journalists recover from the stress of literally being on the frontlines as their colleagues were killed, attacked and character assassinated with impunity. These crimes are yet not actually brought to justice, I may add.

And with a shorter history, (defined more by overt political control than the decades old print media), the electronic media is plagued by an astounding lack of professionalism in its functioning. Meanwhile the emergence of social media in recent years has been a boon as well as a blessing. Used as an easy medium for a range of news, it also is a ready weapon for unhinged character assassination and the acrimonious ventilation of personal vendettas in the guise of impartial commentary.

In that regard, concerns of the Bar regarding the slandering of judges on websites and social media are valid. That granted, these are matters that need to be handled strategically rather than through bullish ministerial statements aimed at angering rather than collaborating.

Civic responsibility of civil society

The same is true of civil society. Transparency of non-governmental institutions is certainly a must. No good argument exists to the contrary. In fact, it may even be said that the adamant refusal of some to acknowledge the need for self regulation has been counter-productive. The old argument that responsibility is owed only to the donors is not valid any longer.

Rather, there is a wider civic responsibility at play. And there is much public resentment when this responsibility goes unheeded. Meanwhile, the ensuing vacuum is filled by the political authority. The problem here is that Sri Lanka’s chaotic legal and regulatory measures have actually helped authoritarian governments.

Thus for example during the Rajapaksa era, a culture of fear was inculcated not through adherence to the law but by employing discretion arbitrarily. Groups that worked in tandem with the regime hid many irregularities under the ‘protection’ afforded to them while others were severely penalized on those very same grounds. Circulars were couched in absurd terms including prohibiting discussions on issues as innocuous as land rights on directions of the Ministry of Defence. Each action, each meeting and each intervention was scrutinized through a covert system of surveillance that struck terror into the hearts of the bravest. This is a history that cannot easily be forgotten.

Need to be alive to ‘old ghosts’

Therefore it behooves the Government to be aware to the dangers of using incautious language that awakens ‘old ghosts.’ It is not enough to simply say that the excesses of the past do not occur any longer. We are unfortunately too well acquainted with the slippery slope on which this empty promise can degenerate at an escalating speed.

These are sensitivities that must be kept in mind even as a critical mass within Sri Lanka struggles to keep that bolt of blue lightning called ‘hope’ alive.

Delivering On Sri Lanka’s Promise Of Victim-Centered Transitional Justice


Colombo Telegraph
By Shreen Saroor –October 2, 2016
Shereen Saroor
Shreen Saroor
On 25th August, a mother who claims her son was abducted by military police seven years ago was visited by military officers. The officers told her that her son would be released after she signed some papers. They drove the mother for a long distance and kept her in custody while demanding the wife of the abducted person to meet with them. On 27th the old mother was dropped back near her home. The officers warned her not to talk about what happened and assured her that her son would be released in a couple of days. He has yet to be released.
On 19th September, a campaigner for the disappeared was stopped in Kilinochchi by two military men in an unmarked motorcycle while she was trying to visit a local family. The men pushed her from her bicycle, groped her chest, and threatened her not to continue her human rights work.
On 25th September, a military rape survivor who has bravely spoken out was arrested for allegedly selling beer. She was badly beaten while the police was trying to arrest her. When her son (age 16) tried to stop the police from assaulting his mother, he was also arrested and beaten. Both of them are now charged for assaulting police officers and locked up for 14 days.
women-discussing-the-transitional-justice-processes
These are just three recent examples of the attempt to silence women who bravely stand to demand truth and justice in Sri Lanka.  They are the stakeholders transitional justice in Sri Lanka is supposed to reach out.  While the Consultation Task Force has increased women’s representation and allowed a range of perspectives to be heard, it has so far not been successful in getting the actual decision makers in the Government to adequately address the affected women’s security concerns.
For example, war-affected communities have long highlighted the lack of effective witness protection, a prerequisite for broad participation in transitional justice mechanisms. A victim and witness protection act passed in February 2015, and a protection authority has been established, but the authority lacks independence and includes senior government officials who are widely believed to have obstructed prosecutions in human rights cases in the past.

Justice Minister flays BASL, HRC for ignoring crime victims’ rights



article_image
By Shamindra Ferdinando- 

Justice Minister Dr Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, yesterday told The Island that the government would go ahead with the proposed amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code meant to deprive lawyers an opportunity to meet their clients before the police recorded their statements.

Minister Rajapakse stressed that particular amendment was intended to facilitate police investigations.

President's Counsel Rajapakse said that he was aware of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) as well as the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) strongly opposing the proposed amendment.

An irate Justice Minister alleged that both the HRCSL and BASL had turned a blind eye to the suffering of the victims. "I have been the President of the BASL.

Both BASL and HRCSL should examine the difficulties experienced by law enforcement authorities in fighting crime as well as ordinary law abiding citizens without being only worried about suspects."

Minister Rajapakse alleged that both HRCSL and BASL had failed to comprehend the plight of the victims. Instead, they had simply taken cudgels for the suspects.

The relevant Bill has been published in the Gazette on August 12.

The Bill proposes to introduce a new section 37A to the Criminal Procedure Code. The proposed Section 37A(1) states that "any person who has been arrested and detained in custody, shall have the right to retain and consult an Attorney-at-law of his choice at his own expense, after the recording of his statements in terms of the provisions of subsection (1) of the section 110 and prior to being produced before a Magistrate."

HRCSL Chairperson Dr Deepika Udagama and BASL President Geoffrey Alagaratnam recently sought the intervention of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and President Maithripala Sirisena, respectively, to stop the passage of the controversial amendment. HRCSL sent copies of its letter to Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakse and Law and Order and Southern Development Minister Sagala Ratnayake.

HRCSL spokesperson and attorney-at-law Saliya Pieris told The Island that the proposed amendment to Criminal Procedure Code would surely and severely undermine constitutionally guaranteed rights of people.

Pieris said that the proposed amendment was meant to deprive suspects access to lawyers until their statements were recorded violating the rights already guaranteed by the State under rules made by the Inspector General of Police in accordance with the Police Ordinance.

Minister Rajapakse emphasized that interventions made by lawyers before the police recorded suspects’ statements were detrimental to investigations. Asserting that the proposed amendment was a long felt need, the President's Counsel said that those who had been genuinely concerned about spike in crime should support the move to amend the Criminal procedure Code.

Responding to another query, Minister Rajapakse said that law=abiding people shouldn't be unnecessarily concerned about the proposed amendment. "We are amending the Criminal Procedure Code to strengthen the hands of law enforcement authorities. It’s a priority."

The minister said that the new amendment would ensure that the police could record statements without undue interference.

The BASL has alleged that the amendment contravened Sri Lanka’s obligation in terms of International human rights law especially the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

"The Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act No. 4 of 2015, grants an aggrieved party a right of representation at the police station from the inception. However a suspect’s right to be represented will be limited by the proposed Bill resulting in unequal treatment," BASL President Alagaratnam said in a letter addressed to President Maithripala Sirisena.

BASL warned that the controversial move would certainly undermine the progressive steps which had been previously taken consequent to a settlement reached in the Supreme Court in a Fundamental Rights Application.

The HRCSL has alleged that there had been many instances of torture as well as cruel, inhuman treatment of suspects at police stations between the period of arrest and the conclusion of the recording of their statements. Dr Udagama warned that denial of access to lawyers would certainly worsen the situation. "As such depriving suspects under arrest and detention of access to their lawyers until the conclusions of their statements will result in a greater risk of suspects being subject to torture, cruel and inhuman treatment as well as illegal arrest and detention by errant police officers."

"The passage of the new Bill will hinder the efforts of the Government which has expressed its determination to stop torture in Sri Lanka."

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE “NATIONAL POLICY ON RECONCILIATION SRI LANKA – 2016” RECOMMENDED BY PRESIDENT SIRISENA

president-sirisena-c-sunandadeshapriy-sm
(In an accompanying note, President Sirisena has said that the Office of National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) had drafted the National Policy  on reconciliation;  Image (c) s.deshapriya)

Sri Lanka BriefPREAMBLE

02/10/2016

Concerned by the suffering, damage and detriment caused to the lives, dignity and security of all citizens of Sri Lanka due to the prolonged period of social and political tension, including the protracted armed conflict that spanned three decades;

Acknowledging that since the conflict ended there remains a breakdown of trust, intolerance and prejudice between and within communities;

Mindful of the fact that at the heart of the problem is the lack of an acceptable arrangement of shared political authority satisfactory to all communities in the country and that this has manifested itself in discontent and violence at different periods in the history of the country;

Knowing that a lack of equal access to opportunities ranging from, but not limited to, education, livelihood, employment and justice remains the major cause of discontent in the country;

Aspiring to re-establish the good relationship between the State and the citizenry through a range of measures including but not limited to, through strengthening civil administration and, return of property and lands to rightful owners; promoting media freedom, generating livelihood opportunities, and protecting the right and interest of missing and disappeared persons and their relatives;

Determined to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all citizens equally, including civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other, while continuing to combat impunity and uphold the rule of law;

Recognising that it is essential to build a shared Sri Lankan identity that embraces diversity and multiculturalism;

Affirming that a process of healing has to take place in a holistic manner both individually for victims of conflict and violence, and collectively at the level of communities and societies that have suffered;

Considering the importance of developing a national narrative of the past that resonates with all communities in Sri Lanka;

Committed to creating an inclusive society, a sense of belonging, and an environment conducive to the full realisation of the potential of every Sri Lankan citizen;

Calling for a whole-of-government effort and a multi-stakeholder process that combines a two-pronged approach, namely preventive through ensuring non-recurrence of past events, and through futuristic initiatives for reconciliation.

This National Policy on Reconciliation is founded on the imperatives of Democracy, Good Governance, Human Rights, Rule of Law and National Unity.
OBJECTIVES

“To function as state policy on reconciliation.

“To provide direction to national reconciliation by addressing past violence and conflict, and through envisioning of a shared future that fosters national unity and peaceful co-existence among all peoples and communities in the country.

“To provide a guiding framework to all stakeholders working on reconciliation in order to achieve coherence in reconciliation initiatives.

Policy Principles

“A set of actionable principles and long-term goals that will form the basis for making rules and guidelines, and to provide overall direction to planning and development for national reconciliation.
Equality

“Acknowledge the principle of power-sharing as the means of reaching a political settlement, which would address the grievances and aspirations of all communities as a necessary constituent for reconciliation.
“Ensure gender equality in all national initiatives; develop protection mechanisms for vulnerable women around the country; redress and provide reparations to women who have endured violations; and promote agency of women as partners in decision-making and as agents of change in reconciliation process and activities.

“Ensure that all citizens have equal access to their substantive freedoms and promote unequivocal non-discrimination, transparency, accountability and fairness in all legal, social, political and administrative mechanism and proceedings at national, provincial and local level.

HUMAN RIGHTS

“The State shall make every endeavour to ensure that the full range of civil and political rights are equally upheld for all citizens and groups in the country in a non-discriminatory manner. The State should provide a mechanism to enforce civil and political rights and an enabling system for its implementation, which includes the rule of law, administrative justice, educational measures to promote a rights culture and democratic structures with checks and balances. The judiciary should play an important role in ensuring the implementation of these rights.

INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

Proactively cultivate a sense of belonging, responsibility and solidarity towards strengthening a shared Sri Lankan identity and values enriched by the nation’s diverse ethnic and cultural heritage, and to explore the notion of active citizenship in Sri Lanka and what it means to be a Sri Lankan.

“Ensure the right of every citizen to use and demand services in Sinhala and Tamil, the National and Official languages of Sri Lanka as enshrined in the Constitution and collectively work towards achieving trilingual competencies in Sinhala, Tamil and English languages.

“The State shall endeavour to create an inclusive society by setting up mechanisms to actively encourage the participation of formerly marginalised groups in decision making as well as their access to opportunities and services.

“Ensure representation within the public service and judicial system that reflects the diversity of the Sri Lankan population.

“Design specific mechanisms and programmes that within State and public sector institutions to mainstream policies and practices that uphold the principles of multiculturalism.

“Address the needs, empower, and engage with vulnerable groups affected by the conflict, including but not limited to, female heads of households, war widows, survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, children and youth, internally displaced communities, families of missing and disappeared, ex combatants, differently-abled, resettled communities.

JUSTICE AND RULE OF LAW

Strengthen, and reform where necessary, the judicial system so as to adequately deliver, and provide access to, swift and expeditious justice.

“Actively work towards ensuring equal and informed access to justice, maintenance of law and order and the equitable, impartial, competent, and swift dispensation of justice by way of an impartial and competent judiciary.

“Make every endeavour to provide reparations to victims who have been identified to have suffered loss as a result of the conflict and to ensure the protection of victims and witnesses during and after their quest for justice and redress.

“To amend and repeal laws which are discriminatory and are not in compliance with normative standards; and to introduce laws that are necessary to foster reconciliation.

OWNERSHIP

“Proactively examine the obstacles faced by respective sectors, including but not limited to, female-heads of households, war widows, children & youth, internally displaced communities, families of the missing and disappeared, ex-combatants, differently-abled, resettled communities, and Sri Lankans living overseas and persons of Sri Lankan origin living overseas belonging to all communities, in participating and exercising their rights and define and implement actions to address these obstacles.

CLEAR AND CONSISTENT COMMUNICATION

“Design and implement reconciliation interventions in consultation and with the participation of relevant stakeholders, and listening to respective stakeholders including civil society, direct and indirect victims of conflict and violence, and other affected groups; while the State should proactively release information on progress towards reconciliation in the country and such information must be communicated with responsibility and remain accessible, open and transparent to citizens.

“The State should make a concerted effort to engage the general public, through mobilising traditional and non-traditional media, in order to bring about positive attitudinal change that will in turn facilitate the readiness and preparedness of citizens to receive and accept solutions to the root-causes of conflict. Government and non-government actors must go beyond using media as a mere tool for communication; rather they must proactively leverage the media as a strategically powerful tool to promote reconciliation through carefully designed interventions.”

Courtesy – Sunday Times

lead-new-pic

President Maithripala Sirisena with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe

logoMonday, 3 October 2016

Twenty months ago a decision was made that changed the course of our country. Many factors contributed to what happened next. Many individuals, organisers and in the end the majority of the voters played crucial roles in how things unfolded. However, if one man had not taken an all-important decision, we may not be where we are today and indeed we may have been even poorer.

Only a man endowed with immense courage, self-confidence, sense of purpose and trust in the people could have made the decision to break ranks with his political party and go against the leader who even his most tenacious opponents considered invincible.

Maithripala Sirisena may have felt his moment had arrived since he was after all a seasoned politician.  He may have been pushed to make the decision by a consideration of the relevant factors and the persuasive arguments of key members of the political opposition to the then regime such as Chandrika Kumaratunga, Ranil Wickremesinghe and Karu Jayasuriya, as well as civil society leaders such as the late Ven. Madoluwawe Sobitha Thero. Such factors he would have had to consider along with the fate that befell Sarath Fonseka in 2010.

While it is true that the events and processes that preceded this historic decision were all about the concept of good governance and that any good candidate may have defeated the incumbent, the fact that Maithripala Sirisena was the General Secretary of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party made a huge difference.  His decision clearly tilted the odds against Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Maithripala Sirisena’s courage would inevitably be tested after assuming office. He would also be challenged to bridge seemingly impossible gaps, create trust and unite a nation broken along ethnic, religious and party lines.

Meaningful change?

untitled-4
Today, 22 months later, two years into Maithripala Sirisena’s presidency and more than a year after the consolidation of the Unity Government following the General Election, a question is being asked: have things changed and if so is it for the better? The quick answer is that things are indeed better but they could have been much better.

In fact the climate of freedom that has enabled open and harsh criticism has by and large made people forget how things were before 8 January, 2015. An assessment would be useful, therefore.

The program was ambitious. A lot was promised in the first 100 days. Progress was made on important issues, but it was and still is perceived to be slow. Two reasons can be attributed to this state of affairs. The first is that an over-optimistic new regime failed to understand that systems and cultures, especially bad ones, are extremely resilient. Secondly, there is the impatience of the people – when quick fixes are expected, disappointment and disillusionment usually follow. Frustration is essentially a result of high expectations not being fulfilled.

Countries are seldom turned around in a flash. Bloody revolutions can do it, but as the term indicates there’s a heavy price to pay. We saw a democratic revolution on 8 January 2015.  Maithripala Sirisena and the Unity Government he formed with Ranil Wickremesinghe inherited a next to bankrupt economy, a political culture marked by abuse and apathy, officials who are incompetent or timid or both, and robust systems that are veritable partners in crimes of corrupt politicians. It was certainly a situation that had to be handled carefully. They could not afford to let emotions get the better of them. Sober, careful and pragmatic measures had to be taken with a view to long-term recovery.

Unfortunately we inhabit a political culture where those who favour reason over rhetoric and the pragmatic over the popular are seen as weak and ineffective.

Had President Sirisena opted to crack the whip hard as his predecessor did he may have been called a strong, decisive and effective leader. The truth is that efficiency, strength and decisiveness are not about putting political opponents behind bars through the abuse of the judicial system. Indeed in most instances restraint requires more strength. Restraint was and is necessary because its absence is part of the reason why democracy has suffered so much over the past several decades. If the rule of law and democracy are to be re-established then it would have been erroneous to do things as they were done before. If wrongdoers were treated the way Sarath Fonseka and Shirani Bandaranayake were treated, for example, it would not create a better country but further compromise democracy and the rule of law.

Reinstituting a robust democracy

When the foundations of democracy have been seriously damaged it is not possible to restore the edifice without relaying the base.  That’s what the 19th Amendment and the Right to Information Act were about; the foundations for a more robust democracy.

Maithripala Sirisena is the only president who willingly conceded some of the enormous powers vested in his office. This even his strongest critics cannot deny. With the creation of independent commissions, President Sirisena and the Unity Government have effectively put the country on the path to a more accountable and transparent system of governance. These changes have been complemented by the restoration of judicial independence. Slowly but surely people are beginning to trust the courts, another necessary element of the democratising process which had to be carefully handled.

We are already seeing the benefits of these measures. Politicians are slowly but surely realising that being elected is not a license to throw their weight around. The previous Government was feared but not respected. The present regime is respected but not feared. It could be argued that fear rather than respect makes for better political stability. However, conviction generally works better than compulsion. A people who feel they belong and who believe they have ownership stakes are more likely to work with passion.

Before the 8 January 2015 we had a situation where few politicians or officials dared to object to proposals and directives from the top. Those who did so were punished. Of course today we do have some lethargic public servants who drag their feet or whine that they don’t want to be hauled to the FCID but then again no innocent person has been prosecuted. We can argue that the true measure of governance is when present and not former ministers are questioned, but we must understand that although things are not ideal things certainly are better. Hopefully we will evolve to a point when anyone in power who steps out of line is questioned.

It is respect and fear of robust systems and not individuals with power that will get us there.  Systems are being put in place and we are not too far away from a situation where wrongdoers in this Government will be investigated, something that was unthinkable just two years ago.

Hurdles ahead

We still have a fair distance to go before the citizens can truly feel that they belong, that their voices are heard, that they and not parochial interests are being represented by the elected and that they truly have ownership stakes.

Initial gains on the democratic front should not lull anyone into complacency. The gains have been offset by poor judgment in appointments, selective pursuit of suspected wrongdoers and internal contradictions. Not all ills can be attributed to the faults of the previous regime and anyway labouring the point is only a distraction considering the enormity of the tasks at hand.

President Sirisena, as we mentioned above, had to be a unifying factor to begin with and since being elected has had to keep the forces of democratic change together, united and focused.  He had to deal with dissidents and dissent within his party. The President and the Prime Minister have both had to struggle to overcome the ‘traditional antagonisms’ between the parties they lead, even as they try to strengthen these very same parties.

Noble, brave and hopeful pronouncements notwithstanding they are yet to succeed.  The coalition is intact but is fragile and errors as well as deliberate bending of rules can only make things worse. It is not a good sign that some of the ardent supporters of the good governance drive are now rather dismayed, less by the slowness than what is perceived to be waning political will.

Keeping the coalition intact is not the only kind of unity that the Government has had to contend with. The task of post-conflict reconciliation was never going to be easy. It is not an issue that can be put on the backburner.

The commitment to create a society free of hatred, violence and fear was reiterated by the President at the United National General Assembly a few days ago.  A constitutional reform process is underway. There has to be give-and-take across the board and here a sober, patient and empathetic leader like the President is a tremendous source of strength for these are the attributes required of a person whose task it is to draw people from extremes as well as peripheries to the centre and common ground.

President Sirisena is a man who listens and measures his words, qualities that have earned him respect and positioned him to play the role of a unifier in a broader context – that of overall national reconciliation.

It would be naïve to say that the difficult part is done. The reform project is incomplete – electoral reform has unfortunately been postponed while amendments or even a total overhauling of the constitution for purposes of reconciliation is bound to be slow and contentious. The political reforms have to be matched by performance on the economic front, certainly a challenge in the context of a global economic crisis. The civil service has to be revamped, systems have to be put in place so that capable leaders are developed, a passion for the country has to be inculcated among all students at all levels and as the President pointed out in New York the war on drugs needs to be fought on all fronts and relentlessly too.

And everything, one could argue, depends on the continued partnership between the two major political parties in the island. There is very little room for error. Democratisation can never be driven by the undemocratic, the rhetorician, the rabble-rouser; it is only someone of the calibre of Maithripala Sirisena who can navigate things at this point and only with the continued support of a leader like Ranil Wickremesinghe.

It remains to be seen whether the two will see the country through this tough and necessary period of democratisation. They probably understand much better than their respective supporters that if either or both put party before country both will lose and that the hope for a more democratic Sri Lanka will consequently diminish. The party faithful need to understand this too.

Fortunately, in Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe we have two leaders who are at the helm and one cannot ask for two individuals better suited to be in charge at this point.  They need the right people in the right places. This is not easy in a country that suffers from a serious human resources crisis – all the more reason for making best use of the meagre pool of capable men and women of integrity.

Twenty months have passed since the historic electoral victory of Maithripala Sirisena. It is probably more advisable to look to tasks yet undone rather than the achievements over this period, remarkable though they are considering the state of the country before 8 January 2015.

The Dilemma Of Justice


Colombo Telegraph
By Somapala Gunadheera –October 2, 2016
Somapala Gunadheera
Somapala Gunadheera
I read with deep concern and dismay, the news item appearing in the Island of the 27th instant, titled “CID accused of tapping senior judge’s phones”. It dealt with a complaint made by a senior President’s Counsel to the BASLthat some members of the Judiciary are being defamed by some sections of the media. Worse still, in one such incident, the Judge’s telephones including his official telephone and his registrar’s telephone in the office, had been tapped. The bugging was attributed to the Criminal Investigation Department, the purpose being to obtain information about an ongoing case before the Judge concerned. Although the news item identified the incident as the “worst kind of judicial interference”, what appeared to be implied was the reverse process.
I have myself come across several such reports in the unconventional media and regretted the remarks personally, as at times they pertained to my contemporaries in the Law College, when I attended it as an aged refugee from the administrative service. In fact the remarks would naturally disturb any member of the legal profession as his dignity depended on the inviolability and the prestige of the Judicial Service. The day the Judiciary comes into public ridicule, will signal the end of organized society, placing dispute resolution within the ambit of undue force and tyranny. That would be a sad day not only for Judges and lawyers but also for every law-abiding citizen. Hence it behoves the threatened to leave no stone unturned to safeguard the sanctity of the Judiciary.
maithripala-on-phone
But can that target be achieved by banning telephone tapping and suppressing the whistleblowers forcibly? Incidentally, we were safely under the impression that telephone tapping was a thing of the past, with the chivalrous and pious declaration of ‘Yahapalanaya” that they had abolished the practice and got rid of the unholy machinery used by their predecessors. Be that as it may, it is well for civil society to realize that no amount of compulsion or repression of the methods of an activist can put an end to his initiative short of rectifying his grievance, if it is found to be true and justified. It is the duty of the leadership to ascertain why these allegations are made. The old saying goes, “there is no smoke without fire’. If there is fire, the sooner it is discovered and extinguished, the better it is for the society at large.
The problem boils down to devising a way to safeguard the dignity of the judiciary without impairing the right of the public to complain when its right to justice is compromised by the errant conduct of a judicial officer, however rare that situation may be. Short of setting up such a devise, it will not be possible to contain the unconventional vilification of the Judiciary. As at present, there does not appear to be a safe and effective mechanism that could be confidently resorted to by a genuinely aggrieved person. Of course he can submit a petition about his grievance but in the absence of a systematized channel of relief, he is bound to get lost in the undefined wilderness of petitions.

PORT CITY PROJECT: PEOPLE’S OPINION DO NOT SEEM TO MATTER TO “YAHAPALANAYA” LEADERSHIP


port-city-pprotest-04-mmp-2
( Protesting mother photo by Melani Manel Perera)
Sri Lanka BriefBy Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda.-02/10/2016
Government sources inform that construction work on the Colombo Port City (CPC) now baptized by our Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe as the International Financial City (IFC) will resume in October.  Distressed local Fisherman now inform   that the destructive sand mining by the Chinese have already begun
This project was publicly opposed by the incumbent President and Prime Minister while they were in opposition. The reason given by then leader of opposition and now the  Prime  Minister during his  election campaign for halting this  was that the coast from Kalpitiya up to Hikkaduwa will be washed away into the sea. Although the decision to resume work has been taken, the measures taken to prevent such destruction to the coast has not been identified.
Citizens of our country have identified a number of environmental hazards, in addition to the destruction caused by sand mining that necessitates the halting of this project.  The government has been informed of these facts.
The It now appears that  people’s opinion do not seem to matter to the the “Yahapalanaya” leadershial Impact Assessment Report itself forecast that the livelihoods for fishermen will be lost for 3  years due to sand mining. Strangely, the report has not guaranteed when the marine environment will be back to normal enabling the fisherman to resume their livelihoods their only source of income. .
port-city-pprotest-03-mmpThe destruction of the corals and the reefs which are the fish breeding and feeding grounds  will be disturbed due to sand mining and dumping. It may take a long period of time perhaps 30 years or more to recover or the coral reefs may not even recover due to the effects of climate change.
Fisherman are greatly alarmed by the massive volume of sand mining 60 million cubic meters taking place near a thin reef between sea and their lagoon. Environmentalists state that this natural reef which protects our land from storms and lashing waves is now weakened due to Chinese sand mining activities. If these destructive activities continue, fisherman fear that the reef Thalahena Peruwa may collapse resulting in the sea entering the lagoon causing a massive environmental and human tragedy in Kepungoda as people will have to flee for their lives, as the sea inundates the land.
This projects damages not only the marine and the human environment in the coastal area but also the interior of the country due to rock mining. The granite requirement to reclaim the sea area of 269 hectares, is 3.45 millions cubic meters. No adequate study has been done about the impact of granite mining.
These matters have been raised by independent experts. Unfortunately, our political leadership is not wise enough to listen to them. People have protested on number of occasions since the inception of this Project during the previous regime. In Dec 2014 and in March 2015 over 300 petitions were handed  to the coast conservation department, on the 6th of Jan to the secretaries of the President and Prime Minister on the 6th of April 2016 a protest was held at the Galle Face Green.
It now appears that  people’s opinion do not seem to matter to the the “Yahapalanaya” leadership. The government seems so arrogant that it is ready carry out  policies which the environmentalists warn presenting evidence, of possible disasters to people and the environment.
Another matter of great importance is the secrecy that is maintained by both former President and the incumbent Prime Minister about the agreements signed between the Sri Lanka and China.
That leaves enough room for suspicion that the content of the agreements are purposely hidden from people, because the conditions in the agreements are not favorable to the  citizens.
The above environmentally detrimental activities are destroying Sri Lanka’s centuries old Coastal Fishing Trade the only livelihood of our coastal fisher-folk.  Therefore a protest was held by these fisherman, who brave the seas each day to provide us with fresh fish, in 8 fishing villages from Kammalthota to Uswetakeiyawa. In some villages the fishermen did not go to Sea for fishing as a mark of protest. This very successful protest was organized by the People’s Movement against the Port City. It was held at village level from 10.00am – 12.00pm. Several members of the clergy and number of Civil Society members actively participated in this event.

Reorganising the electricity supply industry

Part III: Peering into a technically rational crystal ball 


article_image

by Kumar David-October 1, 2016

This concluding third part of the series outlines a conceptual proposal for the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry (ESI) in Lanka; it is conceptual, not a blueprint cast in stone. The motive is to embrace new technologies and business practices and to meet emerging challenges. Privatisation is inimical when national or regional monopoly settings (‘public goods’) prevail – transmission ownership, operation and system control is an example; similar functions in distribution are another example. Only a lunatic will contemplate two overlapping transmission systems in one country or imagine two distribution networks under roads and over farms and homes in a locality.

Where competition is desirable is in electricity generation. An IPP (Independent Power producer) may be domestic, foreign (FDI) or joint-venture capital. There was a global trend towards a power market in the 1990s but after the catastrophic California Power Market crash in 2001 the trend receded. Globally, recent acquisitions signal a turn to consolidation, but irrespective of market type, the ESI is responding to advances in technology and new options in energy supply. Global fashions however must be modified to a local context; otherwise one will be shooting at abstract targets.

Smaller gas-fired plants are cost competitive in capital and operation in countries with gas deposits. This makes distributed generation attractive. But in Lanka this is predicated on a gas distribution network for industry and transport in general; otherwise better stay with centralised power stations and ship out electricity. In a trade-off between transmission losses and capital investment in special purpose pipelines to ship gas to power stations only, the former wins.

Mini and micro generation (less than 10MW; hydro, wind, rooftop PV and wood based) and industry based standby plant is on the increase, but electricity sector reorganisation is not warranted to deal with these pimples. Rooftop solar (as distinct from large utility size solar farms) even if it adds hundreds of MW of simultaneous injection at high-noon on a bright day, can, technically, be handled on-the-hop by distribution entities.

Independence of the system operator-cum-transmission-owner, and independence of a centralised electricity buyer from individual generating companies (including the CEB’s generation arm) is imperative if competition in power supply and the incorporation of large solar (and wind) farms is to be accomplished. Sounds complicated? Hang on; it will be clearer when a typical structure is laid out, so let me take the plunge and sketch a long-term structure; it is premature to discuss implementation stages. The diagram shows functions that currently belong to the CEB split into three blocks - CEGen, CEGrid & CEBuy and Discos. Separate from this is Other Generators, Consumers, the Regulator (a replacement PUCL) and Contracts. Let me lay out the thinking behind this.

The independent grid operator

The transmission system - and its control, management and expansion - is queen of electricity supply. CEGrid must be impartial to all competing suppliers in the market, including CEB generation (CEGen); it must be even-handed to all buyers (Discos). Above all as a national monopoly - provider of a public good - it must be a publicly accountable body like the Central Bank. Think of CEGrid as a court of law adjudicating between plaintiffs (generators) and defendants (distributors).

To achieve these ends it must be independent of all generators and distributors and tracked by a sensible rule-making Regulator. (Currently PUCL and CEB are involved in a procession of petty squabbles; "We told you to do a 20-year plan, how dare you do a 24-year plan!") . CEGrid will impose a use-of-system fee on generators and end-users to recoup transmission losses and organisation costs and to procure funds for grid expansion. The principal structural change that I am emphasising today, an independent transmission entity (CEGrid), is already well established in quite a few countries.

CEGrid can contemplate many innovations. One overhyped novelty is the so-called smart-grid. This is the use of computer intelligence, power-electronic switches, algorithms and the Internet to re-switch lines and devices called SVCs and capacitors so as to enhance operational capability. At least that’s the hype, but I am not convinced that the smart-grid is a game changer or has achieved much in transmission networks. (Distribution is another story; automation and smart techniques have improved reliability between the consumer and the local supply point in many countries). Of course many things can be done without restructuring, but the point is not in the detail; it is that the grid must be free to improve, innovate, keep abreast of developments and not be tied to the apron strings of any power generation company or corporation. For example there has been talk of an up to date system control centre for years, but little has happened. An independent CEGrid will be more motivated and have its own budget; "unbundling" or separation is a concept that deserves scrutiny by stakeholders.

Competition in generation

The big story globally in the 1990s was competition in generation to bring down prices and enhance efficiency. To prepare the ground locally, the generation arm of the CEB will have to be spun off into a separate state-owned entity, CEGen. Or maybe two; a hydro part and a thermal generator like India’s state owned National Thermal Power Corporation, India’s largest power producer. The hydro sector in Lanka has a unique feature; fuel cost is zero but dispatch (water discharge schedules) must respect downstream irrigation and human needs. This imposes constraints on ‘dispatch’ - ‘dispatch’ means running generators and injecting power into the grid.

Reliance, Tata and other mega-players have entered the Indian power market and compete for market share. It is similar in other big countries. But if a truly competitive market is opened in Lanka will there be IPP takers? I am not sure whether IPPs in Lanka only want protected sinecures. Note that competition is not to be confused with the money for jam game that IPPs have been played in this country for 20 years. Fat profits, recovery of investment and guaranteed sales is not risk taking competition. Nevertheless let’s put my doubts to one side and assume that the private sector will respond to a power market, investing in the sector and competing genuinely on the basis of price.

Where will future gas-fired power stations fed from an LNG harbour terminal fit in? I guess construction of the $500 million LNG terminal will be venture between a port authority and foreign capital. Long term ownership will presumably be vested in some state entity because not only power generators but transport and industry will need to access it. We can then conjecture that from say 2025 power growth will average about a 300MW year. The technologies of choice will be gas, clean coal if its reputation is restored, and renewables. Let us conjecture that some of this is undertaken by CEGen but that private developers too will respond. This then is the case for a competitive power market.

CEGen, even stripped of the hydro component will be a pretty profitable enterprise; it could be profitable right now if shorn of the burden of providing subsidised electricity to indigent sections of the population and religious places. In a competitive power market, subsidies are a societal choice to be met by government, not burdened on a generator. CEGen will be able to drive competitors out of the market since the biggest component of cost, pass-through fuel cost (gas price), will be the same for all. But CEGen has a head start with Norochcholi, whose coal based prices, gas-fired plants will not be able to match - see tables in last week’s Part II.

CEBuy

CEBuy is mostly bits-and-bytes; in manpower and capital it will be a small unit whose job is to clear the market. That is, it will, with the assistance of the Discos, post data and its own expertise, forecast day-ahead demand in say half-hourly time steps for the next day. It will also receive on-line, offers of how much power and at what prices, competing generators are offering. It then clears the market; that is it accepts the cheapest offers for each time step, notifies these generators and informs CEGrid what to expect. Tough luck for generators who quote high though most may be able to sell something at peak time. Buy and Grid must coordinate intimately since dispatch schedules submitted by Buy may be operationally infeasible, making regular iteration necessary.

Real-time demand and day-ahead dispatch schedules will not match exactly, or there will be unexpected events. CEGrid will therefore have ‘balancing power’ agreements with some generators to buy or shed extra power at a moment’s notice. CEGrid may even own some fast acting generators. In my view a better option is to vest control of the hydro complexes (Mahaweli, Kelani, Walawe etc.) in CEGrid. These zero-cost units are not relevant to competition, water storage is vital to both long term irrigation and power dispatch planning, and daily/weekly running of hydro is constrained by downstream needs. The logical place for all this is an energy management sub-unit of CEGrid.

Solar power has a random quality that requires intimate operational alignment with CEGrid. One rationale for disentangling CEGrid into a separate entity is to deal with solar power’s headaches (stochastic, non-dispatchable and without inertia – see Part I). If renewables are going to come in big time, then an independent system control and dispatch entity is useful. You will observe that my case for restructuring is not much based on competition in generation but much more to do with technical rationalities that can be incorporated if CEGrid is independent from CEGen. A further motive for restructuring is that there may be a good case for introducing Discos – next section.

If the power market does not take off Buy can be dismantled and absorbed into Grid leaving a simple three tier structure of a statutorily independent grid which also looks after hydro, a state owned thermal power generator and several regional distributors. It is absolutely essential that the structure, at least at the early stages, be kept simple. Complication will lead to chaos!

I crave your indulgence to address a few words of technical gibberish to engineer readers. I believe fixed frequency AC will remain the foundation of electricity supply for the remainder of this century. Nicola Tesla’s marvellous transformer cannot be supplanted. Then, massive rotating masses will remain the bedrock of frequency and stability management. Photovoltaics and technologies which generate DC and inject power through inverters (power electronic devices) will play a supplementary role, but the AC grid will reign supreme. This essay on ESI restructuring adopts this as a premise.

Discos

Currently CEB distribution is managed by nationwide regional distribution divisions and one semi-independent company LECO. At some point in time maybe we should spin-off this family into many LECO-like independent entities. Since electricity distribution is a regional monopoly (a public good) these entities will have to be regulated and accountable to the public. Since LECO seems to be a success there may be economies and efficiencies of dis-scale in unbundling. On the other hand economies of scale may be lost. Prima face assumptions may prove wrong; why not start with one or two more distant trials (Jaffna Peninsula, Upcountry, Matara and beyond) and see what experience teaches.

I cannot discuss the Regulator (PUSL has to be reformatted if the electricity supply industry is restructured) or explain the box called Contracts on the right because this piece will become longer; I have overrun my usual word limit already. In closing I repeat, my prescriptions are flexible; they are an invitation to further discussion.

(The author’s IEEE Fellowship was for work on ESI Restructuring)