Education Expenditure Cut By Half, Maithri Gets 20 Million A Day: JO

October 12, 2016

The Government has estimated an expenditure of Rs. 1,819 billion for next year, with the bulk of these expenses being set aside for the Defence and Finance Ministries, amidst allegations by the Joint Opposition that the education expenditure for next year has been cut by over 57%.

The Defence Ministry has been Allocated Rs. 283 billion, while the Finance Ministry has been allocated Rs. 242 billion.

Sirisena’s pet subject, health has been allocated Rs. 160 billion, while the Higher Education and the Highways Ministry has been allocated Rs. 162 billion. However the Education Ministry has only been allocated Rs. 76 billion

The Public Administration Ministry has been allocated Rs.164 billion, while the Transport and Civil Aviation Ministry has been allocated Rs. 50 billion. The Local Government and Provincial Councils Ministry has been allocated Rs.223 billion.

A total of Rs. 5 billion has been set aside for the President’s Office for the year 2017, amidst allegations from the National Freedom Front (NFF) that the presidential expenditure has gone up by 320%.

NFF’s spokesman Mohammed Muzammil has said that while the President’s expenditure has been increased by 320%, the funds allocated for education has been reduced by 57.6% in the Appropriation Bill.

Read More

Strengthening RTI Law: Some Suggestions

DINESHA SAMARARATNE on 10/11/2016

(Featured image courtesy Infocip)

This piece has benefitted from feedback received from several colleagues of the author, including Sankhitha Gunaratne and Gehan Gunatilleke)

This short piece is a reflection on the recently adopted Right to Information Act. Certain aspects of the Act give rise to questions regarding its enforcement. These questions arise primarily in relation to the appointment of the RTI Commission; the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in determining appeals from the Commission; and the functions of the Commission.

RTI a Win for Democracy

There is no doubt about the fact that the express inclusion of the right of access to information (Art 14A) in our Constitution and the passing of legislation for the enforcement of the right are outstandingly progressive developments. The Right to Information Act (No 12 of 2016) is a law that promises to transform the culture of Sri Lanka’s public service and public institutions by making it more accountable and transparent. The transformation is sought to be achieved at two levels – in terms of proactively making information available to the public and by compelling public authorities to release information upon request except where the information is protected from such release. The scope of the RTI Act goes beyond the public service and includes within its definition of ‘public authority’ (S 43) any other body that performs functions that are ‘public’ in nature. This means, for instance, that even a voluntary body that performs a significant public function, could be required to release information under the RTI Act. Advocates of the RTI Act therefore quite rightly promote this legislative intervention as a win for strengthening accountability and deepening democracy in Sri Lanka.

Appointment of the RTI Commission

In reading the actual provisions of the Act however several questions arise with regard to the way in which the enforcement of the right of access to information has been formulated. Last week, one such question was fore-grounded when two individuals who were nominated to the Right to Information Commission declined the appointment. In describing eligibility to be nominated to the Commission the Act states that nominees must be individuals who have ‘distinguished themselves in public life with proven knowledge, experience and eminence in the fields of law, governance, public administration, social services, journalism, science and technology or management’ (S 12(2)). Such nominees cannot hold political office, cannot hold public or judicial office or any office of profit, cannot be ‘connected to a political party’ and cannot be ‘carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.’ Remuneration for the Director General of the Commission is provided for in the Act while remuneration for the Commissioners is made possible in the Schedule to the Act. One of the grounds on which a Commissioner ceases to hold office is where she ‘engages in any employment outside the duties of his office’ (Schedule (1)(e)). The pool of individuals who can be nominated as Commissioners would necessarily have to be limited to individuals who have retired from work, or those who are willing to give up their employment or professional practice. Further whether they would accept this office would depend on whether the Commissioners have an independent source of income and/or whether the remuneration that is offered is adequate. As was seen this week, these provisions may make it exceedingly difficult to identify suitable individuals who are able to take up this office.

Given the broad language that has been employed in describing the restrictions to RTI that have been described in the Act, the appointment of a dynamic, competent and strong Commission is crucial for the effective implementation of the Act. Depending on the interpretation employed, the scope of the RTI Act could vary significantly. The Supreme Court, in its determination on the constitutionality of the Bill has already made the extremely problematic pronouncement regarding the scope of ‘national security’ under Art 14A. The Court held that that trade negotiations fall within the idea of ‘national security’. This interpretation confuses the notion of ‘human security’ which is associated with risks to the life and liberty of the person through armed conflict etc with concepts such as ‘economic development/interests’ or ‘economic stability’ perhaps. By using ‘national security’ to cover negotiations for trade agreement, the Court has stretched its meaning. The experience before the Supreme Court demonstrates the challenges that lie before the Commission in balancing competing interest in seeking to guarantee the right to access to information and the possible pitfalls.

RTI and the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Another issue that arises in reading through this Act relates to its constitutionality. The Constitution explicitly states that the Supreme Court has the ‘sole and exclusive’ jurisdiction to ‘hear and determine’ any right recognized under the Fundamental Rights chapter (Art 126). In other words, the judicial interpretation of the right to information is exclusively entrusted to the Supreme Court. The Constitution also provides, for instance, that if in proceedings before the Court of Appeal an alleged violation of a Fundamental Right arises, that aspect of the proceedings should be directed to the Supreme Court (Art 126(3)). The RTI Act, which declares itself as an Act to ‘provide for the Right of Access to Information’ (long title) describes the procedure to be followed when a citizen wishes to challenge a decision of an information officer. Appeal lies internally, then to the Commission and thereafter to the Court of Appeal (S 31 onwards). However, according to the Constitution, judicial determination of a fundamental right can only be made by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Act declares that every inquiry before the Commission is deemed to be a judicial proceeding as per the Criminal Procedure Code (S 19). This means that any person who provides false evidence through statements or produces false documents before the Commission can be tried before a Court of law.

In its determination on the constitutionality of the RTI Bill the SC held that the Commission is deemed to be acting judicially only in a narrow sense. It observed that the explicit statement that the Commission’s actions are to be deemed judicial vis-a-vis the Criminal Procedure Code suggests that generally the Commission is not acting judicially. While these clauses does not cast the Commission as exercising ‘judicial’ power per se, it could be argued that, at the very least, the Commission would be exercising quasi-judicial power. In any event, the Common law test for whether any public body is exercising judicial power is drawn from the Electricity Commissioner’s case (1924). According to this case even a body that is generally not considered to be a Court of law can be deemed to be acting judicially if it has the legal authority to determine questions affecting rights of subjects. If the Commission is deemed to be acting judicially, it seems that the Commission too would be in violation of the exclusive jurisdiction vested with the Supreme Court to determined fundamental rights. Alternatively, the Commission’s actions would amount to executive and administrative action. Where allegations are made of such action affecting RTI, only the SC would have the jurisdiction to determine such a petition, not the Court of Appeal.

From an access to justice perspective, it is obvious that enforcing the right to information through the Commission is commendable. In fact, several public representations have been made in support of providing lower courts, such as the Provincial High Courts, with jurisdiction to determine Fundamental Rights petitions. The point, however, is that the RTI Act does not offer means of reconciling the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction with that vested through the Act in the Court of Appeal and in the Commission respectively. Some guidance can perhaps be sought from the ICCPR Act 2007 which vests jurisdiction with Provincial High Courts for determining petitions which allege violation of rights recognized under the ICCPR Act. However, the human rights recognized under the ICCPR Act are statutory. They do, to some extent, overlap with some Fundamental Rights but whether that overlap would attract the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction is not clear. In any event, the ICCPR Act specifically states that ‘adjudication’ by the High Court ‘shall not extend’ to matters related to the rights recognized under Chapter III or IV of the Constitution (S 7(2) of the ICCPR Act). In relations to the RTI Act, within the present Constitution, parallel to the appeal procedure provided for under the RTI Act, any citizen could, in theory, still petition the Supreme Court directly. Moreover, the Supreme Court requires that petitions alleging fundamental rights violations to be filed within thirty days. These parallel mechanisms have the potential to delay the vindication of the right to information of a citizen. Generally, a request for information is made for the purpose of addressing another issue, for vindicating another fundamental right etc. therefore delay in seeking respect for the right to information can have far reaching consequences for those seeking such information.

The counter-argument can be made that Art 14A describes RTI only as a relational Fundamental Right (FR) – a FR that is respected in order to respect other FRs guaranteed under the Constitution. The RTI Act on the other hand recognizes ‘a right of access to information which is in the possession, custody, or control of a public authority’ (S 3(1)). Therefore the RTI Act recognizes an independent human right. Therefore, it is different to Art 14A. This argument suggests that an Act which declares it to be a law that seeks to guarantee the right to access to information that is recognized in Art 14A, however, ultimately offers a new regime of human rights. If this argument is valid, the RTI Act and Art 14A are essentially two different human rights regimes which overlap only when a citizen wishes to link RTI with another FR that he wishes to vindicate. If that be the case, a conflict between the exclusive jurisdiction of the SC and the RTI Act could be avoided in theory. This argument would still not help the Commission in relation to information requests made by a citizen to ‘safeguard the life or liberty of a person’ since in the case of such applications, the citizen is mandatorily required provide reasons for requesting such information (S 24(5)(c)). Furthermore, this interpretation of the RTI leads to a strange situation – one in which requests for information simpliciter are regulated by the Act and come within the scope of the Commission’s mandate but information that is requested for the protection of other fundamental rights are excluded from the Act and the work of the Commission. Such a distinction makes no sense. In any event, the argument that Art 14A and RTI Act essentially provide for two different types of right to information would hold water only if it is possible to maintain a distinction between Art 14A and the RTI that is recognized under the RTI Act. It must be noted that Art 14A states that its enforcement is to be prescribed by law. Presumably the RTI is that law but if the RTI Act essentially provides for a different aspect of RTI, Art 14A remains without any teeth as it were. For the purpose of moving forward with the work of the Commission, a distinction, would in any case, have to be maintained.

Powers of the Commission

The other question that arises in reading through the RTI Act is with regard to the duties and powers of the Commission. The Act vests three different functions on the Commission which seem to give rise to a conflict of interest. An Information Officer may seek the advice of the Commission regarding the release of information that is generally excluded from the RTI Act (S 5(5)). In excluding different types of information, the Act states that where the general public interest outweighs the interest of protecting that information, it could be released. Where an officer requests for advice, the Commission may within fourteen days provide such advice. Elsewhere the Act describes the duties of the Commission as including monitoring of performance by public authorities of their duties under the Act and ensuring their compliance (S 14). At the same time, the Act recognizes a prosecutorial function for the Commission for the offences described under the Act (S 39(4)). The Commission then acts as advisor, investigator and prosecutor under the Act in contravention to basic principles of natural justice and the rule of law.

It can however be argued that the Commission only exercises administrative power and that the availability of an appeal against the decision of the Commission, cures this defect. This is sometimes referred to as the ‘curative principle’ in Administrative law. Furthermore, if the Commission maintains a careful institutional division of responsibilities and different entities operate as advisor, investigator and prosecutor respectively, it might be possible to minimize conflicts of interest.

Further Comments

In addition to these questions that arise in reading through this Act other gaps can be noted.

In stipulating the time period for which records ought to be maintained by public authorities the Act states that new records created after the RTI Act comes into operation shall be maintained for 12 years from the date on which such record ‘was created’ (S 7(3)(b)). The obligation to maintain the record should come alive after the record or file is ‘closed’ as it is possible for records to run for more than 12 years on occasion. The phrase ‘commercial confidence’ employed to describe information that is deemed confidential in the interest of protecting commercial interests (S 5(1)(d) is confusing. It carries no literal meaning and is not referred to in the Intellectual Property Act of Sri Lanka. The phrase is used, however, in the Indian RTI Act and its appearance in the Sri Lankan RTI Act suggests that guidance may have been sought from the Indian Act (S 8(d) of the Indian RTI). More clarity in terms of drafting would enable citizens to understand the scope of this restriction clearly. Reference has been made in other jurisdictions to ‘commercial information provided in confidence’, ‘commercial in confidence’, ‘right to commercial confidence’ etc . Inclusion of an interpretation of this term, or a more clear employment of the term would prevent any confusion that may arise.

The interpretation clause of the RTI Act includes three different interpretations of educational institutions. They do not contradict each other but amount to repetition that ought to have been avoided. Furthermore, the RTI Act states that it shall prevail over other laws. However the Office of the Missing Persons Act (OMP, No 14 of 2006) which was enacted a month or so later, states that the RTI Act will not apply to it. It has been said in any event information provided to the Office of Missing Persons in confidence would be information that is excluded from the RTI Act under S 5. Furthermore, that this clause was introduced to reassure family members of missing persons that the information provided will be protected from public disclosure. However, this is a situation where two pieces of legislation seek to trump the other, resulting in confusion and unpredictability in the law. The example of the OMP Act also suggests that the RTI Act can be disregarded by excluding its application in future legislation. This trend could be stemmed if the RTI Act remains linked with Art 14A as it would then amount to a constitutional guarantee that could then trump legislation following the argument that was made in the case of Atapattu v People’s Bank (1997). However, this takes one back to the question as to whether Art 14A and the RTI Act are linked or not which was discussed above.

Drafting of Legislation

If the questions raised in this note regarding the RTI Act are in fact valid, further questions arise as to the state of drafting of legislation in Sri Lanka. Even one mistake or oversight in drafting of legislation is one too many. The ‘legislative intent’ that framed the RTI Act is confusing to say the least. Needless to say, some of the questions that arise in reading the RTI Act could have been resolved through the provision of clear formulations in the Act. ‘For the avoidance of doubt’ clauses, such as the ones employed in the Office of the Missing Persons Act, may have been employed in the RTI Act to ensure clarity of meaning and consistency between Art 14A and the Act. It is possible to address these issues through guidelines issued by the Commission and through binding judicial interpretations of the Act. The more useful reflection at this point would be with regard to the state of legislative drafting and related procedures in Sri Lanka.

The RTI Bill was not rushed through. Adequate time was afforded to the public to make representations discuss the draft and so on. However, many of these issues seem to not have been captured adequately in that process. Institutions responsible for approving Bills for adoption, the Parliament, Supreme Court etc approved this Bill at different stages and recommended it for adoption. Civil society engaged this Bill and supported certain clauses of the Bill when it was challenged before the Supreme Court. The process employed in the adoption of the RTI Act was probably more progressive, transparent and participatory in comparison to processes employed in the adoption of legislation in the past. It seems however that some gaps remained under the radar.

Sri Lankan Views at the 7th Xiangshan Forum in China

The following article based on the speech made by the author as the Secretary of Defence of Sri Lanka, at the Second Plenary Session of the 7th Xiangshan Forum

by Karunasena Hettiarachchi

( October 12, 2016, Beijing, Sri Lanka Guardian) It’s a great pleasure to be here at the 7th Xiangshan Forum. I want to thank the co-hosts China Association for Military Sciences (CAMS) and the China Institute for International Strategic Studies (CIISS) for inviting me to address, once again, this elite group of defence and security strategists of the Asia Pacific Region. I believe this Plenary on “the role of the militaries in Global Governance” is timely given the constantly evolving role of militaries in a post-Cold War context.

Minimizing risks of misunderstanding and conflict still stand priority in a post 1945 nuclearized world. Asia is home to three of the world’s nuclear powers and is a space of constant reconfigurations of political and security alignment since British decolonization of the region in the late 1940’s. The global political and economic balance of power is undergoing major shifts with the rise of the Asian economies and the re-emergence to prominence of the Indian Ocean in global developments and trade.

The dramatic changes that have occurred in the scope of international connectivity in the second half of the 21st century, has led to monumental changes in the intensity, speed and volume of global interactions and significantly increased global interdependence not only among states but also a number of non-state actors that have become key stakeholders of global governance.

The proliferation of stakeholders has led to the creation of a new architecture of global governance that has moved from a state-centric model to embrace complex interactions among states, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and non-state actors, ushering in an age of global partnerships. The empowerment of the individual and the ability of the individual to directly impact governance is also a factor that needs consideration. However, increased interdependence and multiplicity of actors also makes global governance more complex and challenging. Whilst many non-state actors contribute constructively, criminal and terrorist elements threaten the very fabric of global governance that is currently in place.

In this backdrop, militaries across the globe are adjusting to new strategic realities and their role in global governance is being constantly reinvented. Presently, there are several factors that are impacting the role of militaries in global governance. Firstly, Asia is growing at a tremendous pace and with it military power in Asia is evolving underpinned by military modernization. Secondly, militaries are being drawn into transnational missions including inter alia combating narcotics trafficking, piracy, people smuggling and illegal migration, terrorism, IUU fishing (illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing) and environmental degradation.

Thirdly, the involvement of militaries in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions (HADR) is expanding. Fourthly, militaries are actively engaged in the supporting the efforts of the United Nations in peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions across the globe; and finally militaries are also grappling with rapid technological changes and new challenges such as cyber warfare and cybercrime.

The rules based global order that was put in place in the aftermath of the two World Wars and the Cold War increasingly restricted the use of military power on moral and ethical grounds, and promoted cooperation and persuasion. The fact that we had developed weapons that could lead to our annihilation led to the decline in the primacy of the use of “Hard Power” by nation States and the rise of the use “Soft Power” in global governance. However, whilst States have increasingly sought to restrict the use of hard power, criminal and terrorist elements continue to challenge this order by engaging in rampant violence to achieve their ends.

In this backdrop, the role of militaries in global governance is being evolved not only to counter traditional and non-traditional security threats but also to proactively contribute to Human Security. Innovation is key even within the realm of Soft Power and militaries need to focus on developing their “soft” and “smart” power capabilities in order to operate effectively in the current global governance setting.

As of 2016, the themes of the symposia conducted by the Sri Lankan forces focus on Soft Power as a means of planning future military initiatives with an emphasis on security and counter terrorism. In its post conflict strategy, the Sri Lankan military is focusing on developing bilateral, regional and multilateral defence ties for mutual benefit and is committed towards ensuring the safety and security of the region. 

With the change of government in January 2015 Sri Lanka reaffirmed its adherence to a policy of non-alignment with an emphasis on building positive relations with all States. Sri Lanka is committed to countering security threats in the region and looks forward to working together with its partners and friends in the region and beyond to find innovative and collaborative ways in which to meet these challenges. One such significant relationship is the friendship between China and Sri Lanka which covers extensive areas of cooperation. The President of Sri Lanka His Excellency Maithripala Sirisena, at the ceremony to mark the 67th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, said and I quote “Sri Lanka and China ties stand the test of time”. In fact, another task I have during my visit here to Beijing is to attend the 2nd China-Sri Lanka Defence Cooperation Dialogue which will take place on the 13th where we hope to review our cooperation and discuss ways and means of strengthening and expanding defence ties between the two countries.

The concept of civil-military cooperation is also undergoing rapid changes in the current global scenario. In fact it has continued to vary from country to country and during different periods in time. Norms and standards related to civil military cooperation have also remained fluid, with states adopting their own models depending on their particular contexts.

In the case of Sri Lanka, the role of the military is evolving with the changes that have taken place in the internal security environment of the country since the defeat of terrorism in 2009. Particularly in the immediate post conflict phase the military was used to deliver assistance in the North and East where civilian administration needed assistance. Gradually the military was removed from involvement in civilian administration in these areas. It has become evident however, that in some cases the Armed Forces have the capacity and capability of delivering quick assistance on matters of national importance where civilian administration is gathering momentum in its delivery capability and being a developing country with resource constraints Sri Lanka needs to avail itself of such assistance as and when requested and needed.

The changing role of the military in Sri Lanka has also seen their involvement in certain development activities and in disaster management and humanitarian response activities. For example Sri Lankan armed forces personnel supported disaster management efforts in Maldives and Nepal. In the Maldives Sri Lanka deployed a C-130 to transport equipment for a water purifying plant that was affected in Male due to a fire. In the case of Nepal the Sri Lankan armed forces supported the humanitarian response to the earthquake that struck that country in 2015 and continues to support reconstruction efforts there.

As at July/August 2016 the UN maintains 16 peacekeeping missions with approximately 118, 792 personnel (including 100,019 uniformed personnel, 16,471 civilian personnel and 1575 UN volunteers). The approved resources for 2016/2017 are about USD 7.87 billion[ http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/factsheet.shtml]. These operations demonstrate how militaries have adapted to new developments in global governance with peacekeepers working side by side with INGOs, and other stakeholders in very difficult situations.

An important contribution that Sri Lanka has been making for over 5 decades is our modest role in UN Peacekeeping efforts. President Maithripala Sirisena reaffirmed Sri Lanka’s commitment to increase contribution to UN peacekeeping from the Sri Lanka Army, Air Force and Police, including a contingent to Mali. Sri Lanka has contributed to peacekeeping missions in the Central African Republic, Western Sahara, Haiti, Lebanon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur, Liberia, and South Sudan among others[ http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2016/aug16_3.pdf (page 38)].

A clear demonstration of the evolving role of militaries in global governance took place on 3rd of October 2016 at the United Nations Mission in South Sudan where Sri Lanka maintains the SriMed Level II hospital. The peacekeepers from Sri Lanka used some of their spare weekend time to take children from the Protection of Civilians site in Bor, South Sudan through an interactive training session on personal hygiene and cleanliness. The event, held on the premises of the SriMed Level II hospital, hosted 60 children aged 5 to 11 and took place on 1 October, a date Sri Lankans commemorate Children’s Day.[ http://unmiss.unmissions.org/unmiss-bor-conducts-personal-hygiene-session-children]

In Asia-Pacific strategic and defence relations, the Indian Ocean is an important geographical region as its waters connect four major land bodies- Africa, Asia, Australia and Antarctica. 40% of the world’s seaborne crude oil supplies and 50% of the world’s merchant fleet depend upon the uninterrupted security of these waters. It can be understood as a great highway of the High Seas and a wide global commons.

The Indian Ocean is a region where the interests and influence of India, China and the United States has begun to overlap and intersect. In this realm, the role of small yet effective militaries such as that of Sri Lanka is important. One of the most significant Sea Lanes of Communication runs just South of Sri Lanka where close to 200 ships traverse daily carrying energy supplies that fuel the engines of global trade. Sri Lanka together with its partners also has responsibility to ensure the safety, security and livelihoods of the millions of people who inhabit the Indian Ocean littoral spaces and hinterlands. In this context building stronger cooperation in the maritime sphere and ensuring maritime safety and security is critical. The potential “Soft Power” that Sri Lanka could wield considering our critical location in the Indian Ocean region is yet to be fully exploited.

Finally, global governance needs to comprehensively address the issue of climate change, environmental degradation and man’s growing ecological footprint. It is critical for governments to be alert at all times with regard to the ecological impact of military exercises and military operations.

Such ecological consciousness should be an essential component when evolving the future role of militaries in global governance. For example the Indian Ocean is not merely an important sea route connecting the East and the West but also a rich depository of marine resources, minerals, marine life and fisheries and we all have responsibility for its protection and preservation.

The role of militaries in Global Governance is a process of constant development and change. Particularly in a context where the application of hard power has become a last resort, militaries have had to evolve new strategies to keep pace with the dynamic processes that are taking place not only within the sphere of traditional military capacity and capability but also non-traditional facets including role of information and communication technology and electronic media in maintaining peace and stability in a global order.

Sri Lanka is committed to high level dialogue with regions through platforms such as this to ensure a safe and prosperous future for its citizens and the world at large.

The political blind-spot

In September 2015, a furore erupted when President Maithripala Sirisena decided to take his son to the UN General Assembly session in New York

During the visit, the President’s son also sat in on arguably Sri Lanka’s most important bilateral on the sidelines of the UNGA session with Indian PM Narendra Modi

Earlier this month, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe attended the India Economic Summit with former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran in tow

Thursday, 13 October 2016

When it comes to excesses of friends and family, do President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have what it takes to shut it down? Or will they stake the survival of their Government on a desire to protect their own? 

Maithripala Sirisena has a problem that pre-dates his presidency. It’s a ‘problem’ that first manifested on the white sand beaches of Passikudah in February 2013. The sequence of events bore uncanny resemblance to the events at a popular nightclub in Union Place, Colombo last weekend. A perceived slight led to a vicious assault by a gang of unruly, inebriated boys, led by the son of powerful minister in President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Cabinet. The victim, who was critically injured in the assault was the son of DIG Ravi Waidyalankara, then in charge of the Batticaloa area. Waidyalankara, now a Senior DIG, presently heads the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) that is probing some of the biggest corruption cases against leaders of the Rajapaksa Government.

The political blind.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

The ‘Ugly’ Sri Lankan; Racism & Its Uglier Profile

By Vishwamithra1984 –October 12, 2016 

“If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” ~Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

Wikipedia, the twenty first century’s ‘Bible’ of all things that matter, defines racism thus: “Racism is a product of the complex interaction in a given society of a race-based worldview with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination…The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior”. It is an accurate description of this phenomenon that has elevated some communities to the pinnacle of glory; it has destroyed some helpless minorities and reduced them to hapless men and women meandering in the lost streets of civilization. While the concept of ‘race’ has bonded man with man of similar traditions, histories and traits, color of skin, lineage, language and culture, it has also destroyed fellow humans who did not belong to the same category of traits etc. The double-edged nature of race gave birth to its destructive propensities, its capacity to drive ordinary men and women to a frenzy of past grandeur, honor and pride. Things of the past are dead and only the unwise would indulge in the dead.

Race, ethnicity and racism have all been threads, some beautiful and others ugly and gross, that have been closely woven into the larger canvass of humanity. However much philosophers, thinkers, men and women of faith preach, pontificate about the divisions and disunity that race and racism cause, these divisions will continue until the end of time. A utopia in which all humanity is one single family without any separations and partitions will remain beautiful words in a dreamer’s poetry and fairy tales. What would replace and overpower such sublime notions of total harmony is racism and religious differences in whose name more blood has been shed, human lives have been sacrificed and bonds of friendship and kinships have been burst asunder. It is a brutal fact of life on earth.

Yet, man’s pursuit of a more perfect union with his fellow being has never ended; nor would it be retarded by those antagonists who prey on helpless majorities who rarely question sugar-coated venomous messages of the devil who appears in religious cloaks and robes. When these religious scoundrels and folk- heroes launch their bigoted communications, the core teachings and their transcendent wisdom are invariably desecrated and demolished. When coupled with the nagging needs of daily existence, in the case of the not-so-affluent and exceedingly vulgar wants in that of the wealthy, this corruption and contamination of the supreme message of all religions overwhelm the central pivotal need for a more perfect union among men and women.

It has been so in the West and it has been so in the East. Weapons of man have created such a drastic imbalance in the very thinking process of ordinary men and women, these very possessions of weapons are the defining factor in human relationships that have developed over centuries of existence. That malevolent march towards mutual destruction is as old as civilization and particularly in the context of the less wealthy nations, unmitigated slaughter and destruction of fellow men and women this cruel journey has taken hundreds of thousands of victims to their unmarked graves. And in that malefic malaise of human conflict, Sri Lanka has made her manifestly singular presence felt by the international community. During the horrific ethnic war between the two leading communities, Sinhalese and Tamils, excesses committed by both parties linger on as ghastly evidence of man’s inhumanity to man. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) and their comrades-in-arms on the one hand committed unspeakable crimes and death to the Sinhalese whose only sin was being at the wrong place at the wrong time. On the other hand, the Sinhalese majority living in the south of Vavuniya too are as guilty of ethnic cruelties committed on Tamils whose only sin was their ethnicity and the language they spoke.

Read More

What is happening? What can we do?

Featured image courtesy Time

VICTOR IVAN on 10/11/2016

The overall picture that emerges from the January 09, 2015 revolution and the events that have already taken place and are taking place as a result of this change can be summarised as follows.

First of all, the January 09 revolution defeated the corrupt and oppressive regime that was in power. It brought an air of some relief to the country. it saved the country of the most likely threat of international sanctions being imposed against it. It also prevented the country of the possibility of being plunged into a dreadful situation. The policies of the new government towards the minority ethnic groups were more tolerant. It has created an atmosphere in which the minority ethnic groups could live free of fear. However, there is no sign that clearly reflects the governments’ intention or the capacity to go for larger reforms that are needed to overcome the major crisis the country is faced with. The consequences of this situation might eventually lead to intensification of   the existing crisis thereby plunging the country into a more serious crisis.

What is happening What can we do.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Diplomacy: Ranil- Maithri Under Chinese Control!

China invited Gotabaya to the Xiangshan Forum. China had also invited Defence Secretary Karunasena Hettiarachchi and other representatives of the government as well. The question as to whether Gotabaya was representing China or Sri Lanka arises.

by Upul Joseph Fernando 

( October 12, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) During the time of the war when the Rajapaksa Government was hunting for media who were against the Rajapaksas, innocent journalists who wanted to save their lives fled to India. India granted them visas on requests made by western countries led by America. The Rajapaksas were angered because India granted visas to journalists who were against their government. The group consisting of Basil, Gotabaya and Lalith Weeratunga who were sent to deal with India then by Mahinda expressed their opposition to India for granting visas to journalists opposed to the government.

Since the then Indian High Commissioner in this country Alok Prasad was also a pet of the Rajapaksas; he also submitted facts against issuing of these visas. India which accepted the request of the Rajapaksas, immediately ordered the Sri Lankan journalists who came to the country to save their lives to leave. At the same time they halted the issue of Indian visas to journalists who requested them. That is how India, honoured the requests of the Government of Sri Lanka. During the 2010 presidential election, Sarath Fonseka put in much effort to meet the Indian leaders of State. He prepared to go to India through an Indian channel of the Indian Government itself. The Rajapaksas who heard of this expressed their opposition regarding Fonseka meeting the Indian leaders. The Indian Government accepted the plea of the Rajapaksas. The reason was, at that time, it was Mahinda who was the President of the country. Finally even though Fonseka visited India, he did not go to New Delhi. He went to Mumbai instead. The Rajapaksas made sure that Fonseka would not be able to meet an Indian leader while in Mumbai.

An impeachment was brought against the 43rd Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake then, and once she was removed from her post, Indian universities had expressed their willingness to invite her over to lecture. The reason was because she was a Professor and she had written books on the devolution of power. India thought that if they invited her, it would be like a slap on the cheek of the Rajapaksa Government and did not encourage the universities to do so. India which has close relations with politics in Sri Lanka and political leaders, were very careful not to do anything that would damage relations between the Governments of Sri Lanka and India. Mahinda was now preparing for a tour of India. He got down invitations from temples and kovils in India and was wondering whether he could meet Narendra Modi. However, it was clear that Modi was not prepared to meet Mahinda. When Modi came to Sri Lanka, Mahinda met Modi without an invitation by pleading and demanding an opportunity to meet him.

Mahinda‘s government

During the time of Mahinda’s Government, if India wanted to do so, they had the ability to get down Fonseka and Shirani Bandaranayake to their country and pinch Mahinda. However, India was not that uncivilized.

China was a country that dealt with each government that came into power in Sri Lanka. In 1977, when JR came into power, China who strengthened their relations with the UNP, forgot about their historic friends who were the Bandaranaikes as if they were throwing away curry leaves (karapincha.) It was a surprise for Madame Bandaranaike too. While she was in the Opposition, she did not receive an invitation even to visit China. The reason was China was not keen on displeasing JR’s Government.

While dealing very carefully with Sri Lanka, China getting down for a security conference, Gotabaya Rajapaksa who had Court cases filed against him by the Government of Sri Lanka accusing him of having defrauded public money in Sri Lanka via the Avant Garde transaction, was similar to a slap on the cheek of the government of Sri Lanka. Gotabaya went to China, while requesting that the ban on his travelling abroad issued by the Court be removed temporarily. Getting a defendant who has been named by the government to have defrauded public money to attend a security conference in China caused more than enough harm not only to the Maithri-Ranil Government but to entire Sri Lanka as a country.

China invited Gotabaya to the Xiangshan Forum. China had also invited Defence Secretary Karunasena Hettiarachchi and other representatives of the government as well. The question as to whether Gotabaya was representing China or Sri Lanka arises.

If the Maithri-Ranil Government had a straight spine and stood up straight, China would not engage in such jokes. China considered Buddhist Leader Dalai Lama as an enemy and it is not possible to bring down Dalai Lama to Sri Lanka because if it is done, China has hinted and warned Sri Lanka that it will be an act of enmity that Sri Lanka commits against them. If the Maithri-Ranil Government warns China about inviting their political enemies, who have accusations against depriving Sri Lanka of public money, to China, there would be no doubt that China would fear that.

Solution to the drought: Why not desalination plants like in the Gulf

2016-10-13

Sri Lanka has been struggling for several decades to get rid of the problem of water shortage  during the drought in many provinces and we are still transporting water by bowsers to the areas where there is no water.  

Way back in 2001 the writer suggested to a Senior Minister in the then Ranil Wickremesinghe Cabinet to have desalination plants in the North and South in areas close to the sea, only to be told that it’s very costly. The minister was told lets start somewhere.  

One might wonder how countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain are having no water shortage even during the height of summer. They have desalination plants which provide the people drinking water from purified sea water.  

The Gulf countries never run short of water even at the height of summer. How is it that Saudi Arabia has greenhouses which has tomatoes and several other types of vegetables being grown. They have tiny tubes fitted to all plants in the island on all roads with taps fitted at the bottom of the trees to water the plants during summer.  

Those plants rarely die, they are watered regularly. All this is because they have enough supply of water from the desalination plants.  

Saudi Arabia is the largest producer of desalinated water. Oman has the largest desalination plant.   
Many of our politicians and even Heads of State have visited the Gulf but never ever did anyone think of asking their hosts, where they get their supply of water from. How do they maintain the plants in the islands in the roads, how come the people are not complaining about a water shortage at any time.  

Here in Sri Lanka surrounded by the sea why cant we have desalination plants in places like Hambantota, Negombo, Mannar, Jaffna which is closer to the sea and give purified water to the people so that they wont have to face another drought another time.  

Spending colossal amounts of money on various projects will not do if the people cannot get drinking water every day. Sky scrappers galore in the city and suburbs from where are they getting their water for construction and once they are completed.  

These are questions asked by those in the drought stricken areas. Look at the plight of the men, women, children with no water to drink and no water to wash their clothes. Clothes and uniforms washed in muddy and dirty water.  

We appeal to the President and Prime Ministers give it a thought, you can do it and please do it fast. Lets have at least one desalination plant before the next drought.  Kuwait and the other Gulf states if I am not mistaken provide free drinking water to its people thanks to the desalination plants they have.  Sharqiyah Desalination Company SAOC (SDC) owns and operates the Desalination Plant in Sur, Oman, which is a unique world-class solution for the Sharqiyah region with its growing population and economic importance.  

SDC helps to fight the depletion of the region’s limited groundwater resource by processing more than 200,000 m3/ day of seawater from its unique beach-well catchment – the largest in the World. SDC produces 80,000 m3/ day of drinking water using reverse osmosis (RO) process with very high energy efficiency, recycling over 97% of the mechanical energy and saving up to 40% more energy than a conventional reverse osmosis plant. The plant’s unique facility also eliminates the requirement for chemical pre-treatment and ensures minimal impact on the marine and coastal ecology. 

---

The Desalination Plant is operated and maintained by ISO-certified Bahwan Veolia Water Company owned by leaders in water technology and engineering – Veolia and Bahwan Engineering Company.  
This contract is an achievement for Veolia:  

• The innovative and pioneering use of the beach wells is very efficient and this is presently the largest beach well facility ever built in the world for desalination process.  
• The Relationships between Veolia and its partner /client are excellent.  
• The Sur plant has become a reference point for Veolia in Oman 

Max capacity: 80,000 m3 / day – Drinking water
Number of Employees: 40
Starting Date: January 2007
Contract Duration: 2 + 20 Years

Co-management contract: Public Authority for Electricity and Water.  

The Sultanate of Oman is one of the countries in the world with the fastest economic growth since 1970. Water resource is key to support Oman’s development and people.  

The Public Authority for Electricity and Water is responsible for providing drinking water in Oman, a strategic resource to 2.3 million Omanis.  

PAEW will face two major challenges in the next two decades:  
1. A significant growth of water assets and service coverage – with an objective of supplying piped water to more than 90% of the Omani population  
2. The need for service and performance improvement to meet the growing customers’ expectations.  
In order to get prepared, PAEW decided to launch a co-management contract awarded in 2011 to Veolia.  

Social media engulfed by Pyramid disaster..! Facebook enthusiasts beware..!

(Lanka-e-News -11.Oct.2016, 11.30PM) A corrupt ‘Pyramid  scam’ like campaign is on a wild spree  after having crept into the space of  ‘face book’ which is most popular in Sri Lanka (SL) .This scam  is being  publicized via diverse methods in different countries .

The ‘Pyramid scheme’ methodologies being most deleterious  to world ethical norms  and Enterprises , many countries have banned this scheme. However since these ethical norms have not been incorporated into the United Nations rules and regulations . Perhaps it is because ‘Mark Suckerberg’ thinks it is a shame to do that the publicity of the Pyramid racketeers are still allowed  to invade the  social media network. Consequent upon this  , such notifications  are being publicized via the facebook  while conveying the impression those are not such notifications.

Nevertheless in countries where ethical values are revered and respected , the notifications of these “Pyramid” scoundrels via social media network  have been forbidden , yet these Pyramid scoundrels have found methods and means to creep through the fence to achieve their deadly aims and objectives. 

This contagion is fast spreading  among  the illiterate gullible Sri Lankans . 

Lanka e news therefore  deems it is its responsibility to issue a dire warning in this regard.

We warn you not  to fall prey to face book publicity gimmick that you can become a millionaire instantly .

We are requesting the public in earnest , not to be lured by the thought ‘ let us see what he is saying’ with a view to probing into that because even if you just casually turn your attention to that , the methodology to earn filthy lure  is embedded by the scoundrels in the social media network. In  order to halt this disaster in its tracks ,  Lanka e news international office has taken steps in this direction . More information in this connection shall follow. We urge the IT officials in SL to  sharply focus their attention on this issue, with a view to rescue the ignorant citizens .

---------------------------
by     (2016-10-12 22:37:37)

Central bank should punish wrongdoers and protect whistle-blowers

Oct 12, 2016

Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) has issued a statement after its investigations report on the controversial Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) has been leaked. CBSL does not deny the authenticity of the leaked report and states that it was only a preliminary report.

The socialization of the report is a progressive move so that the public is made aware of the real facts surrounding the treasury bonds controversy which has caused Sri Lanka grave financial consequences. Those who leaked the report have given us access to information that could have never reached us, but concerns the people of the country directly.

Anti-Corruption Front (ACF) was the organization that publicized the two controversial Treasury bond deals carried out by the CBSL in 2015 and 2016. ACF advisor Rajith Keerthi Tennakoon took legal action to prevent Arjun Mahendran from being reappointed the CBSL governor. ACF took these actions to reveal one of the most significant financial irregularities which took place in recent history.

Instead of launching an investigation to determine who leaked this report, the CBSL must take action against those who are responsible for this financial scam, which led to an erosion of trust of the people on the CBSL. ACF believes that those who leaked the report should be protected, that is the only way to encourage people coming forward to reveal irregularities in various establishments.

Given below are some of the significant revelations from the leaked report

CBSL has carried out internal investigations from November 24 to 26, 2015, July 26 to 28, 2016 and August 4-6, 2016.

Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL), owned by Arjun Aloysius, son-in-law of former Central Bank Governor – Arjuna Mahendran, has placed bids outside the interest rates of the market. It is an illegal action.

Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) has not revealed the list of its customers, timely and truthfully, to the Lanka Secure System.

Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) has signed 172 MRA agreements and 132 agreements with various clients by May 2016.

Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) has placed bids, beyond its financial capabilities, in Treasury Bond auction.

During the Treasury Bond auction on 29 and 31 March 2016 Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) has placed bids worth 49.4 billion and according to laws it should have paid 42 billion as acceptance credit by April 1, 2016. However they didn't even have the financial capacity to pay Rs 36 billion. This it has to take a substantial debt, from Reverse Repo Auction, financial market and one day liquidity facility.

Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) has to pay Rs 21.3 million as a fine since they were not able to pay up.

However Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) was able to get capital worth Rs 4652.7 million from selling treasury bonds it obtained.

Ms. Inoka Mohotty, deputy director of CBSL, has prepared this report and there were moves to transfer her to another department to thwart the investigation.

Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) has made a net profit of Rs 5.1 billion by the end of the financial year which falls on march 31, 2016. Compared to the net profit of Rs 0.9 billion, this is an increase of 430%. This is a massive profit for a company that only employs 20 people.

ACF believes that those who leaked this report must be protected and it will mediate if anyone attempts to punish those whistle-blowers.

Probe On How Yoshitha, Grand Aunt Built ‘Palaces’ in Mt. Lavinia

by Nirmala Kannangara-Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Yoshitha Rajapaksa at FCID

Investigations carried out by the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) have unearthed how the grand aunt of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa offspring – Daisy Forest – had paid millions of rupees to nine individuals to acquire a land to extend a family property at Dehiwela – Mt. Lavinia.

Daisy Forest, aunt of Mary Laud Wickremasinghe alias Shiranthi Rajapaksa, is now under an

intense probe as to how she collected Rs. 49.52 million to purchase a 30-perch land at Mt. Lavinia and a land which falls under the Dehiwela-Mt. Lavinia Cooperative Society. Ninety-year-old Ms. Forest had bought over the adjoining lands in 2013 and is said to have gifted it to her grand nephew Yoshitha Rajapaksa.

Following charges levelled against Yoshitha Rajapaksa over alleged financial irregularities and criminal breach of trust, Yoshitha and his grand aunt are now being questioned under the Money Laundering Act to find out as to how they acquired millions of rupees to build two palatial houses on the land in question and how Ms. Forest raised Rs. 49.52 million to pay nine individuals in the neighbourhood of 173/2, Mihindu Mawatha, Mt. Lavinia.

The 38-perch land at 173/2, Mihindu Mawatha, Mt. Lavinia was owned by Shiranthi Rajapaksa and she is alleged to have got it extended further to ‘suit’ her family status when her husband was the Head of State.

“This land had been later gifted to her second son Yoshitha Kanishka Rajapaksa on October 12, 2015 through deed number 3221 by Notary Public Weeraman. Since this particular land was ‘too small’ for the Rajapaksas the adjoining lands to the extent of 30 perches had been bought over by Daisy Forest of 210/12, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 05. The Torrington property in Colombo 5 too is now under probe to find out how the Rajapaksas got the money to purchase it as originally it was owned by Prabath Nanayakkara, who was close to Mahinda Rajapaksa from the time he was the Opposition Leader. It was in this house Mahinda Rajapaksa had lived after becoming the Opposition Leader and thereafter when he became the President in 2005, this property had been bought over by Mary Laud Wickremasinghe bearing National Identity Card No: 535233314V on April 5, 2013 for Rs. 35 million. If Rajapaksas and Wickremasinghes are born rich and had wealth, it would not be a problem but if they have not inherited such a vast amount of money, they will have to reveal how they got these money to purchase properties in well residential areas in Colombo 5 and also at Mt. Lavinia,” reliable FCID inside sources said.

The sources, who wished to remain anonymous, said the investigations that are now being conducted into the Mt. Lavinia property to find out how Ms. Forest raised money to the tune of Rs. 49.52 million when her past records shows that she did not have much movable or immovable wealth of her own, have raised serious questions.

“The two palatial houses, which were constructed in the said land, comprises an underground bunker similar to that of the bunker built at President’s House in Fort during Rajapaksa’s tenure as the President,  is believed to be worth over Rs. 1,000 million. Yoshitha Rajapaksa was a government servant for a few years and from his monthly remuneration he couldn’t have built such a large house and therefore the investigators have to investigate who gave the money to get this house built.

When tracing back to his parents past wealth, it has now revealed that they did not have such a large wealth at the time Mahinda Rajapaksa entered politics in 1970s nor his wife Shiranthi Rajapaksa from her birth. If so how did Yoshitha get this money? Since legal action had been taken against Yoshitha under the Money Laundering Act with regard to the Carlton Sports Network (CSN) although he claims that he does not own the TV and Radio channel, the Rajapaksas are further getting into trouble for money laundering,” sources added.

According to FCID investigations, the 30-perch land Daisy Forest had bought over was owned by nine individuals – Stephen Fernando, Irene de Silva, Cyril Fernando, Hemalatha Ranaweera, Mebal Suraweera, Patrick Fernando, Asalin Fernando, Admin Fernando and Violet Fernando.

“At the time this land was purchased, there was a patrician case (147/ 95/ P) pending at the District Court Mt. Lavinia. Because of the pending patrician case, through Notary Weeraman, the owners came to a sales agreement with Daisy Forest to sell the patrician land to her. Hence sales agreements bearing numbers 3084, 3085, 3086, 3087, 3088, 3089, 3090, 3091 and 3092 were signed and on August 19, 2013 the land had been sold to Ms. Forest through deed No: 3107, 3108, 3109 and 3158,” sources claimed.

The sources further revealed how Ms. Forest had paid Rs. 7.5 million to Stephan Fernando, Rs. 3.54 million to Irene Fernando, Rs. 7 million to Cyril Fernando, Rs. 6 million to Hemalatha Ranaweera, Rs. 3.34 million to Mebal Suraweera, Rs. 7 million to Patrick Fernando, Rs. 2.5 million to Asalin Fernando, Rs. 1.5 million to Admin Fernando and Rs. 3.34 to Violet Fernando.

“Since there were few others who did not possess deeds for the said land but were claiming ownership to it from the patrician case, the Notary got them to sign a deed of renunciation to renounce their rights and title through deed of renunciation No: 3106 dated March 6, 2013,” sources claimed.

Refuting allegations the Rajapaksas are levelling charges against the FCID claiming the FCID is carrying out a government contract to sling mud at Rajapaksa clan. The sources said that if any law enforcement authority has taken action against them against the law of the land, the Rajapaksas can take legal action.

“Based on a complaint lodged against the Mt. Lavinia property, we initiated an inquiry and had recorded statements from Daisy Forest and Yoshitha Rajapaksa and even from other parties involved in these transactions. In such a background how can the Rajapaksas point the finger at the law enforcement authorities of the country?” sources added.

The sources further said as to how Rajapaksas disclaimed their involvement in the CSN and added that there were no claimers to the money CSN was having in their bank accounts.

“After the FCID started off the investigation on the controversial CSN under the Money Laundering Act, they unearthed how the D. A. Rajapaksa Foundation had breached the agreement reached they entered with the UDA when obtaining the state-owned land, where the CSN building is now situated.

Although this land had been given on condition, that it should not be used for any purpose other than for the D. A. Rajapaksa Foundation, the building in question had been constructed to house the CSN TV network in 2010, and it is alleged that after the fall of the Rajapaksa regime on January 8, a lease agreement has been signed by the Rajapaksa Foundation with CSN hurriedly, to show that this land had been taken over legally from the Foundation.

Although the government valuers have valued this building at Rs. 200 million, they are yet to submit the accounts as to how they obtained the money. Chief Executive Officer of the Rajapaksa Foundation, Upul Dissanayake, had said that the money had been given by W. Karunajeewa, the former Chairman, People’s Bank, whose daughter-in-law was one of the Directors at CSN,” sources said

According to the sources, Rajapaksa offspring have continuously failed to explain how they amassed wealth which runs into several hundreds of millions of rupees to purchase the Dehiwala land at Mihindu Mawatha and to build the two palatial luxury houses, and also to construct the CSN office building at Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla.

“No one is there now for Rajapaksa’s rescue. They have time to tell the investigators who funded them or how they earned the money to spend on these projects,” sources added.