Novel drugs for depression

A new generation of drugs could change the way depression is treated

Oct 15th 2016

IT STARTED out as LY110141. Its inventor, Eli Lilly, was not sure what to do with it. Eventually the company found that it seemed to make depressed people happier. So, with much publicity and clever branding, Prozac was born. Prozac would transform the treatment of depression and become the most widely prescribed antidepressant in history. Some users described it as “bottled sunshine”. It attained peak annual sales (in 1998) of $3 billion and at the last count had been used by 54m people in 90 countries. And, along the way, it embedded into the public consciousness a particular idea about how depression works—that it is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, which the drug corrects. Unfortunately, this idea seems to be only part of the story.

In science it is good to have a hypothesis to frame one’s thinking. The term “chemical imbalance” is just such a thing. It is a layman’s simplification of the monoamine hypothesis, which has been the prevalent explanation for depression for almost 50 years. Monoamines are a class of chemical that often act as messenger molecules (known technically as neurotransmitters) between nerve cells in the brain. Many antidepressive drugs boost the level of one or other of these chemicals. In the case of Prozac, the monoamine in question is serotonin.

The monoamine hypothesis, though, is under attack. One long-standing objection is that, although drugs such as Prozac raise levels of their target monoamine quite quickly, the symptoms of depression may take weeks, or even months to abate—if, indeed, they do abate, for many patients do not respond to such drugs at all. Now, to add to that, a second objection has emerged. This is the discovery that ketamine, a drug long used as an anaesthetic and which is also popular recreationally, works, too, as a fast-acting antidepressant. Ketamine’s mode of action is not primarily on monoamines, so the race is on to use what knowledge there is of the way it does work to design a new class of antidepressant. This is a change of direction so radical that some think it heralds a revolution in psychiatry.

Special K

Ketamine works for 75% of patients who have been resistant to other forms of treatment, such as Prozac (which works in 58% of patients). Moreover, it works in hours, sometimes even minutes, and its effects last for several weeks. A single dose can reduce thoughts of suicide. As a result, although it has not formally been approved for use in depression, it is widely prescribed “off label”, and clinics have sprouted up all over America, in particular, to offer infusions of the drug (which must be taken intravenously, if it is to work). Anecdotal reports suggest that it has already saved many lives.

Ketamine’s rise has been gradual. The discovery of its efficacy against depression happened a decade ago. Conducting clinical trials of new uses for drugs whose patents have expired is not a high priority for pharmaceutical companies, which generally prefer to test new molecules whose patents they own—and without such trials, formal approval for a new use cannot be forthcoming. Now, though, novel ketamine-related treatments are emerging.

One such is esketamine. Normal ketamine is a mixture of two molecules that are mirror images of each other. Esketamine is just one of these “optical isomers”. Though it, too, is off-patent, Johnson & Johnson, a large American drug company that is developing it for use, hopes it will have the same positive effects as the unsorted isomeric mixture, but without side-effects such as hallucinations, dizziness and “dissociation”—a feeling of being awake but detached from one’s surroundings.

By changing its formulation so that it can be administered in the form of a nasal spray, the firm both makes esketamine easier to use than isomerically mixed ketamine and creates something patentable. Preliminary evidence suggests esketamine does indeed work, and the firm is seeking approval for it to be used to treat two conditions: major depressive disorder with imminent risk of suicide, and treatment-resistant depression.

Other companies, though, are taking a different approach, by studying ketamine’s mode of action and attempting to imitate the way it works. Many people think ketamine affects the action of a common neurotransmitter called glutamate, by blocking the activity of receptors for this molecule. One hypothesis is that it interacts with a glutamate receptor called NMDA that had never previously been thought to be involved in depression. Several firms are therefore seeking to mimic the effect of ketamine by aiming at the NMDA receptor.

One such is Allergan, an Irish company that last year paid $560m to buy Naurex, an American biotech firm whose NMDA-blocking drug rapastinel is intended as a once-a-week intravenous treatment. Evidence from an early trial shows rapastinel is well tolerated, does not induce hallucinations and seems to work quickly. Allergan plans to start more extensive trials later this year. Nor is Allergan alone in its interest in the NMDA route. Other firms working on molecules that interact with this receptor, or with a special flavour of it called NR2B, include AstraZeneca, Avanir Pharmaceuticals and Cerecor.

Reception committee

It would be a mistake, though, to think that science has now reached a neat conclusion about how depression acts in the brain. One surprise came earlier this year in the form of work published by Carlos Zarate of America’s National Institutes of Health, who is a pioneer in the field. This study suggests that, in mice at least, ketamine is not working directly on the NMDA receptor, but rather on another glutamate receptor. This finding will not matter to Johnson & Johnson, because esketamine mimics the effects of normal ketamine, which is known to work. But it may mean those taking the NMDA route with other molecules are barking up the wrong tree.

As to the specifics of Dr Zarate’s study, Husseini Manji, the head of neuroscience at Johnson & Johnson, says it is possible that this work identified an additional way to generate antidepressive effects. Even if ketamine is found to work via another receptor, this does not preclude it working via NMDA. Armin Szegedi, who runs clinical development of the drug rapastinel at Allergan, makes the same argument. He explains that all the glutamate receptors seem to interact with each other as well, and act as a complicated system.

Time will tell who is correct, but such minutiae will matter less than whether one of these new approaches works. Lots of drugs, for many indications, work well, even though no one knows precisely how. The important point, though, is that ketamine has opened up a new line of attack on a horrible illness—and that this attack is being pressed relentlessly home.

This article appeared in the Print Edition with the headline: Sniffing at a new solution

From the print edition: Science and technology

Yahapalanaya in public service

2016-10-15

Public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It must be a complete dedication to the people and to the nation. –Margaret Chase Smith 

The theme of the 29th Annual Conference of the Organization of Professional Associations (OPA) held recently was "Good Governance –The Way Forward", where there was a discourse by professionals on the different aspects of good governance, which is now commonly known by its Sinhala term Yahapalanaya in Sri Lanka.

Of course, the scope of good governance encompasses the importance of transparency, accountability, predictability, efficiency, Rule of Law, sovereignty of the people, anti-corruption, independence of the judiciary, stakeholder participation and freedom of expression. Sri Lanka has suffered substantially due to the failure in upholding many of these values in the past mostly due to the adoption of undemocratic and often ill-conceived policies and practices in implementing varied development programmes. The determination of the government as expressed by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to overcome these tendencies would usher in a new era for the future of our motherland.

This article offers a concise view of the areas that need to be addressed on some fundamental issues affecting Sri Lanka's public service.

Media freedom

The new government has already taken many steps to restore good governance by recognizing the services to the nation by the former Army Commander by granting the due promotions in service and removing certain restrictions placed on media freedom, which are welcome steps indeed, that should be further strengthened with concerted efforts taken aimed at improving transparency in the maintenance of law and order and making dedicated efforts to ensure effective administration of the principles of natural justice. Subsequent to the repeal of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution the establishment of the Independent Commissions such as a Judicial Services Commission, a Police Commission, a Public Service Commission, an Election Commission, a Commission against Bribery and Corruption, an Audit Service Commission and a Human Rights Commission has ensured the transparency and democratization process of governance.

The effectiveness of these commissions however, depends to a great extent on the selection of commissioners who have a proven record of integrity and honesty and demonstrated ability to act with impartiality and fairness on issues referred to these commissions for adjudication. The efficiency of commissions to act with due diligence and propriety would also depend on the quality of staff engaged to work in these commissions. It is in this respect that much has to be done to restore confidence of the people in the public service which has diminished over time due to a variety of reasons. It is appropriate to consider the public sector performance at this point.

Public service

The public service inter alia consists of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service, Educational Administrative Service, Overseas Service, Police Service, Customs Service, Accountants' Service, Planning Service, Agricultural Service, Valuers' Service, Scientific Service, Engineering Service, Animal Protection and Health Service, Surveyors' Service, Architects' Service, Judicial Officers' Service, Legal Officers' Service, Medical Officers' Service, Inland Revenue Service, Wildlife Service, Nursing Service, Principals' Service, Teaching Service and Development Officers' Service. There are other support services as well.

The varying standards applied to recruitment to public sector positions contributed to some quality deterioration. Consequent to the replacement of the Ceylon Civil Service with the Sri Lanka Administrative Service in 1963 large scale recruitment took place for higher level positions, albeit with relatively less onerous requirements, ostensibly on the premise that larger numbers were required to fill vacancies that had multiplied consequent to increased public sector involvement in diverse activities, including statutory undertakings. While the quality of most public servants who entered the service was not in any way inferior to those who were admitted earlier, the level of admission requirements and the kind of in-house training provided before they were posted to responsible positions were reported to be less intensive and inadequate to meet the levels of leadership required for discharging their functions.

In-house training

In-house training before substantive postings became less and less emphasized also because of the compelling need to fill public sector vacancies expeditiously in government institutions. Although the situation has shown signs of improvement in recent years, the backlog of qualitative deficiencies added to declining performance levels.

It must be emphasized that the efficiency of the public sector diminished due to politicization to a large extent. However, when public servants made use of this opportunity to seek favours and ignore tradition-bound value systems and ethical conduct, a service that had built its reputation on its ability to withstand political pressures, maintain impartiality, objectivity and transparency in its dealings since the time of the British rule, began to deteriorate. Loyalty was linked to political parties and individuals rather than to institutions and programmes. Elevations in service were determined not on the basis of performance appraisals but on the basis of a public servant's political affiliations and influence.

Reward system

There were no reward systems based on performance and there had also been no systematized approaches to adopting punitive measures against those who underperformed. Except when issues became complex and serious irregularities were reported public servants got away with indiscipline and poor performance, largely unnoticed or ignored. The inadequacies in the disciplinary framework seriously impaired the efficient functioning of the public sector.

Punctuality, discipline and commitment to work became rare commodities, partly because public servants did not have the opportunity to look up to any improvements in their career prospects. Irregularities in promotions and transfer, including political patronage brought about demoralization and frustration among those who had expected to build a career within their service. Inadequate salaries and poor working conditions have also had deleterious effects on productivity.It is noteworthy that the government as one of its first initiatives increased the salaries of public servants thereby signifying the need for improving the morale and efficiency of the public sector.

Superfluous staff

The government dedicated to Yahapalanaya should take immediate steps to guide the public sector in the proper direction by re-assignment of superfluous staff in ministries and departments. Revised recruitment procedures should be enunciated giving emphasis to competence, qualifications and integrity issues. Elevation in service should be based solely on competence and performance based assessment. Political interference in these matters should be terminated.

There should be a systematic approach to provision of training to the different levels of staff based on priority needs identified through annual performance appraisals. Public sector organizations should be held accountable for results and this would be possible only if public servants are fully conversant with results-based management concepts. Incentives should be granted to high performers among the public sector staff to uplift the morale and enthusiasm and contribute to enhanced performance. Lack of such a system has often been highlighted as one of the factors contributing to less than satisfactory performance. The role of the public sector in Sri Lanka to accelerate development would increase substantially in the future consequent to increased economic activity.

Decision making

Capacity to absorb increased aid would be largely dependent on the extent to which public service reforms are carried out, including the introduction of new results based procedures and processes for enhanced decision making, and commitment to deliver. Decision making must be devoid of political patronage and should be based on judgments that reflect the integrity and impartiality of decision makers.

In conclusion, good governance and development would depend on the quality, integrity, commitment and dedication of the public service which has the overall task of implementing development programmes for reconstruction and development at both central and provincial levels. In order to uplift the morale of the public service suitable salary increases accompanied by the introduction of incentives systems in order to reward superior performance and increased productivity should be put in place in order to achieve Yahapalanaya in Sri Lanka's public service. As Margaret Chase Smith, a well-known American politician has very correctly stated and quoted at the outset our public servants should remember that public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It must be a complete dedication to the people and to the nation.

The writer is an Attorney-at-Law with LLB, LLM, MPhil (Colombo)

Violence against women: Sri Lanka’s next human rights challenge

Chamathya Fernando, a 23-year old activist against gender-based violence, leads a workshop in Batticaloa. (Credit: Chamathya Fernando)

BY LISA NIKOLAU ON 14 OCTOBER 2016

After decades of civil conflict, Sri Lanka has made enormous advances for women in terms ofhealth and education, but a rising rate of violence against women has demanded extra efforts from activists in the south Asian country.

Multiple rights organizations have noted that violence against women worsened as a result of the civil war, which ended in May 2009.

In fact, Sri Lankan representative for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) Lene K. Christiansennoted the trend back in 2008, before the end of the war: “The prevalence of gender-based violence is reported to be high and widespread, cutting across class, race, ethnicity and religion. While some positive measures to address gender-based violence through enactment of laws are in place, it remains hidden in the private domain, shrouded by a veil of silence and denial.”

Seven years later, Christiansen’s statement is still right on the mark. The Women’s U.N. Report Network says 30 percent to 40 percent of women in Sri Lanka today suffer from some kind of violence, while more than 60 percent of women across Sri Lanka are victims of domestic violence. Women are routinely harassed both verbally and physically when traveling by bus, train or even walking on the street.

According to a report by UNFPA last year, gender-based violence is especially prevalent in areas most affected by the conflict, but violence and harassment is pervasive across socioeconomic groups.

Women’s rights activists have repeatedly expressed concern that gender-based violence, which includes sexual violence and torture, is drastically underreported in Sri Lanka. Even where incidences are reported, activists say they are poorly investigated and not taken seriously by authorities. Many of these advocates have stepped up in recent years to push Sri Lankans to challenge these deeply rooted aspects of their society.

A diverse group of participants at a workshop at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Jaffna, Sri Lanka. (Chamathya Fernando)

“People sometimes try to put the blame on culture … or use culture as an excuse,” saidChamathya Fernando, a 23-year-old activist against gender-based violence, in an interview with Humanosphere. “But I don’t think any culture would say they harass women or abuse children, so I think it’s the culture of silence, the culture of ignorance and impunity.”

Fernando is Sri Lanka’s coordinator for the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts’ (WAGGGS) Stop the Violence campaign, which strives for a world where all girls are safe, valued and empowered. Fernando is one of 65 trainers rolling out an informal educational curriculum in Sri Lanka to help young girls and women start the conversation about gender-based violence and build the confidence and skills to take action.

By teaching young women and girls to recognize harassment as wrong, Fernando hopes to help foster a generation of women in Sri Lanka who can speak out for their own rights. But one of the biggest challenges for activists against gender-based violence in Sri Lanka is the strong social stigma that deters males from holding one another accountable for their actions and discourages females from seeking help.

A 2013 U.N. Survey highlighted this culture of silence. The survey revealed that nearly 15 percent of Sri Lankan men have committed rape, 65 percent of which had done so on more than one occasion. Of all the men surveyed, only 5 percent said they had been convicted and jailed for their crimes. Sri Lankan law only recognized marital rape as a crime if the husband and wife are legally divorced.

Although Sri Lanka is not unique in its experience of gender-based violence, which plagues women around the world, a lack of data makes it difficult for activists to determine where the rates of violence are most prevalent and what resources are needed to foster change. Over the three years Fernando has worked with the WAGGGS campaign, however, the hopeful activist said she has already noticed more willingness from civilians in even the most conservative rural regions of the country to simply engage in conversations about gender-based violence.

“When I initially started, the response wasn’t very good. People were actually a bit reluctant to be open about it, or to speak about it freely,” she said. “But with time … I feel we see a little bit of change in attitudes of people, and also behavior.”

MEDIA: NOW A DANGER TO DEMOCRACY

SUKUMAR MURALIDHARAN.-Thursday, October 13,2016

NEW DELHI: Since the September 18 attack on an Indian army post in the north Kashmir town of Uri, the media in this country has plunged into a mood of bellicosity, extreme even by its usual standards.

It was a matter of some convenience that in the near-religious fervour with which the “martyrdom” of eighteen Indian service personnel was observed, two months of strife in the Kashmir valley – that had been casually reported as treasonous, anti-national and dangerously fanatical – was quickly forgotten.

Immediately following Uri, the news website thequint.com reported that a retaliatory raid had been carried out by the Indian army, inflicting serious casualties on the Pakistan side of Kashmir’s Line of Control (LoC). A categorical denial was swiftly issued from army headquarters, after which other media outlets – resentful till then about missing a possible news break – jumped into the fray with unseemly delight. Far from any manner of effort to ascertain what really happened, they seemed to find greater joy in a competitor’s embarrassment.

The news website in the thick of it all was not about to back away from its fanciful reporting. It claimed to have carried out a further round of fact checks and determined it had been right all along.

Meanwhile, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) a specialised body dealing with terrorism cases, had found little corroboration for the story line that the media almost reflexively spun immediately after Uri.

Savage raiders coming into Indian territory invariably carry some identification marks that could be traced back to malevolent agencies from the enemy state in the west. That was unsurprisingly, the first account of the Uri incident that the media offered, following accustomed practice of not seeking evidence.

When the Indian Express reported that the NIA’s preliminary investigations had revealed no such evidence of overt involvement from the other side, army headquarters reacted in extreme anger, demanding a prior factual check over reporting involving its operations.

There has of course, been only one period when media reports were subject to prior restraint, and that was the ill-remembered emergency of the mid-1970s. Fortunately, this new power of censorship was not pursued any further, perhaps because the army really had no reason to worry. Except for the occasional flash of independence, the media has never been far from rolling over in abject submission to any agenda that is proclaimed to serve a putative national security interest.

On September 29, the Director-General of Military Operations in India’s army headquarters summoned a formal media briefing at which he announced that a cross-border operation had been carried out beginning the previous night and ending at daybreak, in which a number of terror “launch pads” had been destroyed and a significant number of enemy casualties inflicted.

A wave of euphoria swept over the media. Evening prime-time news broadcasts were suffused with greater than usual bluster. And just as the news channels were lending their full-throated support to street vigilante efforts to eject all Pakistan nationals from cultural activities in India, they were paying out good money to have certified hawks and retired military personnel from that country on prime-time shows, to be verbally savaged by bumptious anchors.

The news website thequint.com rushed into the fray with a detailed account of the operation headlined “Uri avenged”, which reported that attack helicopters had been used to take crack Indian army commandos across the border and evacuate them after the mission was completed.

The next day, The Times of India reported that the commandos had set off on foot, traversed a wide circuit within enemy territory, carried out their actions and safely returned to base by the break of day. But the factual details were seemingly superfluous, since the main theme of the day’s report was the newspaper’s magical clairvoyance in being the first to predict, immediately after Uri, that India was actively looking at retaliation options.

Meanwhile, the NDTV news website was celebrating the successful operation which had been carried out without the slightest scratch being suffered by the Indian soldiers. Other newspapers and websites reported minor injuries. The Hindustan Times reported that helicopters had been used to ferry the commandos while most others stuck to the story line of a trudge on foot into enemy territory and back.

Certain details involving the well-being of service personnel completely eluded the Indian media. On the day of the operation, the website of Karachi based Dawn reported that one Indian soldier had been captured. All Indian papers either ignored or vehemently denied that, before finally admitting in their print editions the following day, that he had “inadvertently” crossed the border and been taken captive.

This minor inconvenience was quickly forgotten, as the BJP began its triumphal procession through the news studios. Hoardings were soon springing up in town and village squares of poll bound Uttar Pradesh, boosting the Indian army achievement as a hammer blow against terrorism, and crudely appropriating the entire glory for the BJP’s national and local political leadership.

Pakistan for its part, was sticking to the story line that nothing of any consequence had occurred, beyond a minor flare-up in small arms fire across the LoC. A media party taken on an army conducted tour to various parts on that side of the LoC returned convinced, and for a brief while that story dominated the news cycle in Pakistan.

On October 6, despite the anxious efforts at damage control, Dawn came up with a story suggesting fresh sources of discord between the civilian leadership and army in Pakistan. Worried about the international isolation and odium that Pakistan was falling into, the political leadership had ostensibly demanded that the army rein in the various Islamic warrior groups it had nurtured. The army command was resisting this move, suggesting a fresh eruption of the civilian-military volatility that has plagued Pakistan’s state structure.

Army HQ in Pakistan and the Prime Minister’s office were quick with their denials. Dawn stuck to its story. On October 11, the reporter who had investigated and written the story, Cyril Almedia, was placed on a so-called “exit control list”, restraining him from travelling out of the country. Dawn responded with public statements of support for their reporter from the publisher, Hameed Haroon and editor, Zafar Abbas.

Basic freedoms on both sides were beginning to be threatened in the overwrought atmosphere of hostility towards the other, a public mood described by the former civil servant Gopalakrishna Gandhi in a rare interlude of media sanity, as “hate-riotism”.

If the spirited response of Dawn was something that freedom loving individuals from both sides took courage from, the media in India seemed happy to cooperate with the political design of fettering its ability to contribute to the public discourse.

On October 6, morning bulletins in the Delhi-based news channel NDTV gave brief excerpts from an interview it had recorded with former union minister P. Chidambaram. There was a promise that the entire interview would be broadcast in evening prime-time.

What NDTV actually served up at the promised hour was a full-screen, static announcement titled “India above politics”.

That theme kicked off its prime-time news broadcast as the newly minted editorial leitmotif: that “national security (could not) be compromised by politics”. Recognising that “the current political debate” 

threatened to do precisely that, NDTV had determined that it would “not air any remarks that risk security for political advantage”.

As reported by Siddharth Varadarajan on the news website thewire.in, this announcement followed a directive issued by NDTV editorial director Sonia Singh to all staff in an email that morning. The directive also included an explicit disavowal of any intent to “doubt or question” the Indian army or use it for “political gain”. Only this particular proviso was dropped, for reasons yet unexplained, from the prime-time declaration of editorial fealty to the new militarist spirit.

It was difficult to imagine that Chidambaram, who was appointed to his first important national security position in 1986 and had served ten years in the cabinet committee on security under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, could contribute to any of the negative outcomes that NDTV feared. But in the mood of prickly patriotic fervour that the media is seeking actively to foster, even the most sober and informed voices seem to have no place.

An environment of information scarcity allows rumour and half-truths to flourish. Far from restraining competitive politics, it actively nourishes it, at the cost of any sense of responsibility to the public.

On October 4, the Congress issued a press release demanding answers on how the “surgical strike” announced on September 29 differed from various operations carried out while it was in power. Specifically mentioned were operations carried out on September 1, 2011, July 28, 2013 and January 14, 2014.

On October 9, The Hindu with an obvious assist from higher levels in the military command, revealed the various details of the first of these cross-border operations, carried out by the Indian army in retaliation for a strike exactly a month earlier by Pakistani forces.

Pakistan had allegedly carried out its sneak attack in the Kupwara area, pinning down a small Indian army contingent and inflicting a heavy cost in lives. Two Indian soldiers were beheaded and as reinforcements rushed in, the Pakistan men fled back to safety with their grisly trophies.

“Operation Ginger”, the Indian retaliation was planned for the day before Eid, when Pakistani personnel were expected to let down their guard. The early morning raid ended with India going one-up on Pakistan in the number of trophies harvested.

The Congress was soon strutting its stuff, claiming that this display of military machismo under its watch was proof of greater devotion to the nation. What was missing was any sense of public scrutiny over army actions on both sides, which amount by all applicable codes, to war crimes.

Early in 2013, when two Indian army personnel Lance Naiks Hemraj and Sudhakar Singh, were killed and their bodies mutilated in a cross-border incident, the Indian media went into a paroxysm of rage, stirring up a vile public mood for vengeance. External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, then in opposition, called for three Pakistani heads to avenge the indignity to the Indian army.

The details of “Operation Ginger” as now revealed, speak of an action-reaction sequence of barbarities on the border, underway since well before this incident. Yet the public discourse seems unconcerned about the persistence of the conditions that make the young men of the Indian army accessories in such patent violations of basic decency.

In a political milieu that values the principle of civilian control over the armed forces, the responsibility for every such incident is ultimately the political leadership’s. The mood of unquestioning obeisance to the army is an opportunistic evasion of this principle.

A media that casually calls for pressing ahead with this cycle of vengeance and uses the most violent vocabulary in daily discourse is a danger to democracy. One that calls the nation to war without the slightest comprehension of wider realities, is an accessory of the worst totalitarianism.

The Citizen

A Tamil Diaspora Perspective on Sri Lanka

Mr. Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran is Prime Minister of the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE). He is based in New York City.

Taylor Dibbert

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Sri Lanka’s January 2015 presidential election resulted in Mahinda Rajapaksa’s ouster. Since Maithripala Sirisena assumed the presidency, has TGTE’s engagement with the Sri Lankan government changed? If so, how?

As we stated in our press release following the 2015 election, the TGTE did not think that Mr. Sirisena’s ascent to the position of president of Sri Lanka would bring any change to the Tamils. We believe that it is the Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinist state structure that has served so cruelly to maintain the Tamil national crisis which has remained unresolved for all these decades. The election produced only a face change as the very same chauvinist structure reasserts itself further.

Thus there is no change vis-à-vis the Tamils’ authentic political aspirations and, by extension, no change with respect to the relationship between the Sri Lankan government under Sirisena’s presidency and the TGTE.

Mahinda’s regime designated the TGTE and most of the other diaspora organizations and diaspora political activists as “terrorist organizations.” The Sirisena regime, while sanctifying several other diaspora organizations, has not removed the TGTE from the list, notwithstanding the fact that the TGTE’s constitution mandates the realization of our political goals through peaceful and democratic means.

What’s your assessment of the new government’s performance thus far?

With respect to the Sinhala polity, the new government has brought in some democratic features such as fighting corruption. However, with respect to the Tamils, the new government, in a calculated and sophisticated manner, is consolidating the military victory of the previous regime into a political victory.

The 99% Sinhalese Sri Lanka Army continues to occupy over 67,000 acres of private Tamil land and state lands in traditionally Tamil areas. Seven years after the conclusion of the war, the Sri Lankan government continues to detain (without charge or trial) approximately 250 Tamil prisoners of war. Some detainees have been held for as long as 20 years without public acknowledgement that they are being held. There is no information about large scale surrenders of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) members, some of whom surrendered with their children. State-sponsored Sinhala settlements in Tamil-majority areas are a deliberate attempt to transform demographics and culture.

The new regime has injected an “illusory fawn” called “good governance” into the international dialogue on Sri Lanka. Due to this illusory good governance, foreign governments, some sections of civil society and the Tamil domestic leadership are going soft on the new regime. In addition, due to geopolitical interests, the big powers are also keen on protecting and stabilizing the new regime at the expense of Tamil interests and transitional justice.

In October of last year, Sri Lanka co-sponsored a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. The resolution called for a bold transitional justice agenda. In your view, has Colombo done a good job of complying with the resolution?

Definitely not! Thus far there is an absence of genuine consultation with the victims of international crimes and continuing intimidation by security forces. Despite its commitment to repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in HRC resolution 30/1, the government continues to regularly rely on the act in order to arbitrarily detain Tamils. It has not even enacted statutes criminalizing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide and has repeatedly repudiated its commitment in resolution 30/1 to include international participation in transitional justice mechanisms.

How involved should international actors be in Sri Lanka’s transitional justice process?

As stated in the “Million Signature Campaign” launched by the TGTE last year, the Sri Lankan state is not ethnically neutral. The Sri Lankan judiciary is not ethnically neutral.

There is no political will in Sri Lanka to provide justice for Tamils. The (domestic 2010) Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) has not delivered justice to Tamils. The change of guard in Sri Lanka will not result in a change in institutionalized impunity. President Sirisena’s potential culpability in war crimes will not be conducive for a domestic or hybrid judicial mechanism, and Sri Lanka does not have criminal provisions for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

So our position is that only through a completely international process can justice be provided to Tamils. This view is shared by the more than 1.6 million people who signed the petition.

Turning to the Tamil political scene, how satisfied have you been with the performance of the principal Tamil political grouping, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA)?

There are genuine concerns being expressed in the Tamil polity about the performance of the TNA and the authenticity of their approach today. We understand that due to the 6th amendment [of Sri Lanka’s constitution] which violates the freedom conscience and freedom of speech guaranteed in Articles 18 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Tamil political leadership is not in a position to articulate the political aspirations of the Tamil people as articulated in the 1977 general elections, the last time elections were held in an open political space. The TNA have a duty to tell the international community about the Tamils’ political aspirations. There must be a politics based on truth.

What, if anything, can TNA do to improve its performance?

Our firm belief is that politics is all about power. Holding power alone is not enough. Power should be exercised and it should be demonstrated. The Tamil people built up their political power through a long and painful struggle in the Northeast homeland [the northern and eastern parts of the country]. This power should be retained, strategically used and not be wasted by their leaders. The recent Tamil uprising “Ezhuga Thamil” is a response to the power vacuum being created by the TNA. The TNA should recognize the power of the people and use that people’s power and that of the international community to move forward.

In terms of negotiating a political solution to the ethnic conflict, what role would you like to see international actors play?

If you look at the peace efforts around the world, the most common mechanism introduced and supported by the international community to resolve national questions has been the holding of a referendum. In the case of Kosovo, in spite of the parent state Serbia’s opposition, the international community decided that only through a referendum could national conflict be resolved. We expect for the UN or any state power which is keen to solve the national question in Sri Lanka to propose and support a referendum as the central feature in negotiating a political solution. The referendum proposed by us contains all options such as ‘unitary,’ ‘federal state,’ ‘unitary framework with federal features,’ and ‘independent state.’

More specifically, what sort of role would you like to see India play? What about the United States?

The Tamil people’s political future is intertwined with that of India. We want India to acknowledge us as a people and thus recognize our right to self-determination and our long struggle for it. The more immediate role for India, as a moral power, has to be in ensuring that justice is given to the Tamil people. In our recent signature campaign, more than 600,000 Tamil people from India participated in it. The leaders and bureaucrats of the Indian government should take into account the wishes of their own people calling for an international transitional justice process in Sri Lanka. We also want India to persuade the Sri Lankan government to repeal the 6th amendment and to provide an open political space for the Tamils to articulate their political aspirations.

With respect to the U.S., our request is not to drop the ball in order to gain temporary political benefits, but to participate in the process more genuinely. We want the U.S. to continue to play an effective role in ensuring that accountability is addressed, followed by a political resolution arrived at within an open political space.

Short of a separate Tamil state, is there a power-sharing arrangement that would satisfy you? If so, would you talk a little bit about what that might look like?

Due to the rigid ethnocratic nature of the Sri Lankan state, we believe only an independent state can provide dignity and security for the Tamils. For an interim period, the Interim Self Governing Authority [ISGA] previously proposed by the LTTE could be the basis for a power-sharing arrangement. The ISGA was received positively at the time by the U.S. and the EU, among others.

Under the proposed ISGA, human rights, secularism, the separation of powers, etc. will be guaranteed. It also provided for both the Sinhalese and the Muslims in the Northeast to be members of this body. The ISGA specifically emphasized that the Muslim community had the right to participate in the formulation of a role in ISGA.

However, I want to reemphasize that any type of political resolution should be based on the people’s will ascertained through a referendum.

*This piece first appeared in International Policy Digest.

Follow Taylor Dibbert on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylordibbert

An Independent Election Commission That Doesn’t Hold Elections?

By S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole –October 14, 2016 

Prof. S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole

I belong to the so-called Independent Election Commission. I do not know why they call us Independent because I do not see that word in any of the legal instruments that appointed us. That, however, is the perception of the public. They expect us to act independently and hold the long overdue local government (LG) Elections immediately. It is a normal expectation in a democracy.

In the meantime, many contradictory statements with different dates by the Minister for Provincial Councils and Local Government (Faiszer Musthapha), the President, and the PM, among many others, have added to the confusion. The Island editorial (13.10.2016) gives as reason “The entry of a new political force led by the Rajapaksas into the fray will make the situation worse for the ruling coalition” and bets its bottom dollar that “the government will postpone the mini polls indefinitely on the pretext of finalising electoral reforms.” The evidence seems to suggest that The Island is right.

The Joint Opposition periodically visits the Commission demanding LG Elections. Everyone outside the government blames us saying we are independent and must hold elections. The JO at a public meeting even accused our Chairman of being partial to the government. We are the punching bag.

The President however spelt out the exact nature of our independence when Economy Next (12.10.2016) reported that the President “warned secretaries of independent commissions that it was he who had appointed him [sic., them] and they should know their “limits” and must keep him informed,” adding that he had decided to speak out and take “stern action.”

At least on the Election Commission, our Secretary is appointed by us and not the President, and we are answerable only to Parliament, not to the President. We Commission Members accepted our positions believing we would be truly independent. We began saying we are an independent commission and will not be summoned by anyone except by Parliament, the only entity to which we report. We have progressively learnt otherwise, culminating in this Presidential threat.

With many things in Sri Lanka being illegal including the apparent sweeping under the rug of night club brawls, the threat is chilling. Worse, in that same Economy Next article, the President said, “military commanders who led a successful campaign to crush separatist Tamil Tiger rebels in May 2009 should not be humiliated by bringing them to courts.” In other words, total impunity and hero-status to those who butchered Tamil civilians in the tens of thousands. That is even more chilling.

Read More

Gota hails President for slamming anti-corruption bodies

• Ex-defence official says he is ‘happy’ the truth had finally dawned on President Sirisena
• Insists there is no ‘secret pact’ between President Sirisena and Rajapaksa family 
• Ranjan Ramanayake steps into mediate crisis between President and PM 

By Dharisha Bastians -Saturday, 15 October 2016

Former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has hailed President Maithripala Sirisena’s fiery speech on Wednesday that drew sharp criticism from civil society and opposition political parties and exposed a major rift in the ruling UNF-SLFP coalition.

Speaking to the BBC Sinhala Service from China, where he is currently attending a defence summit, the powerful former official in the Rajapaksa Government said he was “happy the President had finally understood the truth” state institutions probing corruption allegations. 

Denying that he had spoken with Sirisena before the President’s outburst earlier this week, the former Defence Secretary vowed that there was no ‘secret pact’ between the current President and the former ruling family.

In a widely publicized speech on Wednesday, President Sirisena railed against the three main anti-corruption bodies of the Government and criticised the Bribery Commission for ‘hauling’ former military officials including Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to court.

“I am happy that the truth has finally dawned on the President about these things,” Gotabhaya Rajapaksa said referring to the corruption probes by these agencies, “I believe that as he says, he will now take direct action, without being influenced by people with various political agendas.”

He said over two years they had been making it clear that corruption probes conducted by the anti-graft bodies were politically motivated. “Now President Sirisena is giving the same explanation of these investigations,” Rajapaksa asserted. Staunchly defending the President, the former Defence Secretary also criticised anti-graft agencies for filing cases against former armed forces commanders.

“President Sirisena himself said that military personnel were being held in custody for 16 months. Does it take 16 months to conduct an investigation? Is that justice? Why aren’t the NGOs talking about that? Now everyone is opposing his speech. So are they saying he must do what they say? Doesn’t the President have the right to express how he feels?” Rajapaksa said in defence of Sirisena’s outburst.

The endorsement from the former Defence Secretary came amidst a storm of controversy over President Sirisena’s remarks which were roundly criticised by the JVP and civil society movements that heavily backed his candidature in the January 2015 election.

President Sirisena’s speech before an audience primarily comprising military officials also exposed a major faultline within the ruling coalition, because it was perceived as being directed at his alliance partner, the UNP, and alluded to the party’s alleged hold over the anti-corruption bodies.

A meeting between President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe took place at 5.30 PM on Thursday. Daily FT learns that the meeting between the President and Prime Minister had been amicable, despite the prevailing tension. The two leaders had resolved to iron out their issues, aides said, speaking confidentially. The President’s speech on Wednesday had taken the Premier by surprise, highly placed sources said. Wickremesinghe held talks with senior officials and a party MP ahead of his meeting with the President on Thursday to discuss the major tension points within the ruling coalition that may have led to Sirisena’s outburst.

Adding a strange twist to the prevailing political drama, actor politician and Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake reportedly played mediator during the crisis, to convince both President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe that the alliance had to be safeguarded at all costs. Ramanayake, often known as ‘One Shot’ after a character in his films, briefed the Prime Minister for one hour about the corruption allegations against members of the ruling coalition. Ramanayake emphasised that the presence of former Central Bank Governor on prime ministerial delegations was hugely problematic and said the lack of action against certain powerful businessmen allegedly involved in corruption during the tenure of the Rajapaksa Government was eroding the Yahapalanaya administration’s credibility. All these things could be irking the President, Ramanayake explained.

Highly placed sources told Daily FT that Ramanayake who is also a confidant of President Sirisena, had communicated to Wickremesinghe that the source of President Sirisena’s anger was recent actions by the Bribery Commission against SLFP Ministers A. H. M. Fowzie and Priyankara Jayaratne on relatively minor allegations, which he viewed as a witch-hunt against members of his own party, while corruption probes against certain members of the former regime faced continuous delays. The President was also incensed by the continued disruptions to investigations into the alleged Treasury Bond scandal during the tenure of former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran, the sources said. President Sirisena had also assured confidants on Thursday that he had no intention of allying with the members of the Rajapaksa regime to scuttle Wickremesinghe’s UNF led administration.

Both main parties in the ruling alliance – the UNP and the SLFP – called off media briefings scheduled for Thursday, to avoid facing the press. As the fallout from President Sirisena’s speech continued, the SLFP also cancelled a press briefing scheduled yesterday.

---

President faces civil society backlash for speech against anti-corruption bodies 

The President’s criticism of corruption investigating bodies has drawn a sharp response from civil society representatives, who held a media briefing yesterday to condemn the remarks and attempts to demoralise the Bribery Commission and Police.

Speaking to reporters at the news conference, Co-convenor of late Sobitha Thero’s National Movement for a Just Soeicty and trade union leader Saman Ratnapriya said the remarks were “deeply problematic.”

“The whole country is shaken by these statements,” Ratnapriya charged, adding that President Sirisena’s remarks seemed to be a throwback to the Rajapaksa era. He urged President Sirisena to ‘go back and read the Yahapalanaya manifesto”.

Ratnapriya said the Purawesi Balaya was expressing “disgust” and condemnation of the President’s remarks.

Prof. Sarath Wijesooriya who is also a co-convenor of the powerful civil society group, said that in a mark of protest against the President’s speech, artistes attached to the civil society movement would boycott a meeting for artistes President Sirisena had convened last evening (14).

“We stand with the officials investigating these corruption cases,” Prof. Wijesooriya asserted.

Co-convenor of Purawesi Balaya and senior academic Dr. Gamini Viyangoda noted that it was also important to observe the tone of the President’s statements on Wednesday. “Even his mood during that speech showed the country that he was opposing corrupt individuals being brought before the law,” Dr Viyangoda noted.

“Why do we need independent commissions if the President must be told every time someone is going to be taken to court? What kind of independence is that? Is that what the 19th Amendment brought about?” he added.

Purawesi Balaya and partner groups played a major role in mobilising support for President Sirisena’s candidacy in the January 2015 presidential election.

NGO that helped Sirisena to come to power threatens to turn against him for pointing out wrongs of FCID, CID, CIABOC

Head of the National Movement for Social Justice Sarath Wijesooriya addresses the media yesterday at the Centre for Society and Religion in Maradana. Purawesi Balaya Convener Gamini Viyangoda, K. W. Janaranjana, Saman Rathnapriya, Joseph Stalin, Nishshanka Diddeniya, Lucian Bulathsinhala and Gemunu Wijeratne are also present. Pic by Jude Denzil Pathiraja

by Dasun Edirisinghe-October 14, 2016, 10:34 pm 

Purawesi Balaya, a collection of civil society organisations which campaigned for President Maithripala Sirisena’s successful presidential bid, yesterday found fault with the President for his allegations against the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID), Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) and the Criminal Investigations Department (CID).

Addressing the media at the Centre for Society and Religion in Maradana, head of the National Movement for Social Justice Prof. Sarath Wijesooriya said they would have to take to the streets against the present government if the present trend continued.

"President Sirisena is trying to protect former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his family over corrupt acts they committed during their tenure," he claimed, adding that they did not expect the government to shield those who were responsible for corruption under the previous regime.

Prof. Wijesooriya called for the President and the Prime Minister to iron out their differences and work towards national progress in keeping with their promises.

He said they had boycotted a meeting with President Sirisena yesterday in protest of his statement on Wednesday. "We also refused President’s invitation to a meeting with artistes last evening", he said.

The Head of the Sinhala Department of the Colombo University said President Sirisena should take action to accelerate investigations launched by the CID, FCID and CIABOC without blaming them.

NMSJ Convener Saman Ratnapriya said if the President had any problem with the FCID, CID and CIABOC, he had to discuss it with the Prime Minister and other relevant officials without publicly condemning them.

Now the heads of those independent bodies would get discouraged and head of the CIABOC had already decided to step down from her post.

Rathnapriya said President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe should work for the country. "The President may be the leader of the SLFP while PM the leader of the UNP, but both of them should forget their party agendas and strategies when working for the people," he said.

The senior trade unionist said there was a move to hush up the corrupt deals of the Rajapaksa family and the President and the Prime Minister should be held responsible for that.

Bribery commission’s DG to resign? 

Oct 14, 2016

Director general of the Bribery or Corruption Investigation Commission Dilrukshi Dias has decided to relinquish her position, as the topmost executive of the country is having a wrong understanding about the commission, which will create problems for the commission in the future, say sources in the commission.

She is presently on an official visit to Malaysia. She has informed the prime minister and the subject minister about her decision, reports say. Also, heads of the FCID and the CID held a meeting with subject minister Sagala Ratnayake at Temple Trees, where the heads of the two institutions have said that they too, would resign, if the commission DG resigned.

President met Dilrukshi before Thai visit

Before he left the country on a visit to Thailand, president Maithripala Sirisena summoned Dilrukshi Dias and inquired from her about the progress of the investigations. She has answered that there was nothing special to report about. The president also inquired from her about the investigation against former defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, to which too, she gave the same reply.

Soon after saying so, the DG got the commission to produce Gotabhaya before courts, which left the president in a temper. It was due to this that the commission came under fire by the president at a meeting at Foundation Institute on October 12, say sources close to him.

Ranil-Mahinda deals exposed

The sources went onto say that there was an understanding between prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and ex-president Mahinda Rajapaksa. When the PM is overseas, this deal continues through minister Sagala Ratnayake, the president has been told by his personal intelligence divisions.

The president used his speech at the Sathviru felicitation ceremony to give a hint that he knew all about it. He was further angered by the FCID’s summoning of his friend and minister A.H.M. Fowzie. When inquired from the sources as to whether this matter could lead to a collapse of the national government, they said there was no room for such a situation, as both the president and the PM were senior politicians with nearly 40 years of experience in politics. The sources here noted Mao Tse Tong’s saying ‘politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed’.