Engagement in north brings encouraging results

By Jehan Perera-October 17, 2016, 8:03 pm 

The furore over the the Eluga Thamil (Tamils arise) rally that took place in Jaffna last month is receding. At those protests a powerful and angry people’s movement was in evidence, led by Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran, and organised by the Tamil People’s Council (TPC), an organisation that the Chief Minister heads. In addition, several Tamil political parties, including some constituents of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) participated. The demands put forward by the organizers included a call for federalism with the rights to sovereignty and self determination of the Tamil nation recognized, return of land in the Army’s control, release of political prisoners, an international investigation into war crimes and addressing concerns relating to missing persons were prominent. There were also clear anti-south manifestations in the slogans, which included a call to halt to putting up Buddhist shrines in the North and a call to stop southern fishermen, but without a mention of the massive encroachments by Indian fishermen.

The Eluga Thamil rally in the North had its counterpart in the South led by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa who has been warning of separatism rearing its head once again and the LTTE staging a comeback. Some of his nationalist allies have even demanded the arrest of Northern Chief Minister Wigneswaran for posing a threat to the unity and sovereignty of the country. The impression they have sought to create, and perhaps even believe in, is that of a northern cauldron of Tamil nationalism and anti-Sinhala sentiment that is liable to explode like a volcano unless firmly suppressed. However, in the recent past there is an indication that the former President may be experiencing a change of heart. He has been reported as saying that the Northern Chief Minister Wigneswaran is not a racist, but a person engaged in politics with his own people and that the Northern Province Chief Minister was highlighting was the problems confronted by the youth, due to the government's inability to meet their pressing demands. As a politician who has a good sense of which direction the people are going, the former president may be reassessing the ability (or inability) of nationalist slogans to win votes.

The day prior to the Eluga Thamil rally in September I visited the University of Jaffna to discuss the holding of workshops on the ongoing national reconciliation process for both faculty members and students. I was introduced to them by the Centre for Women and Development in Jaffna, headed by Saroja Sivachandran. In both the North and South, the universities have been hotbeds of radicalism and not only seats of learning. In a context where the forces of narrow ethnic nationalism continue to be active, this radicalism tends to take an ethno-centric dimension. In July, the University of Jaffna was in the news after a clash between two student factions over cultural symbols resulted in a number of injuries. The violence was severe enough for the Sinhalese students to set off for their homes in the South while the university remained closed for several days. Although reports of university students engaging in clashes is not an uncommon phenomenon in Sri Lanka, this particular turn of events received more than the usual amount of speculation and most of the debate was centred on the issue of ethnicity, which in turn triggered negative sentiments.

WILLINGLY COOPERATE

Therefore it was with some reservations that we entered into the university premises. We wanted to discuss the concepts of transitional justice which are now standard UN mandated prescriptions for countries which are in positive transition from a worse situation of war and human rights violations to a better situation of peace and justice. In addition, we wanted to discuss the government’s own four-fold mechanisms for reconciliation which comprises a Commission on Truth Seeking, an Office of Missing Persons (law passed but not yet implemented), Office of Reparations and Institutional Reforms that aim to ensure that the past will not recur again (constitutional change). What was interesting was that some of the University of Jaffna faculty members who were actively involved in organizing the Elagu Thamil rally also readily agreed to cooperate with us in securing a viable venue and a suitable environment for the educational workshops to be held.

It might have been expected that the discussion on reconciliation being undertaken by the government would lead to a critical and challenging engagement for those of us who had come from the South to organize the workshops. We were going to be discussing the highly contested issues of transitional justice which includes missing persons, land being taken over, resettling internally and externally displaced persons in their own lands to the extent possible and the perennially controversial issue of devolution of power. One of the groups we were going to work with was the very same faculty members who had been part of the organization of the Eluga Thamil event. The other group we were going to work with was the students from a student body that had clashed violently between themselves.

Nearly 50 faculty members and 60 students of the University of Jaffna attended the two workshops on transitional justice. Belying our concerns about a possibly hostile reception to the ideas on reconciliation we had, they were generally receptive to the ideas put forward and willing to discuss them in an engaging and frank manner. They had their concerns and criticism which they shared with those who had come to conduct the workshops, which included Lal Wijenayake the chairman of the Public Representations Committee on Constitutional Reforms and Raga Alphonsus who was a member of the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms. Both of them had firsthand experience of what the general public thought and felt about the two main political processes taking place in the country at this time. Therefore they were in a position to give the academic community a reality check.

FAMILY TOGETHER

At the end of each of the workshops there was the satisfaction, trust and even joy of engagement. We took many group photographs together. Some of the academics explained that they supported the Eluga Thamil event, but not all of its slogans. But before that there were hard questions asked. One question was whether the National Peace Council which sponsored the workshops was a government agent. Another question was why voices for peace were not heard by the people of the North during the time o f the war.

A third question was why we active only now. Most NGOs such as the National Peace Council were never agents of the government, either this or the ones before. They strive to be non partisan with regard to political parties, either supporting or opposing what governments do or what political parties say on the basis of the positions they take. During the time of the war the voice of nationalism was dominant and the voice of peace groups was marginalized, but the work of building peace at the community level never stopped. We used different terms such as healing.

Jaffna workshop

There were other questions too, such as why the army was trying to take over lands at the same time as it was handing over other lands. Although there were critical questions and comments, overall the discussion was constructive and cooperative with no one raising their voices or attacking anyone. The outcome of the student presentations shows that even the students, who are always more radical than their elders, were practical in their expectations. Transitional Justice has four pillars, or areas of focus. These are the search for the truth about what happened (Truth), accountability or punishment of those who broke laws (Prosecution), reparations or compensation (Reparations) for those who lost during the war, and institutional reform to ensure that the violations of the past will not happen again (Constitutional Reform). The students were asked to work in small groups of 5-8 students, and to say which one of those four pillars they would give their priority to. There were 9 groups that were formed.

If the predominant emotion of the students had been revenge or hatred, they would have chosen Prosecution as their first priority. However, not even one group chose Prosecution. Five of the nine student groups chose Constitutional Reform as their first priority. Those who chose Constitutional Reform said that was the long term solution, and if this was achieved the other three pillars of Transitional Justice could be achieved over time. Four of the nine groups chose Truth as their priority. They said that without Truth it is difficult to find out what the problem is, and what the best answer would be. It is necessary for the government to give clear and detailed answers, not only on questions of the past and what happened during the war, but questions about the present, including the suspicions that Sinhalese colonization is still happening with government patronage in the North. The message from the Jaffna workshops with the university community was that Sri Lanka can still be a family together, where each community and each individual is equally valued, and not a country divided.

Issues of New Constitution Making in Sri Lanka: Towards Ethnic Reconciliation

There are three major areas where constitutional consensus or equilibrium is necessary. First or most popular is the question of ‘presidential versus a cabinet system.’ There has been a long debate on that theme beginning from the initial works of N. M. Perera and A. Jeyaratnam Wilson. Their relevant publications are given in the Bibliography. This may appear the most settled issue particularly after the 19th Amendment, nevertheless there are several leftover matters, whether all the executive powers should be scrapped from the presidency, and how even a ceremonial president should be elected or selected.

by Laksiri Fernando

( October 17, 2016, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) This is a collection of essays and articles written and mostly published from time to time covering various issues of constitution making in Sri Lanka. The focus of all of them is ethnic reconciliation. The timing of this publication is the ongoing efforts in Parliament in consultation with the public and various stakeholders in drafting a new constitution and adopting it in Parliament subsequently endorsed by a referendum, according to the constitutional provisions of the present Constitution (1978). Referendum for a new constitution is an important constitutional requirement. Therefore, it should be said at the outset that no ‘constitutional revolution’ is anticipated in this effort like in 1972. The rationale or the felt need for a new constitution is long standing although this is going to be the fourth constitution of Sri Lanka, if it is successful, since independence in 1948. Admittedly, therefore, there has been some continuous disequilibrium in constitutional matters in the country.

The first constitution or popularly called the Soulbury constitution was primarily a document drafted by the colonial state makers, Lord Soulbury and Sir Ivor Jennings, of course in consultation with the elected representatives of the country. However this constitution lasted for 25 years from 1947 to 1972 without much upheaval. In contrast, the first indigenous and the first republican constitution of 1972 survived only for six years. The second republican constitution of 1978 is still in operation for 38 years but largely due to its rigidity than any inherent quality of popular acceptance. Since 1994, there have been several fervent efforts to overhaul it but without any success. In August 2000, the effort to inaugurate a new constitution came very close, but failed, the opposition members of parliament burning the draft agreed by the leaders during by-partisan negotiations.

One advantage of constitution making process today is the existence of a ‘national unity’ government of the two main political parties, the UNP and the SLFP, also with the connivance of the official opposition, the TNA, representing the Northern Tamil constituency. Therefore, at least on appearance, there seems to be some broad consensus for the need for a new constitution. This could however be illusory, considering the rifts within the ‘national unity government’ itself on some of the key constitutional issues, and the stance of the almost breakaway Joint Opposition (JO) from the SLFP/UPFA led by the former president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, among other factors. In a recently held ‘foot-march’ (Pada Yathra) of the JO (28 July – 1 August), one of the main slogans was the claim that ‘a new constitution is a death trap.’ In addition, on the issue of passing the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) Bill, the behavior of the Joint Opposition has heralded what they might do during the inauguration of a new constitution.

This is a CreateSpace publication of an Amazon subsidiary (Charleston, Southern Carolina, USA) of 206 pages with necessary empirical data and tables. There is no single theme or discourse underlying the present publication, except the need for a new constitution reforming many of the institutional and legal anomalies of the present constitutional system, and creating a balance between divergent political views in order that a workable ‘constitutional equilibrium’ is created for a foreseeable future. This is by no means an easy task. There is no apparent readymade agreement between the main political parties, the UNP, the SLFP, the TNA or the JVP, except the need for a new constitution. What elements could create a sustainable ‘constitutional equilibrium’ is also not a self-evident matter.

There can be different understandings of what people mean by ‘constitutional equilibrium’ but here it is mainly used to mean necessary ‘political consensuses’ for its long term sustainability. A major necessary component this equilibrium is people’s trust in the system. As a US Supreme Court Judge, Anthony Kennedy, has declared, “The Constitution doesn’t belong to a bunch of judges and lawyers. It belongs to you.” There can be another meaning, not very distance from the above, to mean ‘equilibrium between various institutions and power centers.’ This is the most traditional interpretation of constitutional equilibrium/disequilibrium. This is about ‘checks and balances’ not only between the three main branches of government – the legislative, executive and judicial – but also between the provincial governments and the central government. As Sri Lanka is and going to be a devolved system of government, the latter equilibrium is much more important and desired. It could be assumed that if an equilibrium could be achieved in the institutional context, then it would be easy to achieve equilibrium or consensus for sustainability of the constitution system as a whole. Then what about the trust of the people over the constitutional system? Unless there is a necessary trust, there cannot be a sustainable constitutional equilibrium in the country. This is also called ‘constitutional legitimacy.’ Wasn’t this a reason for two insurrections in the country in the South (1971) and in the North (1983-1987)?

There are three major areas where constitutional consensus or equilibrium is necessary. First or most popular is the question of ‘presidential versus a cabinet system.’ There has been a long debate on that theme beginning from the initial works of N. M. Perera and A. Jeyaratnam Wilson. Their relevant publications are given in the Bibliography. This may appear the most settled issue particularly after the 19th Amendment, nevertheless there are several leftover matters, whether all the executive powers should be scrapped from the presidency, and how even a ceremonial president should be elected or selected.

The second is the question of ‘proportional representation (PR) versus first-past-the post system (FPP).’ This has also been discussed for a long period although not that systematically like the first issue. One reason seems to be the technical matters involved in any electoral discussion and it is not so much of the FPP that is advocated but having a constituency system where the electors having a clear representative to represent them in parliament. Although one objective to advocate initially a quasi FPP system was to have governmental stability through clear majorities, the concerns seem to settle down today as the new thinking accepts the merits of consensual governments instead of one party dominance. The remaining issues seem to point out the necessary balance rather than one against the other.

The third and most controversial today emerges out of the ‘unitary versus federal’ debate. This has been a never ending dispute in the country linked to the ethnic conflict. Although there is a system of devolution with provincial councils today still there are ‘pull factors’ wanting to re-establish the old unitary system. On the other hand, there are strong ‘push factors’ asking for federalism or even beyond, or failing which to properly implement the Thirteenth Amendment or 13A+. What balance of power could be drawn between the central government and the provincial councils would be a key issue. Much of the efforts of the present constitution makers, if not the whole constituent assembly, might be devoted to this issue, given the sensitivity of the matters involved.

There are of course several other polarized issues such as ‘secular-state versus foremost place for Buddhism’ and the merits and demerits of ‘unicameral verses bicameral’ legislative system. In most of the above underlined controversial issues, there can be a middle ground which could be achieved, if the parties are willing. However, ‘unicameral-bicameral’ issue is something a middle position cannot be achieved by the nature of the issue. It has to be either unicameral or bicameral. If a proper and meaningful devolved system is agreed upon, it is most likely that the constitution might go for a bicameral system. Then the issues would be about the weightage given for the center and the periphery for electing such a second chamber or a senate.

The main premise of the constitutional system in Sri Lanka like in many other democratic countries is the concept of people’s sovereignty. What does it mean? Is it only a ‘cake decoration’ or just a popular slogan to deceive people, while the political elite holding the actual sovereignty? This is not a well debated issue in the country while there have been few attempts. There are of course several devices, apart from the system of elections, which gives the impression that the people are sovereign. One is the provisions for referenda. The other is the constitutional provision for the people to go before the Supreme Court on fundamental rights or to mitigate legislation or executive action which goes against the constitution or its provisions on people’s sovereignty through similar legal procedures. Nevertheless, there are limits. The full range of constitutional review is not within the present constitution. Therefore, one can argue that the reinstatement of full judicial review could go a long way in establishing people’s sovereignty.

However, the gap between the constitutional system and the people are considerable. The National Youth Survey conducted in 2009 (only survey of this kind) amply revealed that the alienation is quite high in respect of the political, constitutional and the state (institutional) system, particularly among the youth. There have been no direct surveys conducted to gather the opinions of the people on various constitutional questions in the country. The partial observations or studies reveal that the knowledge or opinions of the people are quite low and shrouded in misconceptions. For example, as one constitutional expert has opined, when many people say a ‘unitary state’ what they mean is a ‘united country.’ Whether this may be the case or not, the fact remains that the general knowledge on constitutional matters is abysmally low. This is one reason for the continuous imbalance between the constitutional system and the people’s aspirations, while the unscrupulous political leaders utilizing the situation for their political ends.

What path the constitution making process should take? What might be the best? The short answer is the Middle Path. The transformation of the present constitutional disequilibrium (and also ambiguities) into sustainable equilibrium is not an easy task. It requires truly a bi-partisan approach. As discussed before, almost all the issues appear to be ‘bipolar’ due to historical, theoretical, international and political circumstances. At the same time, that nature of the controversies signify the possibility of achieving a middle ground on all or most of the issues, if there is ‘political will.’ The present national unity government, President Maithripala Sirisena as the head, is in a better position to achieve such a middle ground, compared to the previous historical occasions of 1972, 1978 or the year 2000.

For the first time, a constitutional making effort has taken some great pains through what termed as the Public Representation Committee (PRC) during January and May 2016 to gather the opinions of the people and their organizations at various levels on a multitude of constitutional issues that needs to be harmonized. Its Report is now published. Whatever the weaknesses of this report or the Committee’s inability to harmonize their own views, this effort is laudable. Be as it may, the report itself shows considerable imbalances prevailing on various questions and issues in constitution making. Therefore the task is marathon in harmonizing and balancing them. This is one reason why the constitution making process should be transparent and should not be confined to the Committee Rooms of the Parliament. There should be more open discussions on the media (printed, electronic and social) and there is a pressing need for weekly briefings by the Constituent Assembly spokespersons on the day to day progress. Most important is to win the ‘trust of the people’ and the outcome/s of the process should be people’s friendly in its true sense. After all, unlike in the past occasions, the matter has to be finally decided by the people at a referendum.

This book is composed in three parts. Part I covers the ‘general concerns on constitutional issues’ ranging from ‘why do we need a new constitution’ to ‘questions and answers on devolution,’ and ‘a suitable electoral system.’ Part II consists of proposals made by the author to the Public Representation Committee (PRC) on Constitutional Reform running into twenty topics and a draft chapter on ‘fundamental human rights and freedoms’ and a proposed chapter on the ‘local government system.’ Part III places the process of the new constitution making within a broader political perspective, analyzing the ‘democratic political change in 2015’ and emphasizing the importance of ‘ethnic reconciliation’ among other topics. The ‘building of inter-ethnic social capital for reconciliation’ is much emphasized. The Selected Bibliography at the end includes only the sources cited in the text, nevertheless gives a wide ranging theoretical and empirical studies relevant to the subject of new constitution making in Sri Lanka. It should be understood that while some of the articles are of popular/educational nature, the others are more of academic disposition. The substance in all of them, however, is based on independent research or observations without any partisan bias or personal/group interest.

You may order the book through the following link:

https://www.createspace.com/6645051

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Laksiri Fernando (BA, Ceylon; MA, New Brunswick; and Ph. D, Sydney) is a published author with a long standing experience internationally and in Sri Lanka. He has held the positions of Senior Professor in Political Science and Public Policy, University of Colombo; Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies (FGS), University of Colombo; Director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights (CSHR), University of Colombo; Chairperson and Director, Sri Lanka National Centre for Advanced Studies (NCAS); Director of the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute (SLFI); Secretary for Asia/Pacific of the World University Service (WUS Geneva); and Executive Director, Diplomacy Training Program (DTP), University of New South Wales, Australia, among others. He has been a Japan Foundation Scholar and has served as Visiting Scholar/Professor at the University of New South Wales, Australia; University of Heidelberg, Germany; Ryukoku University, Japan; and the University of Sydney, Australia. He has published many scholarly reviewed articles in journals, nationally and internationally. He now lives in Sydney, Australia, on retirement. He contributes regularly to printed and electronic newspapers and journals nationally and internationally that includes the Sri Lanka Guardian, The Island newspaper and the Colombo Telegraph among others.

OTHER BOOKS BY THE AUTHOR

Thomas More’s Socialist Utopia and Ceylon (Sri Lanka); Sri Lanka: Challenges of a Society in Transition (Edited); Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Conflict in the Global Context (Edited); Political Science Approach to Human Rights; A New Electoral System for Sri Lanka (Edited); Police-Civil Relations for Good Governance; Human Rights, Politics and States: Burma, Cambodia and Sri Lanka; Academic Freedom 1990: A Human Rights Report (Edited); and Jathika Viyaparaya, Viyawastha Wardanaya and Vamansika Viyaparaye Upatha.

75 % OF SRI LANKANS AWARE OF THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM PROCESS IS TAKING PLACE

17/10/2016

According to a social reserach published by Colombo based think tank the Centre of Policy Alternatives only 25% of Sri Lankans said that they did not know that a Constitutional reform process is taking place at present. But the awareness on the constitutional reform process is low, only 1% saying that are extremely aware that a Constitutional reform process is taking place.

The report shows complete failure of the government creating public discussion and awareness on the constitutional reform process and this situation leave space for anti reform forces to manipulate peoples’ opinion, political analysts.

The CPA report is reproduced below:

Topline Report – Opinion Poll on Constitutional Reform.

17 October 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Only 1.1% of Sri Lankans are extremely aware that a Constitutional reform process is taking place at present while 21.9% are somewhat aware. 34.1% are aware that it is taking place but not at all aware about the details and status, while almost 25% of Sri Lankans said that they did not know that a Constitutional reform process is taking place at present.

According to this survey, almost 70% of Sri Lankans have not heard of the Public 

Representations Committee on Constitutional Reform (PRC) and its activities. Only 0.7% said that they are extremely aware while 8.7% said that they are somewhat aware. 21% have heard of the PRC but were not aware of its activities.

At a Provincial level, Uva (83.6%) and North Western (76.8%) slowest the highest lack of awareness regarding the PRC. Almost 30% from the Western and Sabaragamuwa Provinces stated that they had heard of the PRC but were not aware of its activities. Awareness was highest in the Northern Province where 30% indicated their awareness of the PRC and its activities.

Similar, lack of awareness was very high when it came to the Constitutional Assembly as well. 76.8% of Sri Lankans had not heard of the Constitutional Assembly while 14% had heard of it but were not aware of its activities. Almost 60% of Sri Lankans said that the Government has not been successful in their communication regarding the Constitutional reform process – such as its importance and progress – to the general public. Only 4.8% said that they have been successful and 21.5% said that the Government has been somewhat successful but could be better.

On the question of completely abolishing the Executive Presidential system, a key election promise of the yahapalanaya Government, Sri Lankans are once again divided with 35.7% supporting the complete abolition of the Executive Presidential system and 40.3% not supporting it. 24% said that they do not know whether they support it or not. Article 2 of our current Constitution states that ‘The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State’ and 63.6% of Sri Lankans believe that it is important to retain the phrase ‘unitary state’ in the new Constitution. This opinion is mainly held by the Sinhalese community (77.7%) while only 14.3% from the Tamil, 18.1% from the Up Country Tamil and 28.8% from the Muslim communities stated the same.

On the question of giving Buddhism a special place in the Constitution, around 77% of Sinhalese strongly agree that Buddhism should be given a special place in the Constitution. In comparison, 73.3% from the Tamil, 89.2% from the Up Country Tamil and 71.4% from the Muslim communities strongly disagree that Buddhism should be given a special place in the Constitution. Conducted in the 25 districts of the country, this survey captured the opinion of 2002 Sri Lankans from the four main ethnic communities. The selection of respondents was random across the country. Fieldwork was conducted from August 29 – September 23, 2016.

Download the full report here.

Opinion-poll-on-Constitutional-Reform_Final_Oct-16.pdf by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Ezhuka Tamil: The New Reality – No Threat To Anyone

BY Mirudhula Thambiah-2016-10-18

Vanni District Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Parliamentarian Dr. Sivapragasam Sivamohan commenting on preschools functioning under the Civil Security Force said, "Preschools in the North should fall under the purview of Northern Provincial Council. There are statutory provisions that further prove my argument."

However, Dr. Sivamohan went on to say, "We must agree to see the positive side too. The many females who have been recruited by the Civil Security Division to teach in preschools are paid a good salary, when preschool teachers in our regions are just given Rs 4,000 starting salary and have not received a salary increment in a long time."
Following are excerpts of the interview:

?: You have continuously protested against illegal colonization in the Mullaitivu District, what exactly is the current situation?
A: Illegal colonization is mainly carried out in and around the Mahaweli L-Zone in the Mullaitivu District. Kokkilai, Kokkuthoduvai and Weli Oya are the important villages that fall under the Mahaweli L-Zone. Most of the illegal planned colonization is in these villages. This colonization is being planned and implemented in a very secret and tactful manner.

This is very similar to how Israel established colonies in Palestinian territory. It is taking place in a slow manner so that it is invisible and hard to identify. The Mahaweli L- Zone falls under the purview of the Mahaweli Development Authority. So, the impression is that any village that falls under the L-Zone shall be under the purview of the Mahaweli Development Authority. So the authority will distribute lands in the L-Zone only to those who come from the South but not to those who have been already living in those villages from their ancestral days.

Illegal colonization has thoroughly affected the border villages of Mullaitivu and Vavuniya Districts. The land powers of the Northern Provincial Council have been overrun by the Mahaweli Development Authority. Therefore, the Northern Provincial Council is not in a position to be directly involved in this matter.
Apparently a Law has been passed in Parliament to hand over land powers of L-Zone to the Mahaweli Authority. Illegal colonization around and within the L-Zone is one of the biggest issues in the Mullaitivu District.

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa distributed the lands in the Mahaweli L-Zone according to permits. However, there are land owners who already had permits and they are actual owners. I'm not only talking on behalf of the Tamil people who are original land owners but also the Sinhala people who had ancestral lands in the area.

I am on the Weli Oya Divisional Coordinating Committee, when I examined the land issues I was very keen that the original lands of Tamil, Muslim and Sinhala owners should be given back to them. There were 60 Sinhala families, in the Weli Oya Division, who complained to us that their ancestral lands are no longer available to them to settle back in. They complained that their lands were grabbed by the previous regime on political motives and was again passed over to other Sinhalese who came from other divisions and villages. They requested us to solve their land issue. Accordingly, the Mahaweli L Zone director who was present at the meeting agreed to hand over their lands; why cannot they assist the Tamil families as well?
Authorities must understand that these lands are being distributed to people from other districts and especially to those who have served prison sentences.

?: Do you think the militarization and land acquisition activities in the Mullaitivu District have comparatively reduced under the current regime?
A: We have protested against it, however, it keeps continuing and we are not in a position to find a proper solution in the Mullaitivu District. During the end of war in 2009 all people in the Mullaitivu District were taken to Chettikulam Welfare Centre. As the people were taken to the Chettikulam Camp, the military who walked into the lands of the people arbitrarily settled on those lands. However, now it is seven years since the end of war and the military is still not in a mindset to realize that they have captured the lands of the people and they are bound to release them for the use of the people.

Definitely they have captured other lands as well, but they can always release the lands of the people. They have even captured lands that belong to schools and those that belong to Divisional Secretariats. They have captured around 1,800 acres in Vattuvaikal in the Mullaitivu District and have begun to fence the land. This is purely a military action.

If they can capture the lands of the innocent civilians, fence them for their own purposes, and if the people are unable to question from the authorities, I don't see any good governance at this juncture.

We have protested so many times since the year 2011, but the land issues have not been solved. There are many other places including Nayaru, Kokkilai and Kokkuthoduvai villages in the Mullativu District that is under the control of the military.
When we protest, the military promises to release the lands but those are just fake promises. However, they are not ready to vacate the lands.

?: You being a medical doctor, tell us the progress of the medical camps set up for former LTTE cadres in the Northern Province. Do you think those allegations of injecting cancerous chemicals are true?
A: The Northern Provincial Council has taken up the responsibility to establish medical camps for former LTTE cadres. I believe the Northern Provincial Council will release the results of the medical examinations. If there are any suspicious results we may appeal to international experts to carry out fresh examinations. We are awaiting the results.

There have been many former cadres who told us that suspicious chemicals were injected to them during the rehabilitation process. Until medical examinations are over we are not in a position to talk further on this issue.

?: You agreed that there have been Sinhala colonies since ancestral times in the Mullaitivu District, if so, why do Tamil politicians create a huge fuss about erecting Buddhist monuments in certain areas? What exactly is the current situation?
A: We are very clear on this issue. If a group of people belonging to certain religions reside in a particular village, they have all the right to build their place of worship.

If Hindus live in a specific village, they will put up a Hindu temple to practice their rituals. Similarly Buddhists, Christians and Muslims would do and it is their right. We cannot oppose their right to worship. But the problem in the building of Buddhist monuments is totally different. The issue is that some Buddhist priests build up religious monuments in areas where a large number of Hindus live with the assistance of the military, and the people cannot oppose it.
Already the military is involved in illegal activities like capturing lands of the civilians and the priests make use of it to build Buddhist temples and monuments; and we cannot clearly accept such attempts.

We will always support if there is a large number of Buddhists living in that specific area and the priests have put up Buddhist temples. It is a must that there should be such monuments and it is their right. But here the rights of the community that existed for several years are infringed. These are forceful activities, for example where a similar incident took place in Kokkilai. It is a popular incident that the land belongs to private persons and there were legal actions carried out against the Buddhist monk who built the temple. However, despite injunction orders it was built and nobody was ready to question the legality of the activity.
Also it should be noted that the Sinhala community living in the Kokkilai area are fishing communities and a large number of them are Christians. In such an instance if they had built a church we will not oppose it, however the situation is quite opposite. Therefore building up the biggest Viharaya in the Northern Province for just two to three Buddhist families is unacceptable.

Same has happened in Mankulam, where one of the biggest Buddhist statues has been constructed when there are no many Buddhist families in the area.
Therefore, we are quite clear that we are not at all against the Buddhists or building Buddhist monuments for the correct purposes.

?: Recently Vanni District Parliamentarians of your party raised questions in Parliament on the number of preschools being operated under the purview of the Civil Security Division. What exactly is the current situation?
A: This is one of the main issues in the Mullaitivu District. So the Civil Security Division recruits people to handle the preschools and under them preschool children are being educated.

The basic knowledge is that preschools in the North will fall under the purview of the Northern Provincial Council. There are statutory provisions that further prove my argument.
However, the Civil Security Division (CSD) has recruited females to teach at preschools and they have been provided a good salary. The Civil Security Division has distributed T-shirts to the children with their CSD emblem which we feel is unnecessary. If they are operating for a good cause why should they publicize it?
However, we must agree on the positive side that many females who have been recruited by the Civil Security Division to teach in preschools are given a good salary. When our preschool teachers in our regions are just given Rs 4,000 as starting salary and have not received a salary increment in a long period.

Email: che.myhero@gmail.com

‘A cure far worse than the disease’: Sri Lanka’s new draft counter terrorism law

Oct 17, 2016

Over the weekend, a draft framework copy of the ‘Counter Terrorism Act’ (CTA) – the legislation intended to replace the draconian ‘Prevention of Terrorism Act’ (PTA) – was leaked to the press. The contents of the text, available here, are deeply disturbing.

As it currently stands, the PTA enables arbitrary arrest and long periods of detention with minimal legal oversight. It has been widely condemned as one of the main causes of serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka. Were the proposed CTA draft enacted today, it would not only fail to resolve these issues, but would significantly widen the scope of the repressive powers available to the Sri Lankan state. They would undoubtedly be, in the words of onecommentator, “a cure far worse than the disease”.

As the Sri Lankan Prime Minister holds meetings in Brussels today to help renegotiate a return to ‘GSP+’ – the preferential trade agreement suspended in 2010 due to human rights concerns – EU officials must now send a clear public message that no headway in the talks will be possible until the PTA is meaningfully repealed.

In 2010 the EU insisted that a return of GSP+ status would be dependent on amending the PTA to make it compatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). While a detailed legal analysis of the draft Act has not yet been produced, it is almost certain that it would not be compatible. A re-introduction of GSP+ under the proposed arrangements would therefore fly in the face of the EU’s own guidelines. It would also be a major betrayal of it support forUN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1, which commits the government of Sri Lanka to replacing the PTA with “anti-terrorism legislation in accordance with contemporary international best practices.”

As the Sri Lanka Campaign argued earlier in 2016, any concessions by the EU must be based on actions rather than words. That means no decision should be made until the final legislation is passed and a full and public review of the broader criteria for return of GSP+ undertaken. Now, as then, it is vitally important that the EU use all the leverage at its disposal in the meantime to push the government to pass an Act that is consistent with international human rights standards and which does not threaten Sri Lanka’s chances for a lasting peace.

What is the PTA and why is its repeal so important?

Originally enacted in 1979 as a temporary measure to deal with a deteriorating security situation, the PTA has (in conjunction with a number of Emergency Regulations) since been used as a tool to intimidate and control citizens from all communities and backgrounds – but in particular, former combatants, journalists, political opponents, human rights defenders and members of the minority Tamil community. The broad wording of the Act means that almost anyone can be arbitrarily arrested, in contravention of both the fundamental rights granted by the constitution and the various international human rights treaties to which Sri Lanka is a signatory.

Owing to its restrictions on access to legal counsel, as well as lack of safeguards on the admissibility of confessions, the PTA has also played a key role in facilitating and incentivising systemic torture by the Sri Lankan security forces over several decades. And with its lengthy detention periods and restrictions on requests to relief from the courts, it has resulted in hundreds of detainees languishing behind bars for many years, without conviction or charge, on the basis of little or no evidence, with minimal judicial oversight. As a 2015 report by human rights group WATCHDOG highlights, five persons have spent 18-19 years in jail waiting for their guilt or innocence to be established. Several have spent over ten years in remand without charges being brought against them.

What is in the Draft ‘Counter Terrorism Act’ (CTA)?

While we await a full legal analysis of the text, early examination of the draft Counter Terrorism Act suggests a massive and alarming expansion of grounds for arrest, with “terrorism” now incorporating the act of “illegally or unlawfully compelling the Sri Lankan Government (or that of any other sovereign nation) to reverse, vary or change a policy decision”. Further ambiguity around prohibitions on “acts of violent extremism towards achieving ideological domination” as well as “words either spoken or intended to be read [that may cause] harm to the unity, territorial integrity or sovereignty of Sri Lanka” indicate a chilling new step towards the policing of thought as well as protest and advocacy.

As for addressing those procedural elements of the PTA which facilitate torture and abuse in custody, the new bill upholds the restriction on suspects’ access to counsel for 48 hours from the time of arrest and maintains the admissibility of confessions obtained by officers. Disproportionate punishments, including the death penalty, do little to assuage the perception that the Act, in its current form, would simply be used by the Sri Lankan state as an instrument for continued repression.

“The whole draft thus allows the government in power to crush any dissent or opposition that may challenge it” (DecentLanka2015 Statement, 17th October 2016)

What needs to happen now?

It goes without saying that the government of Sri Lanka should immediately withdraw this draft and conduct a complete re-write before submitting it to further public and parliamentary scrutiny. Were this not to happen, then it would likely find itself in breach of its commitments both to the international community and its own people.

With regard to the EU, a failure to substantially alter the draft legislation would make the already contentious return to GSP+ status entirely unjustifiable. The EU therefore has a significant amount of leverage over the draft legislation and it is imperative that they use this to ensure that the new Act does not continue to facilitate serious human rights violations.

With regard to the United Nations, Sri Lanka’s commitment under Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 to review and repeal the PTA means that a failure to meaningfully reform counter-terrorism legislation would merit robust action by the Human Rights Council in the form of further monitoring and oversight.

Most importantly however, the Sri Lankan government promised its own people that the days of authoritarianism were over. This draft Act gives the lie to that promise – a lie that threatens to destroy Sri Lanka’s fragile peacebuilding process. Unless it is urgently re-thought, it could have calamitous consequences for the country’s future.

“…effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights are not conflicting goals, but complementary and mutually reinforcing.” – 2006 General Assembly Adoption of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy)

What can I do?

Tweet a link to this blog piece, and/or one of the graphics within it, with the hashtag #RepealThePTA to @JunckerEU (President of the EU Commission), @MalmstromEU (the EU Commissioner responsible for trade), and @Trade_EU (the Trade Department of the EU Commission).

Sri Lanka: “Counter Terrorism Act ‘more terrifying’ than PTA”

( October 17, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The draft titled “Policy and legal framework of the proposed Counter Terrorism Act of Sri Lanka” is meant to replace the much criticised and denounced Prevention of Terrorism Act (ACT) that infringes on basic human rights of the people, a collective of professionals – “DecentLanka2015” says.

“It is now reported this new draft for “counter terrorism” has been referred by the Cabinet to two Sectoral Oversight Committees on National Security and Justice. Very authoritative sources have read it as far more terrifying than even the PTA it would replace,” they say in a statement.

The statement also says :

‘With this draft ‘Counter Terrorism Act’, Sirisena-Wickramasinghe coalition government seems to be unduly using the opportunity provided by the UN OISL Resolution 30/1 co-sponsored with the US in 2015 October. The new piece of law if adopted could give them occasion to crush any dissent, any opposition, labelling all as ‘terrorism’.”

“Most provisions clearly contradict Chapter III, Constitution 14 of the present Constitution that guarantee “freedom of expression” as a fundamental right. All of it taken in the context of President Sirisena’s assumption of selective justice declared publicly (controversial statement made at SLFI on 12 Oct.) makes a mockery of law enforcement, where democracy and rule of law would fall victim to dictatorial diktats of those abusing power.”

“We therefore stand firmly convinced, this piece of draft law is far worse than the PTA it is meant to replace. The proposed draft should not be gazetted and brought to parliament as it stands. We demand it be dropped forthwith completely and a new piece of law be drafted to replace the PTA. And that draft to be opened for public consultations before it goes through the legal process of becoming law.”

Statement-on-Counter-Terrorism-Act.pdf by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Perpetual and the problem of unfettered capitalism

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

Questions about rampant capitalism are raised not just in Sri Lanka but in all developed financial markets. Hence, calls for a more subdued, socially conscious process reverberate here as well, and these arguments are important.

Once we set the rules, the private sector steps in to maximise profit – acting within the neoliberal agenda. That is the system we have created for ourselves, and our private sector is no exception.

But, like elsewhere, the nexus between the private sector and Government is a complex one, and some believe it has gone too far.

The administration of regulations in Sri Lanka is arguably poor, which means our companies operate within both the black and white, as well as the grey areas of the law. And they don’t disclose information when they don’t need to. 

Perpetual and the problem of unfettered capitalism.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Is Sirisena A Political Traitor?

By Granville Perera –October 17, 2016 

Maithripala Sirisena has come up with his new version of “Thana Patiya and Madu Waligaya”. He has exposed his true intentions OF STAYING IN POWER with his now infamous speech at “Sathviru Heritage” function held at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, organized to transfer ownership of houses and properties to the security divisions. What has made him change overnight? Does he want his second term or is there a threat of a coup by Gota and his merry men, or a decent enough kickback offered by the Sri Lankan Viktor Bout, the Senadipathi of Avante Garde fame. He has found fault with independent commissions acting independently.

It is pertinent to recall the speech made by our globally acclaimed head of Good Governance in Sri Lanka, President Maithripala Sirisena’s at the Anti Corruption summit in London on the 12th of May 2016.

“I thank Hon. Mr. David Cameron, Prime Minister for inviting me to attend this Anti-Corruption Summit in London. I consider this summit a significant step to combine our collective efforts to fight corruption that is wide spread all over the world.

Corruption is one of the factors that promote political violence and other forms of human rights abuses. Sri Lanka went through such a stage during the previous administration. The people reacted strongly against corruption by changing the corrupt administration by the power of the ballet in January 2015 at the Presidential election and again at the Parliamentary election in the August 2016.

The people acting democratically got rid of the corrupt leaders and their supporters. The current national unity government consists of the two major political parties in the parliament under my leadership and the other led by Prime Minister Hon. Ranil Wickramasinghe. We were elected to office on the policy platform of democracy, good governance and rule of law. Therefore, we consider our prime duty to root out of corruption from the country. We have already taken significant measures for this purpose. I am happy to inform this forum that with the introduction of the 19th amendment to the constitution I handed over most of the executive powers to the Parliament except those powers Supreme Court decided cannot be transferred. However, even under this limited situation as a demonstration of my commitment to transparency, accountability and the rule of law and my firm determination to route out corruption I established an anti-corruption secretariat, a special presidential commission to investigate. I also appointed a commission to investigate allegations of bribery and corruption. The Right to Information Act has been presented to the Parliament and the National Audit Act will be presented to the Parliament shortly. All these institutions are working satisfactorily. A special division within the police titled Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) was established to expedite investigations on major financial crimes. They have been given all necessary facilities to carry out their duties. They have already commenced flings of several major financial charges. We note with appreciation the support and cooperation already extended to Sri Lanka by several countries including UK, USA , India and Switzerland as well as the World Bank to strengthen the investigative agencies regarding the stolen assets. We are in the process of seeking information and assistance to trace them . We are happy that summit proposes to establish an International Anti- Corruption Centre, all of us as leaders need to act collectively to strengthen our own law enforcement agencies to track the corrupt and recover the proceeds of corruption.

Sri Lanka is fully committed to such firm action. Thank You.”

The above noble words have been flushed down the toilet with his statement of 12th October 2016 where he questions the right of independent commissions to act independently. The tragedy is, Sri Lankan politicians will find it hard not to poke their fingers in to independent investigations when it hurts them, especially when their children run riot at nightclubs, and commit murder.

Read More

The democratic transition: On-your-face crony capitalism Perhaps, the President is making a point

 2016-10-18

here were two disturbing developments last week. First, it was President Maithripala Sirisena’s speech at an event held at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, where he expressed his ‘displeasure and disgust’ at the hauling before the court of the former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and three former commanders of the Navy, in a case filed by the Bribery Commission. 
The President’s speech sent shivers across the country, for it implied a clear departure from the pledges, he made during the election - and had tried to live by with a varying degrees of success since in power. 
Many observers viewed it as a growing rift between the President and the UNP, the main constituent party of the Unity Government, being played out in public. The President later said he had been ‘misquoted’ and ‘quoted out of context.’
The other was the deepening rot involving the Perpetual Treasuries, the controversial bond dealer connected to the family of the former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran. 
A leaked Central Bank draft report revealed that the primary dealer of which Arjun Aloysius, the son-in-law of the ex-Central Bank Governor was a founding director had made a whopping after-tax-profit exceeding 10 billion rupees for the 14 months from April 2015 to May 2016. 
That is also the period corresponding to Mr. Mahendran’s tenure at the Central Bank. During the same period, the cumulative after-tax profit of the rest of the bond traders in the market was just Rs. 544 million. This defies basic logic and one needs not to be an economist to feel something is fishy. 
The Monetary Board of the Central Bank itself has expressed concern on ‘the sharp disparity in the performance of primary dealers, as well as certain issues related to the pattern of trading activities.’
Last week the court ordered the auctioning of a multi-million rupee house and land, allegedly belonged to former minister Basil Rajapaksa, of which ownership he had denied. 
However, the Government’s response has been muted. There are two explanations. 
The optimistic scenario is that the authorities are awaiting the final report of the Monetary Board. The monetary board in a media statement said the future course of action would be decided upon the completion of on-site-investigation reports.
However, the other disturbing prospect is that after all the hullabaloo , the politically connected would get away with a slap on their wrists to enjoy their ill- gotten wealth- while the poor are sent to jail for the theft of a coconut.

" The disturbing prospect is that after all the hullabaloo , the politically connected would get away with a slap on their wrists to enjoy their ill- gotten wealth- while the poor is sent to jail for the theft of a coconut."

This is on-your-face crony capitalism. The UNP has a past record of it- though some of which were inevitable fallouts of the initial stage of capitalism, a malady seen in most later successful economies in South East and East Asia during their early days. 
However, the same excuse cannot be peddled now.
That such abuses are revealed and investigated is a sign of change. But, since we have channelled our energies to deliberate on those abstract matters – secularism, devolution, constitutionalism -as we have been doing since the independence, and tend to think corruption ended with the former regime, real economic concerns risk being relegated. However a corrupt democracy is not the change the people voted for.
Yahapalanaya is also faced with another familiar dilemma that countries encountered in their democratic transition. 
When the President spoke out last week about his discontent at certain actions undertaken by the Bribery Commission, he perhaps unintentionally, highlighted this predicament. Countries from Indonesia to Chile, which underwent democratic transition after protracted autocratic regimes did not choose to lock up the entire old guard, because, that was a recipe for disorder. 
When the President , as the commander- in- chief raised concerns over the indictment of military commanders or the prolong detention in remand custody of military personnel, he is making a point for stability - and he echoes the concerns of many thousands of officers and other ranks- and a sizeable portion of the Sinhalese majority. 

"We live in an imperfect world among imperfect people in an imperfect time, in which too much idealism, at best, exploded as harmless windbags"

On the other hand, the Bribery Commission is acting on its constitutional mandate and with the good intentions of its activist staff. Their intentions are noble, however, Sri Lanka which ended a brutal war with means at its disposal, cannot behave like Sweden. 
Our circumstances are different and we were not born yesterday. It takes years for the democratic transition to complete, and those who are overseeing the process should be mindful of potential drawbacks if they try to overdo certain things.
It would be wonderful if all the perpetrators be held accountable for their past crimes. That is what the rights groups, civil society activists, diplomats and many others are rooting for, though for different reasons, some of which are noble, some less so. 
However, we live in an imperfect world among imperfect people in an imperfect time, in which too much idealism, at best, exploded as harmless windbags and, at worst , created killing fields and Gulags.
The Government should be cognizant of the past we try to leave behind, and in the process, not let it to haunt the present and the harm the prospects of the future. Instead, it should put more emphasis on the present. Dwelling too much in the past in order to appease some, would antagonize many others, who are numerically large. Perhaps, the president is making that point.

Follow RangaJayasuriya @RangaJayasuriya on Twitter