South Korea: Thousands call for president’s resignation over allegations of cronyism and ‘shaman’ influence

South Koreans shout slogans during an anti-president rally in downtown Seoul, South Korea on Saturday. Pic: AP.

 30th October 2016

SOUTH KOREANS gathered in mass street protests on Saturday, demanding that President Park Geun-hye step down from office following recent accusations that she had shared official state documents with a friend and allowed said friend to meddle in state affairs.

On Tuesday, Park made a rare public apology, admitting that she had shown secret documents, including drafts of presidential speeches, to her confidant, Choi Soon-sil, seeking her advice. Choi does not hold any public office.

“I am shocked and my heart is breaking for causing public concern.

“I’ve done so (shared the documents) out of pure heart so that I could carefully review (the documents),” she said in the live telecast, reported CNN.

Onlookers watch a news program about South Korean President Park Geun-hye’s apology. Pic: AP.

Local cable TV network JTBC broke the scandal earlier this week, revealing evidence that Choi had received confidential documents and influenced government matters.

It was also alleged that Choi had used her close relationship with Park for personal and financial gain, such as manipulating local firms into ‘donating’ about 50 billion won (US$44 million) to two foundations that had supposedly been set up by her.

SEE ALSO: South Korea: Strict law on corruption takes effect

As of Thursday, the Prosecutor’s Office established a “special investigation unit” to investigate the matter, and is interviewing presidential aides and other officials involved.

Angered by the scandal, some 8,000 people gathered at the rally yesterday, said police, while organizers said up to 30,000 people took part in the march through the capital of Seoul.

Speaking to Reuters, one of the participants at the rally, Jeong Hong-woo, 22, said: “It’s become clear the people made a wrong decision and picked a wrong president.”

SEE ALSO: Top South Korean government officials battle bribery claims

The scandal has also taken on a strange twist, as rumors swirl of Choi’s links to a religious cult, depicting her as a “shaman” who has been manipulating Park through supernatural means and even comparing her to Russian mystic Rasputin.

Among those calling for Park’s resignation is housewife Lee Ji-Hu, 33, who was quoted by Channel News Asia saying: “How can a leader have a shaman, or someone linked to a religious cult as a secret advisor and let her handle state affairs and squander taxpayers’ money like that?”

Public outcry over Choi has seen Park’s approval ratings take a tumble, hitting an all-time low of 21.1 percent on Thursday, according to local pollster Real Meter, while in another poll, over 40 percent of respondents said Park should resign or be impeached.

Looking beyond the Trump–Clinton duel: The nightmares of American exceptionalism

Featured image courtesy Reuters

The conservative version of American exceptionalism has become a password of sorts for candidates who want to prove their credentials to a right-wing America. –Russ Feingold

The run-up to the American Election is not only drawing attention and controversy in the United States, it is also being closely watched across the globe. Research company Toluna assessed the viewing habits and opinions of adults in almost 5000 interviews in 23 countries across Europe, Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia Pacific, plus Canada, The findings show a level of interest in the US election with 85% of people viewing the election as important for the world at large. Thus, the American presidential election is more than just mere political spectacle for the rest of us in the world too, as its’ outcome will set a precedent for how the global superpower will be approaching the next four years and even beyond!.

With both candidates Trump and Clinton seen to be stepping up their appearances, less than two weeks to go until election day, Clinton seems the red hot favourite to many , which even Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway has admitted in an interview. However, be that as it may, as many critics conclude, nothing could be more mistaken, or more dangerous, than the perception that Hillary is the “safer” candidate for President. She is nothing of the kind, and voting for her will not save us whether in US or beyond, either from Donald Trump—or from anything else. Opinion thus remains split as to which of these options would be the absolute worst and which would be only second worst.

Numerous commentators and political leaders have opined that ‘from an immense talent pool, the American political system has managed to narrow the race down to two supremely flawed human beings, neither of whom remotely deserves to be in the White House’. ‘On the one hand we have Clinton, a scandal-ridden, uninspiring pro-war candidate. As John Pilger says ‘She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted “exceptionalism” is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face”. On the other is Donald Trump, who demonstrated recklessness far beyond what should be considered acceptable for anyone seeking what is by far the most powerful job in the world; a foul-mouthed demagogue who specialises in whipping up hate and threatening cataclysmic trade wars. Thus, as there will be no good outcome either way, it is apt for America itself as well as the world at large, to begin preparing for four years of purgatory. 

However, hovering behind the centre stage, and the highlights of the duel between Trump and Clinton, lies the real inherent danger which has been posing a real threat to global peace and fairplay –The Ghost of American Exceptionalism (AE). Despite their differences, all of the Republican and Democratic candidates continue to champion this idea and belief with religious zeal, let alone pay allegiance – a belief that the U.S. is uniquely qualified to lead the world and that the US, in its governance, politics, mission, and place in the world, is unique, and, in its most extreme version, qualitatively superior to other nations — abides to this day.

America is indeed exceptional in some obvious respects, and there is nothing wrong with Americans reminding themselves of those aspects, as long as they do not stick the concept in the face of non-Americans. For example, in 2008, on the night he won the presidency, Barak Obama referred to one such aspect : “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer”. As a new president, Obama tried to dismiss the very AE idea, noting that Greeks and the Brits think their countries are special, too. However five years later, and a little grayer, Obama summed up his feelings on the subject differently. “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” he told graduating cadets at the U.S. Military Academy.

In this context, can the world see an end to this American obsession after the November elections? Such expectations will be too simplistic. From Truman to Obama, all US Presidents have been its’ staunch champions, believing that US was “the greatest nation that the sun ever shone upon” and the victory in World War II demonstrated American greatness, but it also placed on the United States the responsibility of ensuring peace and freedom in the postwar world. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties repeat these platitudes. They are taught in the country’s schools. These beliefs are reinforced and circulated by American popular culture. In total, American Exceptionalism is a cornerstone of civil religion in the United States. It provides comfort to a people.

For a change, Trump, at the beginning of his campaign, being a maverick, appeared to trample on AE- one of the mainstay tenets of GOP ideology—and undercut a line of attack often used by Republicans. In answer to a query: “Define American exceptionalism. Does American exceptionalism still exist? And what do we do to grow American exceptionalism?”, Trump didn’t hesitate to shoot down the premise of the question, saying he didn’t “like the term.” He questioned whether the United States was “more exceptional” and “more outstanding” than other nations. Trump added, “I want to take everything back from the world that we’ve given them. We’ve given them so much.” He suggested that were he to become president, he would make the United States exceptional.

His contention was therefore based around the belief that although the United States has historically been the most glorious country ever known, it has lost its way. Only Trump can bring the country back to its rightful state of greatness. Trump was therefore apparently getting an initial upward swing , when he promised to make America great again as he was seen to represent some very deep fears in huge swathes of Americans who have seen the boast of “American Exceptionalism” exposed as being just a hollow boast. Trump gave a short lived false hope to the US realists too — those who argue that America should merely pursue its national interests by posing off as their champion, by vowing to avoid foreign entanglements, such as pre-emptive wars in Iraq, and said that America’s allies should pay for more of their defence, or that China is entitled to occupy atolls in a sea named after it. Unfortunately for realists, their ship may go down with him, which means the USS Exceptionalist would set sail again possibly under Mrs Clinton.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is the AE Camps’ unabashed cheerleader. “I believe with all my heart that America is an exceptional country,” she said in June. “We are still, in Lincoln’s words, the last best hope of earth.” Her campaign rhetoric is also strikingly different from Mr Obama’s. The problems come from the tendency , which is implicit in much of the wording of Clinton’s speeches such as “when America fails to lead, we leave a vacuum that either causes chaos or other countries or networks rush in to fill the void” , as considering US leadership as indispensable in addressing all significant problems abroad.. It is some of the corollaries that tend to flow in an unthinking fashion from the concept of AE and this so-called ‘vacuum’metaphor ,which have caused problems. On the contrary, US involvements have become part of the problem. How many countries has US attacked and/or overthrown or tried to overthrow in its’ ‘exceptional’ history? The US has pretty much arrogated to itself the right go anywhere, bomb or invade anyone, remove by overt or covert means any government that offends us. Naked aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were obvious examples of its’ highhandedness, apart from being part of the cause for the creation of ISIS and the Syrian Crisis.

Many small countries like Sri Lanka too experienced this big bully hegemonic attitude of the Uncle Sam in the past. US, as a global super power has sought to define the norms of International law, by explaining its’ highhandedness by asserting that it can subvert them for the greater good of the world as sometimes International Law is toothless in the wake of true adversity, as well as be the enforcer of International law when other states stray in the absence of a unified mandatory system of enforcement. The outward support for the Zionist Israeli regime is also part of this justification. The circumstances which led to US sponsoring UNHR Resolution on the ‘war crimes’ during the last phases of the war in Sri Lanka in 2009 was reflective of this AE double standards attitude . “When America bombs countless territories costing innocent lives, to kill a few terrorists; that is not a ‘massacre’ but of urgent legitimate national security’ interests’; When other countries which act contrary to their ‘global hegemonic interests’ do it, then such actions are referred to as ‘killing fields’. It was comical how the US tunes changed when power changed hands in Colombo!

American people therefore need to be more mature about the role of their nation in the world, and to be especially mindful of the dangers that come with a type of hypocrisy that deems the actions taken by the US as always appropriate and right by definition and the same actions to be wrong and suspect when committed by another country. Clinton did invoke Abraham Lincoln’s concept of the last best hope of Earth and Ronald Reagan’s image of a shining city on a hill. The idea of making the American republic the best, and the best example, it can possibly be — so that even a demagogue like Donald Trump can’t wreck it — is a better way to implement ideas of exceptionalism than to act like an indispensable vacuum-filler.

In 1823, the Monroe Doctrine pronounced that the United States would no longer interfere with existing European colonies in the New World and proclaimed that European powers were to leave American colonies alone. The Monroe Doctrine was an American policy formulated by President James Monroe in 1823 to limit European interference in the Western Hemisphere. The decision of the Truman administration to establish NATO and commit the U.S. to the defense of Western Europe, the decision of the Johnson administration to adopt Israel as a client state, and the decision of the Nixon administration to attempt to establish hegemony in the Persian Gulf each represent costly departures from the older geopolitical strategy of the U.S. It will be useful for US to re-visit this Doctrine.

As Godfrey Hodgson in an article on ‘‘Time for a New Destiny’ ‘ wrote: ‘Americans have as yet understood even less than their fellow westerners the emerging strength of the weak and the weakness of the strong. . . . there is no hegemony in the multi polar world’ . Earlier the US realizes this truism, and alters its’ world view, the better for the American people and the world at large.

If you enjoyed this article, you may find our articles: “Barack Obama: Hope for America, but not for the world?” and “American people make history, can we Sri Lankans ever?” illuminating. 

Facebook’s Free Basics Is an African Dictator’s Dream

BY NANJALA NYABOLA-OCTOBER 27, 2016

NAIROBI — Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s surprise visit to Kenya and Nigeria in September saw him eat ugali fish with his hands and crash a Nollywood music video shoot in between whirlwind tours of innovation hubs and tech incubators.

“Hey Africa,” he seemed to say. “I get you. Facebook gets you.”

Zuckerberg’s lighting public relations blitz contrasted sharply with Facebook’s under-the-radar expansion in Africa, which is built around a no-frills internet app called Free Basics. India’s government rejected the same app, which provides access to a low-data version of Facebook and a limited number of pre-selected websites, on the grounds that it amounted to a two-tiered internet system, one for the rich and one for the poor. But Facebook continues to roll it out quietly in Africa — so quietly, in fact, that many of hundreds of millions of people who now have access to the app in 23 different African countries don’t even know they do.

On the surface, Free Basics seems like the answer to many interconnected prayers. It’s a cheap, easy way to get millions of people online at a time when the internet is not only a daily necessity but increasingly thought of as a human right. The app piggybacks on the rapid adoption of mobile phones in Africa and is made available for free through partnerships with local mobile telecom providers. Those who sign up for a Facebook account through Free Basics are then able to log on to a pared-down version of the internet on their phones.

But there’s a dark side to Free Basics that has the potential to do more harm than good — a side that suggests that Zuckerberg doesn’t get Africa after all. The app is essentially a cheap version of the internet, a fact that by itself implies that some people aren’t good enough to merit the whole thing. Even worse, it’s a version of the internet that gives Facebook — and by extension the corporations and governments that partner with Facebook — total control over what its users can access.

Per the Free Basics website, any company that meets certain technical and efficiency requirements can develop a website for the platform. This sounds very democratic in theory, but in practice it means that users get only the parts of the internet that some interested party has worked with Facebook to include.

There are many individuals and groups in the developing world with information to share, but not many of them can afford the time and energy to develop a website for the platform, and those that can will almost always be trying to sell something. In that way, Free Basics promises to undermine the public information function that the internet is supposed to serve. In many African countries, traditional media has been co-opted by the state, so the internet does more to amplify critical voices than any other platform — blogs and other online platforms have become extremely important sources of perspective and analysis in Kenya, for instance. Such voices will likely be muted on a space like Free Basics.

Even if they did, there remains a significant risk of censorship. Facebook monitors its user content closely and retains the power to restrict access based on its own standards of use. In September, the company shut down the most popular Ethiopian page on the site, Mereja, claiming that it caused people to “like or engage with it unintentionally in a misleading way.” But administrators of the website argued that their page was shut down because of their extensive coverage of the ongoing protests in the Amhara and Oromia regions — coverage that the Ethiopian government has worked so hard to mute that it briefly switched off the internet for the whole country.

The risk of censorship is amplified by the fact that many of the mobile providers partnering with Facebook on Free Basics are state-owned or partially state-owned. Kenyan mobile giant Safaricom, for instance, is 35 percent government-owned. Even those partners that are private companies are vulnerable to pressure from the government. In 2008, for instance, Airtel was one of several private mobile providers in Kenya that complied with government requests to hand over data on over 1,000 users accused of instigating violence after the election.

Can agitators on the platform trust these mobile corporations to keep their information safe, particularly when the company has proved willing to make concessions to governments to access their markets? Writing about Free Basics in India in the Guardian, Rahul Bhatia catalogued the extent to which the company sought to accommodate the Indian government as it attempted to launch the platform there:
“[N]o request for information from [Indian President Narendra] Modi’s team was ever denied,” he wrote.

Facebook has a similarly troubling record on privacy in the United States. According to a February 2016 report, 80 percent of all requests by U.S. law enforcement for information on Facebook users between January and June 2015 “yielded data.” Meanwhile, in October 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union accused Facebook and Instagram, which it owns, of handing over user information to the location-based service Geofeedia, which in turn used the information in partnership with law enforcement agencies like the Baltimore Police Department to facilitate enhanced surveillance of protestors in the Black Lives Matter movement.

This record of collaborating with governments should make us wary of Free Basics. The app is only worth the gamble if one believes that governments where it’s been rolled out have the best interests of their citizens at heart — a presumption that is unwarranted in much of Africa. In just the last year, in Gabon, Ethiopia, Uganda, Chad, Zimbabwe, and many other countries, online actions of pro-democracy protestors prompted the state to shut down the internet for the entire country. (Free Basics is available in Gabon and Uganda.) These states shut down the internet because they fear they cannot control it. Free Basics gives them a version of the internet that they can influence, if not totally control.

Reached for comment, a representative of Facebook insisted that Free Basics is “committed to protecting users’ privacy and security… [and] doesn’t enable governments to restrict users’ access to content, speech, or certain providers any more than they’d be able to do on the broader internet.” The representative also denied that Facebook is creating a two-tiered internet service, claiming instead that it is bringing “unconnected people to the broader internet” since around 50 percent of Free Basics users end up paying for access to the “full internet” within the first 30 days.

This explanation is, of course, a tacit admission that Free Basics has indeed created a two-tiered internet system: The 50 percent who don’t pay to use the “full internet” are stuck with a sub-par product. This was at the core criticism that the Free Basics platform faced in India. The internet’s democratizing potential is diminished if the information contained there isn’t equally available to all. There will always be disparities in the quality of the tools we use to connect, but there can be no “right to internet” if the system itself has disparities built into it. If certain corporations or individuals have the ability to shape the content that some internet users have access to, these actors get expansive power to shape users’ preferences as well. While those with full internet access could search “Kenya Airways” and find stories about alleged corporate malfeasance and corruption, those with Free Basics may find only the company’s paid-for corporate website — singing its praises even if the airline implodes.

This is especially troubling since the internet is quickly becoming the place where key state services are provided and where political debate and decision-making happens. This has the potential to be a good thing, but only if it increases pressure on governments to build information technology infrastructure. In Kenya for instance, it is impossible to renew a driver’s license, apply for a passport, or pay taxes without internet access — which is part of the reason why such access is now available at designated government service points known as “huduma” (service) centers. A two-tiered internet system slows down technological progress and offers the government a shortcut that shortchanges the public: If governments can go digital without paying for new IT infrastructure, they are less likely to make the investments that will be necessary for the country in the long run.

Is Free Basics bad for Africa because Africa is bad? No. Free Basics is bad for Africa because it’s a deeply flawed idea that fails to take into account existing political realities. It privatizes a public problem, and further severs the social contract in countries where the relationship between state and citizen is already fraught.

But to hear Facebook tell it, Free Basics is a win-win solution: “More people will want to connect to the internet and ultimately become paying users if they first experience the benefits of being online,” the Free Basics website reads.

This hyper-simplistic, bizarrely apolitical formulation on the barriers to internet connectivity, particularly in the developing world, affirms that no matter how many plates of fish Mark Zuckerberg eats, Facebook doesn’t get Africa.

Photo credit: SUNDAY AGHAEZE/AFP/Getty Images

Germany orders Facebook to stop collecting WhatsApp user data

National data protection authority blocks recent privacy changes made by social network and commands existing shared data and phone numbers be deleted for 35 million users

Samuel Gibbs and agencies-Tuesday 27 September 2016 

The German data protection agency has ordered Facebook to stop collecting user data from its WhatsApp messenger app and delete any data it has already received.

The social network announced in August that it would begin sharing data from its 1 billion-plus user base, including phone numbers, from WhatsApp users with Facebook for the purpose of targeted ads. It gave users the option of opting out of the data being used for advertising purposes, but did not allow them to opt out of the data sharing between WhatsApp and Facebook.

Hamburg’s Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information Johannes Caspar ruled on Tuesday that Facebook “neither has obtained an effective approval from the WhatsApp users, nor does a legal basis for the data reception exist”.

“It has to be [the users’] decision whether they want to connect their account with Facebook. Facebook has to ask for their permission in advance.”

Caspar also recalled that in the wake of Facebook’s 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp it had promised that they would not share user data.

Facebook’s German activities are headquartered in Hamburg, placing the social network under the jurisdiction of the regulator in the northern city.

Caspar ordered Facebook to delete any data already received from WhatsApp in Germany, saying that he was acting to protect the privacy of Germany’s 35 million WhatsApp users and that of people saved in each user’s address books, whose details might also be forwarded under the data-sharing arrangement.

A Facebook spokesperson said: “Facebook complies with EU data protection law. We will work with the Hamburg DPA in an effort to address their questions and resolve any concerns.”

The California-based company has faced several privacy challenges across Europe, including those from the Belgian data protection authority, in Germany and France. Facebook has maintained that it operates in Europe from its headquarters in Ireland and that its actions are therefore governed by Irish law.

The European Commission recently recommended tighter privacy and security requirements for services including WhatsApp and Microsoft-owned video calling service Skype, saying they should be regulated more like traditional telecoms.

Greater regulation could result in stricter data privacy provisions as well as requirements for emergency calling services and other facilities currently the preserve of mobile and fixed line telephony services.

• WhatsApp privacy backlash: Facebook angers users by harvesting their data
• Facebook wins appeal against Belgian privacy watchdog over tracking

NI woman charged over abortion pills

The purchase and use of abortion pills is illegal throughout the UK-Many with deeply-held religious beliefs in Northern Ireland oppose any new legislation

An anti-abortion activist prays outside the Marie Stopes Clinic in Belfast-Campaigners have staged a series of stunts in an attempt to challenge Northern Ireland's stricter abortion laws

By Chris Buckler-27 October 2016

A woman was reported to police in Northern Ireland and charged in connection with using abortion pills after she sought medical help, the BBC has learnt.

The purchase and use of abortion pills is illegal throughout the UK.

However, there is particular concern about their availability in Northern Ireland.

This is because a termination is only allowed where a woman's life or long-term health is put at serious risk.

There are now warnings that women are putting their health at risk by taking abortion pills bought online.

The drugs cause blood loss and some people are likely to need treatment if they use them.

Women in England, Scotland and Wales are allowed to have an abortion within the first 24 weeks of their pregnancy if it is carried out in a hospital or a licensed clinic.

In recent months campaigners have staged a series of stunts - including swallowing abortion pills in front of the police - as part of their attempts to challenge the stricter laws in Northern Ireland.

"It's a class issue now," said Courtney Robinson of Socialist Youth NI, who spoke to me at a protest outside Newry.

"Those who can afford it are travelling to England and having an abortion there privately.

"And those who can't afford it are here to either be in a dangerous situation or to get these pills online and face criminalisation."

There are fears that many who order pharmaceuticals online cannot be sure what they will receive.

BBC News NI looked at numerous websites that advertise abortion pills and offer to deliver them to UK addresses.

Risk of heavy bleeding

I purchased pills which arrived from India with limited documentation and had them tested at Queen's University in Belfast.

The university's ASSET Technology Centre found the drugs were capable of causing a termination however the pills were not licensed for use in the UK.

"There are risks associated with this drug's use," said Dr Paul McCague of the School of Pharmacy at Queen's.

"Of particular concern with this drug would be the heavy bleeding which is a relatively common adverse effect.

"And a number of women will actually require a blood transfusion."

A number of people have been charged in connection with the use and purchase of abortion pills over the last few years.

It is understood that one of those women was reported to police after she requested medical help.

A police statement said: "The PSNI has a statutory duty under Section 32 of the Police (NI) Act 2000 to protect life, to prevent the commission of offences and where an offence has been committed, to take measures to bring the offender to justice.

"As with any other offence where there are grounds to suspect the commission of an offence we will conduct a thorough and objective investigation into the matter.

"Whilst police can make recommendations at the conclusion of their investigation ultimately it will be a matter for the Public Prosecution Service to determine whether the case should or should not be prosecuted."

The Department of Health in Northern Ireland issued guidelines earlier this year stating that medical staff had a legal responsibility to give the police information to secure "the apprehension, prosecution, or conviction" of anyone involved in an illegal termination.

That duty to make a report to police is contained in the Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967.

'Don't ask, don't tell'

However the guidance from Stormont goes on to say that all staff's first duty is the care of the woman and that health professionals do not need to pass on information "if they have a reasonable excuse for not doing so".

It has been described by some as a "don't ask, don't tell" clause.

The issue of abortion remains extremely divisive at Stormont, where there are some politicians who want the law in Northern Ireland relaxed to allow terminations in cases where the baby will not survive beyond birth.

However there are many MLAs with deeply-held religious beliefs who oppose any new legislation.

"We have been looking to the rest of the UK and saying we don't want that to happen," said Marion Woods of the anti-abortion group LIFE NI.

"And our politicians have been holding against the tide of some people who are actively trying to quite forcefully change our law."

BBC News NI tried to speak to both Stormont's justice and health ministers about abortion pills, but both refused several requests.

And when I turned up at a charity event where the Justice Minister Claire Sugden was due to give interviews, I was told I would not be allowed to ask her about abortion.

When I refused to agree to that, Ms Sugden's press officer asked for the charity hosting the event to throw us out.

Health Minister 'unavailable'

The Department of Justice issued a short statement, saying issues regarding prosecution on abortion were a matter for the PPS (Public Prosecution Service).

"The current law prohibits the use of abortion drugs throughout the UK," it said.

"Medical issues relating to the use of abortion pills are a matter for the Department of Health."

After several calls a spokesman for that department simply said the health minister was "unavailable for interview".

Human skeleton found in Kilinochchi

-29 Oct  2016

A human skeleton was found by locals in Uruthirapuram, Kilinochchi district on Thursday.

The police are yet to identify the skeleton, however have said the deceased appears to have died around two months earlier. 

Independent Commissions Have A Role In Reconciliation

By Somapala Gunadheera –October 29, 2016

Somapala Gunadheera

To my mind the most shocking news we have had of late is the death of the two Jaffna undergraduates who died on their way home from a get-together. Two young lives heading towards prosperity and renown, in a rough terrain had been nipped in the bud.

I remember how I traveled the length and breadth of the Peninsula as a Cadet, when I was around their age. One day I had a tyre puncture on my way home and I was standing hopelessly near my car. A passing taxi driver stopped his car on seeing me. He changed my wheel dexterously without allowing me even to fetch the spare. As the Good Samaritan took leave of me, I pulled out my purse to compensate him. The man refused to accept payment, appearing to be hurt by my attempt to commercialize civic values.

Such values and comradeship was damaged by politicians on both sides who made racial differences a weapon to catch votes. Despite such exploitation common people on either side made a valiant effort to maintain racial amity. It is significant that the above incident took place at the peak of the ‘Sri’ crisis with my car bearing a ‘Sri’ number plate.

I did the same rounds forty years later, as the Chairman of the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of the North, when the LTTE insurrection was on. Even under such stress. I was as safe as houses though I was never covered by security. With that personal experience, I have the highest regard for the goodwill and hospitality of the North.

Strangely, that standard appears to be deteriorating, despite the end of the conflict and that, under a dispensation committed to reconciliation and good governance. May be under the previous regime discipline was maintained under relentless pressure. If Yahapalanaya wants to change that stance, it has to be quick in finding an amicable system of live and let live. That cannot be done with a magic wand or tiresome public declarations.

One does not have to go far to find instances of interracial conflict under the present Government. The alleged assault on some Sinhala students of the Jaffna University, who performed a Kandyan dance to welcome a new batch, is a clear case in point. That was followed in Peradeniya with an assault on a group of devotees returning from a Hindu shrine. The latest is the death of the two University students followed by presumed reprisals against security personnel stationed in the North. The brewing crisis is fraught with dangerous potential.

But the Government appears to be trying to stop the rising storm by merely sweeping things under the carpet. Though it claims to be committed to reconciliation, not much has happened in that direction, after it came to power, except the setting up of prestigious structures to achieve the object. Of course, one has to sympathize with the problem of having to satisfy the demands of two opposite poles among strange bedfellows. The fact that at least parts of the habitual opponents have been able to come together is a historical achievement. But such coalition will make no meaning if the new partners fail to sail the ship of state on even keel.

Read More

SRI LANKA GOVT RESTART CENSORING INTERNET: A TAMIL WEB SITE BLOCKED

29/10/2016

The Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRC)  has blocked a Tamil website following complaints from the Media Ministry and the Justice Ministry, TRC Director General Sunil Sirisena has told the Sunday Times.

There is no law that allows TRC to block web sites without proper legal procedures.

Mr. Sirisena has told the Sunday Times that  it received a complaint saying that the website was carrying false propaganda about judicial decisions given in the north, criticising judges and lawyers and posting news inciting the public in the north.

The particular website was using Sri Lanka Telecom as the service provider and the site had been blocked until investigations were completed by the Defence Ministry and the Media ministry. This is the first website to be blocked after the new government took over last year, reports.

T

The Sunday Times

Muslim Personal Laws reforms: On or not?

Photograph courtesy Sister Hood

A.M. FAAIZ on 10/29/2016

Call for reform

In announcing the decisions made by the Cabinet of Ministers last Wednesday, the Government spokesperson has stated, amongst others, that the Cabinet has decided to appoint a Sub-Committee of Ministers to study and recommend reforms to the Muslim law in Sri Lanka, with a view to bringing it in line with Sri Lanka’s international human rights treaty obligations.

In the absence of any clarification as to what is the status of the Committee appointed by the Minister of the Minister of Justice in 2009, to make recommendations for Muslim law reform, it is to be assumed that that committee headed by former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Saleem Marsoof has not been wound up. There are reports in the public domain, which indicate that the Saleem Marsoof Committee is still working on after almost 7 years of its establishment.

The Cabinet decision in question refers only to the need for aspects of the Muslim Personal law being made compliant with international human rights treaty obligations of Sri Lanka.  This is an important call, which the Muslim community should respect. However, one should not forget that there are two significant benchmarks against which the need for reform has become more pronounced in recent years. The first remains the imperative of changing what today is a pre-modern, archaic Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act in Sri Lanka. It needs to be transformed into a legal regime that is fully capable of providing true justice, and not subverting it. That, no doubt, depends on a range of factors; policy that underpins it, persons who administer it, institutions that give effect to it, and, of course, leadership, truly courageous and imaginative, that sees beyond the pale.

The ongoing process of constitution making which should also address the issues of women and children and help empower these vulnerable segments of the society is the second, yet pre-eminent benchmark. This needs to be done through provisions that are entrenched, or mandatory, in the supreme law of Sri Lanka. The need for reform, in my view, rests on all these factors. The expected outcome of Saleem Marsoof Committee could be the need of the hour.

The current law and its challenges

The Muslim Marriages and Divorce Act (MMDA) enacted by Sri Lankan Parliament in 1951 govern the Muslims of Sri Lanka. This law has been amended a few times, mostly, to fill in procedural shortcomings. Emphasis must be made that although it is known as MMDA, it is, however, not a pure and simple reflection of the Sharia law that is applicable in respect of marriage and divorce within the Muslim community. This law, in fact, is a kind of an amalgamation of some Sharia aspects and some customs practiced then, as chosen and codified by a group of men that subsequently became law. Ironically as it stands today it accommodates features that are contradictory to Sharia stipulations.

This law governs ‘with respect to the marriages and divorce’ of all Sri Lankans born to Muslim parents and/or those who subsequently embrace Islam marrying amongst themselves.

The implementation of this MMDA is riddled with a host of constraints, in particular discrimination meted out to Muslim women since its enactment. The demand that the law must be amended to rectify these shortcomings date back at least to 30 years.  Muslim women have been in the forefront of the call for reform then as now.

The practical discrimination meted out to women and also to children for years has been brought to the attention of the leaders of the Muslim community.  There has also been an acknowledgment that this law needs to be reformed in that different committees were set up in 1956, 1984 and 1990 by the Government to propose reforms. Except formulating recommendations, these committees achieved next to nothing. Being compelled by the demand from within the community and realising the imperative need for change, a Committee was set up by the then Justice Minister Milinda Moragoda in 2009 comprising 16 members including three Muslim women, a few eminent lawyers amongst others and was headed by Justice Saleem Marsoof.

The original remit given to the committee was that it should come up with its reform proposals within six months. The fact that it is several years hence and that we are yet to see any concrete recommendations is a sad reflection of the importance placed (by) on this committee which consisted of professionals, jurists, educationists and activists. The delay has unfortunately reinforced the argument that the community on its own is not going to bring about the required meaningful reforms or is incapable of doing so.

Renewed hope?

It is in this backdrop that it was good to read that justice Saleem Marsoof saying that his committee would come up with its report by November. In saying so he has also acknowledged the call for the release of the report and that there are ‘extreme members opposed to more liberal views’, perhaps contributing to the delay. The impression that a few individuals who may be interested to perpetuate dominance over a community against accepted norms impede him and other members in their work does not augur well.

It is also hoped that the committee would have actually gathered views of larger sections of the society impacted by the implementation of the existing laws including by consulting those who have faced the brunt of it. Justice Saleem Marsoof and a majority of the other learned men and women in the committee would know very well that they were appointed to the committee for their erudition, proven objectivity and integrity and hence would do well not to be held up by a couple of individuals with no societal or public accountability.

It is important to note that the committee itself was appointed upon an acknowledgement that all is not well with the said MMDA or its implementation thereof. In fact the government has on many occasions been compelled to assure and/or give undertakings to the UN and other partners that it would reform discriminatory laws.

This being so, perhaps unwittingly the government at times in trying to buy time or to wriggle out of the situation, has misstated facts in response to queries relating to Muslim law. The unedited informal summary of record of the Committee on Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, captures what the delegation of Sri Lanka stated in August 2016 thus:

“In answer to the questions relating to the application of customary laws, a delegate said that customary laws had been in place in the country since before the colonial era.  These laws were recognized and codified, and regulated aspects of life such as marriage, inheritance and divorce.  Sri Lanka’s legal system was therefore a mix between legislation and customary laws which were constantly monitored and reviewed.  Any change of customary law had to originate from the communities themselves, a delegate said.  Their application was not automatic, but rather a personal choice by the concerned individuals.  Specific constitutional provisions recognised and protected customary laws, he added.  A special committee had been established to discuss the codification of customary laws governing marriage and divorce for the Muslim community.”(emphasis is mine)

Discrimination at the core

Main areas of contention, as delineated from the on going discourse is about the discrimination meted out to Muslim women and children under the cover of this law. The areas of discrimination, amongst others, range from permissible age of marriage, women not being able to be appointed as Quazis, women not being required either to give or withhold their consent expressly when being given in marriage or contracting marriage, to unequal treatment of spouses when in polygamous marriage.

Many Muslim majority countries have raised the minimum age of marriage.   This is generally true of most rich Gulf Islamic States, and includes Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt and Morocco. However, Women are appointed as judges and Quazis in Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan and Morocco. Similarly in keeping with the Quranic injunctions, Malaysia has imposed stringent preconditions in the case of polygamous marriage and further in progressively interpreting the Quran, Turkey criminalised polygamy in 1926 and Tunisia banned it in 1956, both predominantly Muslim States.

Islam for justice

Justice Weeramantry, in his seminal treatise “Islamic Jurisprudence an International Perspective”, has traced the Islamic fundamental tenets as the founding base for the Universal Declaration on Human Rights Charter. UDHR remains at core of all other treaties including in particular, the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Justice Weeramantry goes on to trace as to how Islam paved way for,  and ensured protection of, equal rights between men and women at a time women and children had virtually no rights. He quotes verses from Quran extensively in drawing attention to directives that ensure that men and women are equal.

Justice Weeramantry is not the only jurist to have reiterated that Islamic jurisprudence is the predecessor and the forerunner to the current internationally accepted human rights norms. Nisrine Ahamed, in her treatise “Sharia Muslim States and International Human Rights Treaty Obligation”, outlines a number of areas where Islam brought positive changes, contributing to improvement of human rights.

It is undeniable that some of the discriminatory practices rooted in personal laws in Sri Lanka derive their justification from Article 16 of the Constitution, which permits the validity of the written or unwritten pre-existing laws.

Article 16; Charter of Servitude for women?

The call for the repeal of Article 16 in the Constitution is the culmination of the longstanding frustration over the failure to make right the wrongs meted out to the women and children. Ironically these are perpetuated by men and male-dominant institutions that continue to trot out unsubstantiated facts and unsustainable reasoning for the continuation of discriminatory practices. It must be realised that it is the State’s – not a community’s – responsibility to ensure equal treatment of all its citizen.

Those who are bent on perpetuating discriminatory practices, taking cover behind Article 16 argue that, the Government seeking to change the law would only evoke the religious feelings amongst the Muslims. That is a trick up the sleeve of these oppressive elements, and the Government should not fall prey to it. Worse still, these elements try in vain to make it look that the call for the repeal of Article 16 is intended to repeal the entire Muslim Personal Law, not just the discriminatory parts of it.

Politicians’ responsibility   

It is in this backdrop that it was startling to read reports which implied that the Leader of the SLMC was surrendering his democratic obligations towards his constituency to what he called “supreme body”, which is the code name for the All Ceylon Jammiyathul Ulema (ACJU).

Isn’t it he who said he stood for minimum age for marriage for women and that Muslim women could also be Quazis? We must note that people did not elect the ACJU, but Mr. Hakeem and several Muslim men as their representatives in the Parliament. A sweeping statement passing the onus to ACJU would only evince the total abdication of responsibility, if not leadership. I know Mr. Hakeem tried to prevail upon the Saleem Marsoof committee to release its recommendation when he was the Minister of Justice, emphasizing its importance.  He would have done so with a view to seeing how best it could be implemented when it is out. Where is that moral responsibility now?

It is important that politicians, professionals, community leaders, activists, people’s representatives and people from all walks of life come together in addressing and reforming social issues. Other political leaders within the community should also play a positive role without competing with Mr. Hakeem in saying the hardest.

ACJU, as it claims itself, might be able to provide some guidance or opinion but to let them decide for all of us would only lead to putting the community in a pre-modern, time-warp. A majority of them have neither the legal nor social capacity to do that, as could be seen in some of their recent statements and actions on matters that affect the community. Further ACJU is a members’ only organisation consisting exclusively of men. There is no way that their competencies can be tested through a public and /or objective system. All stakeholders within the community need to look at such issues in a socially conscious, yet nationally responsible manner.

On the contrary, elected representatives have been so chosen by the public to contribute to the governance of the country, and to make policy and legislate on behalf of the people. If they are to abdicate this responsibility, they should honourably resign and perhaps help the ACJU to get elected instead.

It is pertinent to draw the attention that three men involved in the Nallanthaluva mosque administration have now been remanded, charged in the Puttalam Magistrate Court apparently for having carried out punishment akin to lashing a woman publicly for her alleged immoral behaviour. It is understood that pressure has been exerted on the woman to withdraw her complaint.

Needed: A constructive approach

It is our expectation that reform initiatives should draw on experiences and reforms carried out by progressive Muslim countries that not only help ensure gender equality, social justice, ethnic and religious pluralism, but also creatively provide for the basic tenets espoused by Islam. The reformed law should proactively protect and safeguard children’s right so that they can grow into worthwhile citizens without being forced into early marriage that breeds social outcasts.  It would be rather ridiculous if it would emerge that even after almost 7 years, a committee consisting of a majority of eminent persons has not addressed these aspects, and/or has not finalised its report as expected.

It is my strong conviction that Islam is for all human kind and for all times, and, is just and equitable. It cannot – and should not – be interpreted to provide inequalities between men and women. The Quran clearly emphasises equality and justice. In seeking to transform the law, it is timely to seize this opportunity and make the much wanted and long-awaited changes, whether in the form of constitutional reform or legislative reform.

In Sri Lanka’s contemporary history, committees are not immune to manipulation.   It is our strong expectation that any committee or process that would address the issue of reform would do justice by the people that demand it. There should be no room left for the Muslim members in Parliament to try to pick out one or two recommendations emanating from the process, and use them to keep the judicial review away from the Muslim Personal Law, or suggest the repeat of a more protracted intra-community consultation. If that happens, when the proposed constitutional reforms become a reality, everyone in this country would be constitutionally entitled to be treated equally except those cry for it – and deserve it: Muslim women.