I can’t believe how our govt. got into this spot as to lead itself to an arrest warrant on LeN chief editor..! -Dr. Harsha (Audio)

(Lanka-e-News -04.Nov.2016, 3.30PM) It is difficult to understand , how our government got pushed into such a  spot owing to which the editor of Lanka e news was  ordered to be arrested , and it is impossible to believe this , exclaimed deputy minister of foreign affair Dr. Harsha De Silva while pointing out minister Wijedasa Rajapakse (the architect of this unwarranted and unfortunate situation)  has gone overseas . 

Dr. Harsha De Silva during a live interview, made these harsh comments in relation to the judicial and political actions taken against LeN and its chief editor .

Dr. Harsha went on to comment as follows :

‘I remember the erstwhile despotic government attacked LeN , set fire to it , inflicted immense torment and reduced it to ashes. I too went there to see at that time. Finally their journalist was killed , and LeN was chased out from here.

 LeN made a huge contribution to overthrow the despotic regime. I just cannot believe how this government descended to  such a spot  as to go that far  to lead itself  to   an arrest warrant against LeN editor  because I dissociate myself from the views expressed by Wijedasa . I do not believe such an action needs to be taken. 

Sometimes based on Democracy , issues spring up, and  media too attack . This was best illustrated  by the statement made by the Prime Minister in parliament recently – if the P.M. is attacked , he too would attack, he said.  But that is verbally only.  The people will understand who is right and who is wrong beyond that.  With the P.M. it  ends there . Instead , that does not go so far as to reach alarming criminal proportions of abduction and killing via white Vans , making arrests, assaulting or murdering. We must therefore be able to bear with patience those criticisms of the media. This politics is that .

No matter the political views , the media has a right to criticize the government . Today , various media are criticizing the government in various ways. All LeN readers know some ministers are coming in for heavy flak from LeN. Ordering an arrest based on what an editor has expressed is something of a vexatious issue to me. LeN has articulated its own views from its side that something unfair has happened.  Yet , I am not ready to criticize a court judgment .That should not be done. However , the ministry of justice must think farther than this on how as a government  it should deal with the media, Dr. Harsha elaborated.  

The audio tape of Dr. Harsha can be heard by clicking  hereunder 

Discussion was held with medical student M.L.H. Ambepitiya

---------------------------
by     (2016-12-04 10:06:01)

Voices unheard in Parliament; Budget fails to see largest minority! 

An 'Accessible Toilet' at a five star city hotel. It fails to comply with even basic safety and access standards

Dr. Ajith Perera receiving the two APEX Awards at the UN observance day 2016 from Una McCauley, the UN resident coordinator in Sri Lanka, for his outstanding voluntary contributions made in promoting accessibility rights 

Monday, 5 December 2016

The UN established an essential Convention (2007 March) on the Rights of People with dis-Abilities (CRPD) as a set of legally binding instruments and enforceable obligations on all countries. It came into force on 3 May 2008. Sri Lanka ratified the CRPD last February.

The Government now has a binding legal obligation to fulfil its requirements especially to guarantee the birth rights of people with dis-Abilities and to afford productive opportunities to live life to their fullest potential.

Voices unheard in Parliament.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Street named after Tamil student shot dead by police

04 Dec  2016

A street has been named after one of the two Tamil Jaffna University students who were shot dead by Sri Lankan police officers earlier this year. 

Twenty-four year old Sulakshan was killed along side his friend and fellow arts student, Nadarasa Kajan on October 20th by officers, prompting widespread protests and call for an inquiry into the shooting. 

See more here. 

The street, named 'Sulakshan Veethi' (Sulakshan Street), was opened by TNA MPs Mavai Senathirajah and MA Sumanthiran. 

Related Articles:

Jaffna University students shot dead by Sri Lankan police

Being Evicted From House & Home

By Emil van der Poorten –December 4, 2016

Emil van der Poorten

Election-Related Violence – Part III

Not so long after the Sirima Bandaranaike government resumed ruling Sri Lanka, and with her brother, Barnes, appointed to the position of Public Trustee, whose subordinate I was under the terms of my late father’s Last Will and Testament, it was believed that the inevitable would befall me and my family – economic and/or personal “payback” for my support of the recently-deposed United National Party (UNP) government.

My first (very pleasant) surprise was Barnes Ratwatte who proved an eminently fair, decent and competent person. The other surprise was his Chief Accountant, a man called Gunaseela Vithanage, who played a leadership role in the Bauddha Jathika Balavegaya, that period’s reputedly intolerant Buddhist-oriented entity with a reputation, not unlike that of the current Bodhu Bala Sena! Gunaseela and his family became good personal friends of mine and I discovered that his wife and children (?) were practicing Roman Catholics!

Dr. Colvin R. de Silva was the recently-appointed Minister of Plantations and Doric D’Souza was his Permanent Secretary, the head of that Ministry’s administration. I had a nodding acquaintance with the latter and the Public Trustee department folks believed that my seeing Colvin in person wouldn’t hurt, my siblings having been his erstwhile political comrades. It was hoped that this meeting would spike the guns of those lining me up for political retribution by “acquiring” my land and livestock farming enterprise “for a (nebulous) public purpose.”

I did succeed in making an appointment with Colvin and Doric at short notice and, both I and the Public Trustee official who accompanied me were greeted cordially.

Colvin opened, in his typically charming manner, with references to the fact that my siblings were his (admired younger) comrades in years past and that he was well aware of the pioneering work I had done in crop diversification and non-traditional livestock husbandry. I remember, very distinctly, his dissertation on what he planned for the plantations of the country. While the intent was that, ultimately, “the people” would own the source of what was then the economic lifeblood of Sri Lanka, he had no intention of killing the goose that was laying the (economic) golden eggs at that time. Succinctly put, his complex plan for the plantation industries made eminent economic and practical sense both from the practical and (left) theoretical end of things. He made it crystal clear that he certainly would not be party to the economic disruption that would be the fall-out of behaviour driven by a need for exacting political vengeance.

In brief, Colvin’s plans were torpedoed by Hector Kobbekaduwa, driven by exactly those impulses that Colvin had decried and his need for power and authority over Sri Lanka’s primary economic engine. He brought to that initiative a capacity for the exaction of personal vengeance probably without previous parallel in Sri Lankan politics. He brought in his so-called “Land Reform” bill.

An addendum to that move could well have been that this piece of legislation was the “carrot” response to the 1971 insurrection where the “stick” had been Sirima Bandaranaike’s ruthless elimination of those romantic revolutionaries, the Che Guevarists. After all, give a peasant land and he will be eternally grateful to you, right?

As someone who’d known Hector Kobbekaduwa from the time I was “knee-high to a duck” and assuming that he knew what kind of person I was and the work I was doing in the mid-country of Sri Lanka in the matter of plantation land rehabilitation, crop diversification and integrated livestock development. I didn’t expect any grief from him or his Ministry.

Read More

Probe into the issuing of Interpol warrant as first step without serving summons on LeN editor- Working Journalists Association requests CJ and JSC.

(Lanka-e-News -04.Nov.2016, 3.30PM)  A request has been made to  the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) by the Sri Lanka (SL) Working Journalists Association to conduct an impartial investigation into the issuing  of an Interpol  warrant preliminarily without a summons being first  served duly on Lanka e News by the Gampaha magistrate, in the Upali Tennekoon case .

The Gampaha magistrate committed this indiscretion  in relation to a suspect in  the case  , based on the grounds that the latter’s photograph was published  by LeN  , when in fact LeN had not published such a photograph.

The full text of the communiqué issued by Lasantha Ruhunage , the president of the Association under his signature is hereunder..

Media communiqué ….

Our serious attention has been drawn to the issuing of an Interpol warrant by Gampaha  magistrate Kaveendra Nanayakkara against Lanka e news website  editor Sandaruwan Senadheera . In the case that is being heard in the Gampaha magistrate court pertaining to the assault launched on and attempted abduction of former Rivira newspaper Editor, Upali Tennekoon , an Interpol warrant was issued by Kaveendra against LeN editor on the grounds that the photograph of a suspect in the case was published by LeN before the identification parade was conducted, and for reporting in a manner that brings pressure to bear on the trial . 

On the 28 th of November , Upul Kumaraperuma , the lawyer for LeN editor spoke to the JSC secretary over the phone and sent a letter drawing attention to a number of facts and grounds  , and making a request to launch an investigation in this regard.

This letter pointed out the following :

LeN website had not published a photograph of the suspect in the Upali Tennekoon case ; magistrate Kaveendra Nanayakkara had issued an Interpol warrant even without the CID that is conducting the investigations  making such a request ; the LeN’s  report on  an opinion expressed by Kaveendra in the face book in connection with the elephant deal ; Kaveendra issuing an Interpol warrant preliminarily  without first serving summons duly ;  the circular issued by the JSC banning face book for judges following the  comments made by Kaveendra in her face book , and the subsequent exposures thereof.  

In the circumstances , it is clear Gampaha magistrate Kaveendra had a special interest as regards  Lanka e news website. 

Therefore we request the Judicial Service Commission and  the chief justice ,to conduct an impartial probe into the judgment delivered by Gampaha magistrate 

Signed

Lasantha Rahunage 
Chairman
SL Working Journalists Association

---------------------------
by     (2016-12-04 10:09:55)

Thriving in a digital age: Digital currencies pose the biggest threat to banks – Part III 

Monday, 5 December 2016

 This is the final part of a revised and improved version of a paper published in the Association for Professional Bankers 2016 Annual Convention Publication titled ‘Thriving in a Digital World’. 

Part I of this paper (available at: http://www.ft.lk/article/581122/Thriving-in-a-Digital-Age--Digital-currencies-pose-the-biggest-challenge-for-banks-%E2%80%93-Part-I) examined how paper currencies came to existence and how they were abused by those who had the authority to issue them. The abuse was manifested by an oversupply of paper currencies by central banks and governments leading to a continuous erosion of their value. The victims were people who had accepted them as an important component of their wealth. As a result, there was a growing demand for the introduction of alternative currencies. 

The main qualifying candidate was digital currencies, also known as ‘cryptocurrencies’. A cryptocurrency is simply a currency that exists in cyberspace and is operated by using computer and internet technology. The smart mobile phone has been the leading instrument of accessing the internet for using cryptocurrencies for doing transactions and making payments. 

Thriving in a digital ag2.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Constitutional Reform:Complacent government, carping contrarians and Italy’s referendum

by Rajan Philips-December 4, 2016, 9:13 am 

As SriLanka’s constitutional reform proposals are making their way from the backstage into public view, Italy held a referendum yesterday on a constitutional reform proposal to significantly emasculate the Senate in the country’s bicameral system. Coming on the heels of British Brexit and American ‘Trumpit’, the Italian referendum has morphed from being a narrow constitutional question into another occasion for testing the rise of western populism. Like David Cameron in Britain, Matteo Renzi, the Italian Prime Minister, has quite unnecessarily turned the referendum into a plebiscite on himself, vowing to resign if the constitutional proposal were defeated at the referendum. A majority of Italian voters might just take their PM on his offer and throw him out. That would be a huge victory for Beppe Grillo, national comedian turned populist (political) outsider, and an equally huge setback for the increasingly shaky European Union.

The point of my article today, however, is about constitutional changes in Sri Lanka. The reference to the referendum in Italy is apposite because of some similarities between Sri Lanka and Italy in regard to power devolution and regional autonomy. These similarities, as I have pointed in an earlier article, have not attracted Sri Lankan scholarly attention like the comparison to the more prestigious Gaulist presidential system in France.

Italy’s state system has been described as a "unitary system characterized by regional autonomy." The new post-Fascist constitution adopted 1948 provides for a central government with a bicameral legislature (the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate), and lower tier governments at the regional (20 regions), provincial (each region is divided into provinces which are 100 in total) and local government levels. The regional system of government although enshrined in the constitution remained dormant for more than twenty years until 1970, because the ruling Christian Democratic alliance did not want its rival Communist Party to form regional governments in communist stronghold areas of the country.

So Sri Lanka is not unique in having been slow and shoddy in implementing the provincial council system created by the 13th Amendment. But the reasons and circumstances are of course quite specific to Sri Lanka. And the same circumstances would appear to be getting reactivated by a, somewhat stiltedly titled, report on "Centre-Periphery Relations" by one of the sub-committees drafting proposals for the Constitutional Assembly and its Steering Committee. A number of such reports have now become public, but no one from the government would seem to have formally released them with adequate background information - on the efforts that have gone into these reports, their content and purpose, and the next steps that the Steering Committee and the Constitutional Assembly will be taking to bring about the intended constitutional reforms.

The current efforts to reform the constitution are certainly lacking in the dramatic excitement and voluble debates that marked the making of the First Republic under the stewardship of Dr. Colvin R de Silva. They are also markedly different from the calculated committee process that President Jayewardene engineered to draft, enact and adopt the Second Republic. Nonetheless, the current constitutional exercise has the potential to produce something far more consensual and unifying than either of the two earlier efforts. I say ‘potential’ because there is no certainty that the new proposals would be able to jump all the hurdles and hoops and that the country will reach its constitutional desideratum in the end.

Hurdles and Hoops

First, government leaders seem to be too complacent about the whole process, apparently confident that the President and the Prime Minister can not only muster a two-thirds majority in parliament, but also win the referendum that will be required. But neither the President nor the Prime Minister is consistently championing the constitutional project except for the usual bromides on national reconciliation. There is no cabinet minister assigned to the constitutional file. The Minister of Justice could normally be the person providing advocacy for constitutional changes. As it turns out, the current holder of the Justice portfolio has either not been given any direction, or he chooses to direct himself at whim. After a very impressive extra-curricular effort to write a biography of the late CP de Silva, the Minister of Justice recently chose to fall into the gutter of anti-Muslim rhetoric in parliament. Such rhetoric from the government front benches is hardly conducive to positively reforming the constitution, when the same front benches are expected to show leadership when parliament wears its other hat as the Constitutional Assembly.

The second source of trouble for the constitutional project is that there are well placed critics and contrarians to fill the void created by government complacency. Already, the report on Centre-Periphery Relations has provoked a flurry of articles making fantastic and absurd comparisons to India, and predicting nothing less than the break-up of Sri Lanka into nine independent and sovereign provinces. There is no need to re-canvas old ground that has been sowed and reaped by more accomplished people from all sides and over several years. The point, to paraphrase a famous aphorism, is to change the status quo which has not been working at all, and to change it sensibly by moving forward and not by rhetorically going back in history.

The third worrisome aspect is that the current constitutional discussion is still long on rhetoric and short on practical suggestions. My point is that rather than insisting on rhetorical changes in the constitution, it would be more productive to find ways of working around seemingly rigid constitutional provisions. I have not checked this myself, but I remember reading that strictly in terms of its constitution, America cannot have a Navy! Sri Lankan constitutional debate has forever been preoccupied with the state’s unitary character and the concept of secularism.

To take secularism first, India has consistently experienced far more religious strife at the social level than Sri Lanka has ever had, notwithstanding India’s constitutional commitment to the Nehruvian principle of secularism. On the contrary, Sri Lankans have consistently religious harmony even though, and unlike in India, Christianity was given a pre-eminent status under colonial rule. While the 1972 constitution gave special status to Buddhism, the main irony of it was that it had to happen under a Marxist Minister, it did not change inter-religious relations in the country. The more recent eruptions of religious intolerance have much to do with political provocateurs and they can be dealt with by determined government leadership without insisting on changing the Constitution’s one-sentence Chapter II. Put another way, altering that Chapter will not put away the BBS but only give that organization a golden trumpet to keep blowing.

The same argument could be made of the much-agonized unitary clause in the constitution. To give the Satan its due, Felix Dias had his way in writing the second sentence of the 1972 Constitution (and retained in the 1978 Constitution) as a declaratory provision that "The Republic of Sri Lanka is a unitary state." That declaration did not make the Sri Lankan state any more unitary than it already was, nor did it make the Sri Lankan society a unitary society. We can argue till every cow comes home that it was, and is, an incongruent and unnecessary declaration, but the forgotten and overlooked irony is that the unitary provision now has as its constitutional cohabitant the Thirteenth Amendment. Just as in the case of Italy, Sri Lanka can be a well-functioning ‘unitary system characterized by provincial autonomy.’

The present government does not have to wait for constitutional reforms to make the current provincial councils system work as well as they could and as much as they are permitted by law. A recent conference on Provincial Councils brought to surface specific lists of concerns and expectations for each province expressed by Governors, Chief Ministers and Councillors representing the nine provinces. None of them imagined that they are in independent and sovereign units, but all of them wanted a more defined administrative space for their jurisdictions and revenue sources to support their functions. Much could be done and must be done to make Provincial Councils work better even before the constitutional reforms are in place.

The coming months will also see political jostling, contentions and compromises over the larger constitutional issues – the future of the Executive presidency and the electoral system. It would be a huge challenge to formulate the best possible reform package that can find sufficient consensus to secure the required two-thirds majority in parliament and the majority support of the people in a referendum. It is laudable that the ‘national unity’ government and its two ‘heads’ are confident about the prospects in a national referendum. What is of concern is whether they are adequately preparing for it.

Gota’s Address To The Professionals On How Fools Made The Rulers Bloody Fools

By Arun Kumaresan –December 4, 2016

Arun Kumaresan – Air Vice Marshal (Ret’d)

A news item appearing in Daily FT dated Monday 28 November 2016 relates to an address by Gotabaya Rajapaksa (GR) at ‘Viyathmaga’ (Professionals for a better future) held at Palatuwa, Matara. GR’s own acknowledgement of the role played by him in the takeover of Sri Lankan Airlines needs a further evaluation in the context of the eventual outcome of the takeover.

GR contends, quote “It was I who facilitated the meeting between the pilots union and President Rajapaksa. In most probability it was on their recommendation that President Rajapaksa did not extend the Emirates contract.” Due to his own admission, there can be no debate on his role. The implication this decision had on the airline and the Nation needs to be told ‘LOUD AND CLEAR’ to the ‘Professionals for a better future’, intelligentsia and the common man of Sri Lanka.

Air Lanka was established as the flag carrier of Sri Lanka, as the then government closed down the bankrupt Air Ceylon in 1980. Air Lanka, which was state-owned, was partially privatized in 1998, with the investment made by Dubai-based Emirates Group. Emirates and the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) signed an agreement for a ten-year strategic partnership. This agreement included exclusive rights for all aircraft ground handling and airline catering at Colombo for a ten-year period. Emirates purchased a 40% stake worth US$70 million (later increased up to 43.6%) in the then Air Lanka. It also sought to refurbish the airline’s image and fleet. Whilst GOSL retained the majority stake in the airline, the investment and management decisions were left to Emirates. In 1998, Air Lanka was re-branded as Sri Lankan Airlines.

There are two noteworthy events that are relevant and needs mention; Government of Sri Lanka held majority stake and the rebranding by Emirates gave it the most befitting name – SRILAKAN- that made all Sri Lankans to emotionally own and value even to date. To cut the long story short as stated by GR due to his intervention, Emirates handed over the control of the national carrier to the GOSL in 2008. The economic benefits of this ten year partnership were as follows. Sale of 40% stake yielded Rs 7 Billion (Assumption: USD in 1998 was at Rs 100). Accumulated profit at the time of hand over in 2008 was Rs 9.25 Billion. The country benefitted and filled its coffers with the 57% of GOSL share holding amounting to a tune of 5.27 Billion. It should be noted that during this partnership of 10 year period from 1998 to 2008 with Emirates. GOSL did not dole out a single cent to the airline.

Then we come to post 2008 when GOSL took full control and managed the airline on the advice of some pilots to GR and later to his brother MR. The cash flow to manage the airline was pumped in by the Treasury. The balance sheet tells the rest and the resultant accumulated loss for the period from 2008 to 2015 is Rs 128 Billion. The amount would have gone up by another couple of billions to date (Rs 10 Billion plus to cancel the unwanted Airbus 350 deal due to economically untenable on a functional business model. Another few Airbus 330s’ ordered was released to another airline due non viability as best option to minimize potential loss. A Swiss inquiry into Airbus Consortium’s ethical practices may reveal some beneficiaries who benefitted under the table!!!!)

Read More

Is it time Sri Lanka sheds its religious identity?

DINOUK COLOMBAGE on 12/03/2016

Sri Lanka is on the cusp of history, in several months it will be presenting to the people its third constitution in the space of four decades. Abolition of the Executive Presidency, devolution of power to the provinces, independence of the judiciary and the ensuring of good governance and human rights have been central in the discussions. With interest slowly growing amongst the people, one topic which has been conspicuously absent has been that of religion and its role in the future constitution.

Under Article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution, Buddhism has been recognised as the foremost religion in the country, and ensures that it is the state’s responsibility to protect and foster the religion. The Article further ensures the freedom to practice or observe other religions. On the surface this appears to be an acceptable Article, Sri Lanka has had bestowed upon itself the label of being a Buddhist country (the religion of the majority) while ensuring other religions the same freedoms enjoyed by Buddhists.

However, what has manifested in the past several decades, and perhaps longer, is the underlying feeling of Sri Lankan’s over-reliance on religion. For a country that is attempting to heal the wounds of a three decade long ethnic conflict, religion’s penetration into everyday life of Sri Lankans threatens the very fabric of our society.

From education to business to politics, religion and the clergy are fast becoming a common component.

Religion in education has been a feature dating back to the pre-colonial period, the sole institutionalised form of education was the “Piriven” (schools run by the Buddhist monks). The purpose of these schools was to teach young Buddhist monks the way of Buddhism, society left the rest of the education of its youth to the home-front.

When Sri Lanka entered the Colonial era, the education system was revamped with the introduction of Missionary schools. These were established in the country in an attempt in indoctrinate the populace into the Colonial lifestyle. English and Christianity were introduced, while a clear form of favouritism emerged for those who attended these schools. Top civil servant positions were reserved for graduates of these schools, while those who did not attend were often left to their own devices. Education soon became the site of conflict rather than learning, as Sinhala and Tamil schools were founded to rival the Church run institutions.

Education has been described as having the aim of “not knowledge but action”, and this was soon seen with divisions emerging among Sri Lankan society forged through the educational backgrounds of individuals. Nationalist sentiments which have created a majority-minority mind-set are given life to within such establishments.

Schools, which were considered to be an all-inclusive society, are now identified through their religious leanings. Children from the elite Christian families often attend St. Thomas’ College in Colombo, while those from the traditional Sinhala-Buddhist backgrounds choose schools such as Ananda College. From an early age children are being taught that their identity is dependent on their religion.

With the interrelationship of religion and society being forged at an early stage, Sri Lanka set itself on the path of politics and religion sharing a platform.

Sri Lanka’s rulers, have traditionally, relied on the advice and teachings of the clergy. However, post-colonialism, Sri Lanka’s politicians went one step further when they recognised that members of the clergy held sway over the populace.

When S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike broke away from the United National Party (UNP) in 1951, his new party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), adopted the mantle of protector of Sinhala-Buddhists. Relying on the socially and politically influential Buddhist monks, S.W.R.D. entrusted the clergy with the task of carry his party’s message to the rural masses of the country.

Sri Lanka’s political spectrum had taken a turn for the worst. The clergy, who were traditionally an educated class, were now being utilised not as advisors but as political drawcards. S.W.R.D., who practiced Christianity during his schooling, converted to Buddhism upon embarking on his political career. Recognising that the rural Sri Lankans were a neglected vote bank, the founder of the SLFP employed religious tactics to win over their support.

It has since become a common feature of Sri Lanka’s politics, with the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) fielding and successfully obtaining 9 seats in the 2004 Parliamentary election. All candidates of the JHU were Buddhist monks.

German philosopher and economist, Karl Marx, famously described religion as “the opium of the masses”. This statement plays true in Sri Lanka’s political fraternity. Prior to the 2015 Presidential Election, Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism was sweeping through the country with the instigation of Buddhist-Muslim conflicts. Riots led by Buddhist monks targeting Muslims living in Aluthgama and Beruwela payed heed to this notion.

The main political parties have rejected the ability of a non-Sinhala Buddhist to secure the Executive Presidency in an election. The common perception is that the Sinhala majority would not support their candidate if they did not hail from a Buddhist background. This has resulted in the parties’ selection of a candidate being based more on his or her religious identity rather than their ability or policy.

With the growing influence and penetration of religion into all aspects of society, the control of the clergy is becoming more and more difficult.

Recently a video emerged on social media showing a Buddhist monk verbally abusing a Tamil Grama Niladhari (village officer) in Batticaloa. The video went viral, but tellingly the online community was visibly divided over the issue. One section chose to ridicule the monk’s behaviour, with many calling for his removal from the clergy. While the opposing side chose to defend the monk’s actions and instead resorted to abuse and threats against those that questioned the actions of the Buddhist priest.

The defence of the Buddhist monk was based purely on the fact that he was a member of the Buddhist clergy, and as such could not be questioned by the public.

President Maithripala Sirisena recently stated in Parliament that Sri Lanka had successfully silenced their guns, but was still striving towards achieving peace. This recent incident involving the online community shows just how correct the President was.

The question that now emerges is what steps Sri Lanka can take to move beyond these deep seethed divisions.

With the drafting of the new constitution, Sri Lanka’s leaders have an opportunity to create a foundation of a truly equal society. The rewording of Article 9 to maintain religious freedom whilst ensuring no single religion achieved prominence over the others is an option that those involved in the drafting of the constitution have avoided addressing.

Political experts argue that the removal of the clause ensuring the foremost place for Buddhism in the country would result in the constitutional referendum being defeated. However, recent election results suggest otherwise.

The 2015 General Election saw a single Buddhist monk obtain a Parliamentary seat (this is a drop from 9 seats that they won in 2004), and that too was through the National List. This is despite several political parties fielding Buddhist monks as candidates. The rejection of the clergy as political figures is clear, and certainly provides an opening for the Constitutional Assembly to discuss the possibility of the separation of state and religion.

Sri Lanka is once again preparing itself to move forward in this ever globalising community, and as such an identity based on a dividing factor needs to be addressed. The adoption of Sri Lanka as a secular state is one that needs to be discussed, without the fear of a political or social backlash from the religious communities.

where is politics heading GOOD PEOPLE DO NOT JOIN; THEY STAY OUT

2016-12-05

Sri Lanka has been fortunate to maintain a high literacy rate and a satisfactory life expectancy level over the years. There had been significant achievements in health, education and other sectors together with a prospering plantation economy at the time of independence. In 1948, the British pound against the rupee had been Rs.1/50. Now it is Rs. 185/=.   

In the early 1940s, in the then State Council, there had been demands for Dominion Status. The British had thereafter responded that Ceylon (which had been renamed Sri Lanka in 1971), would get a “full responsible government”, for internal civil administration, after the war ended.   

During this period, the Second World War had been a profitable industry for a majority who did not have fixed incomes. Anyone who had anything to sell to the military had prospered. Ceylon became the largest rubber producer for the allies. The major losers were State and those employees who drew fixed salaries. By 1946 clerical workers had been desperate. It was during this period that the leftist trade unions had sprung up.   
The Communist Party founded the Ceylon Trade Union Federation. Dr. N.M. Perera had led the Ceylon Federation of Labour. There had been large scale trade union action and strikes in 1947 just before the General Elections under the new Soulbury Constitution.   

S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and J.R. Jayewardene, who had been considered radical young politicians, had joined the UNP in September 1946, under the leadership of D.S.Senanayake. The British had no doubts about the colony and they considered it a safe bet to succeed compared to other British colonies. Ceylon was a country which had suffered the least damage during the war.   
The Ceylonese leadership was also conservative at that time and had gained sufficient experience in politics in a British-style political structure. The only fear had been whether the Communists would succeed. In July 1952, at the first general elections after gaining independence, the UNP pledged to continue with the welfare that had already been granted. The D. S Senanayake government however endeavoured to curtail numerous subsidies.   
A socialist party, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party, LSSP, led an island-wide general strike in August, 1953. After the death of D.S, his son Dudley Senanayake became the Prime Minister, and resigned due to the country-wide protests, which paved the way for Sir John Kotelawala to become the third Prime Minister of the country. Kotelawala during his premiership committed serious miscalculations. He angered not only the Sinhalese, but Tamils as well. He removed the highly respected G.G.Ponnambalam from the Cabinet on personal grounds and replaced him with the lesser known Kandiah Vaithyanathan. Kotelawala, having visited Jaffna in 1954, promised that he would give equal status to Tamils.   

Surprisingly, Bandaranaike, who had supported parity of Sinhala and Tamil in 1952, quite opportunistically, made use of all the weaknesses of Kotelawala, and declared that he preferred Sinhala as the official language and a “reasonable use of Tamil”. Kotelawala dissolved Parliament 15 months ahead of time and  Bandaranaike won the election that followed.   
After the untimely death of the late D.S. Senanayake, it is pertinent to ask did the politicians of the time act democratically or did they attempt to perpetuate power for themselves instead? Our leaders, in taking the path they did, failed to resolve the national issues of the time. They did not consider the country before themselves. They divided the people politically, undermined economic progress and nearly separated the country. Corruption, lack of judicial independence and political interference became the order of the day. All these had eventually led to lawlessness, growing unemployment, inflation and numerous social, political and economic issues. What transpired?   

All that followed, from 1948 to-date, is a tale of woe. The civil war took a heavy toll on the nation with over 100,000 lives being lost. Successive governments overlooked the need to achieve technical growth, the primary determinant to achieve long term economic growth. Having embraced the open economy in 1978, they did not meaningfully monitor the plans efficiently to achieve these goals.   
All this had created a feeling of disillusionment, distrust, hatred, antagonism and great betrayal among all communities. They had removed the words honesty, equity, fairness from our vocabulary. For them, honesty did not mean being truthful. They broke rules openly with impunity. Having broken the rules are they trying to re-define the meaning of fairness; playing by the rules that suit their objectives? The country has been destroyed economically, socially and politically. Have they become politicians just to rob the country?   
The idea of a separate nation and the need to establish Tamil Eelam became deafening in 1970s after the Jaffna market area, the office of a Tamil newspaper, the home-property of the then Jaffna MP and even the Jaffna Public Library were destroyed. The next episode had been the ‘Black July’ riots. The perpetrators escaped without legal action. Did the rulers accordingly pave the way to create a ‘culture of impunity’ in our country. The people now seemed to think that they could commit murder with impunity. They had intimidated witnesses. They allegedly bribed judicial hierarchy, police officers and destroyed evidence. The successive governments neglected their responsibility to engage the relevant agencies to fight crime for their own benefit.  
 
As elected representatives, why didn’t they honour democratic principles on which the country is based ?. Haven’t they destroyed all that? Didn’t they create a group of newly-rich politicians, who were after nothing more than self-aggrandizement. They have proved that they have not done their fair share of service to the community and the country. The President too vouched that steps would be taken to eradicate corruption. Is it happening?   
The violent conflict that erupted with the LTTE too retracted growth. Was it purely an ethnic conflict per-se? To me, it was a deep complex problem involving neglect, poverty, discrimination, deprivation etc. Our elected representatives simultaneously, under the pretext of fighting a war, served themselves with a larger spoon. The YAHAPALANA government too seems to be continuing to burden the masses, causing further losses to the Treasury. I quote from an English editorial – “In the early post-independence years, the parliamentary allowance of an MP was a meagre Rs. 750/=. They came in their own vehicles to sittings of the House – some like Dr. W. Dahanayake came by bus or train because they did not own a vehicle – and nobody got duty free permits to buy vehicles. They paid for their own petrol which in those days cost about Rs. 2/50 a gallon”. It had also stated – “Undoubtedly many of those elected to the then House of Representatives were people who had private means – landowners and the like – as well as professionals who did nicely as lawyers and doctors. But others, by no means rich or comfortably off, did not ask for more. LSSP leader Dr. N.M.Perera, despite his very high qualifications, did not practice a profession and was among the earliest to urge that MPs be paid pensions. N.M did however engage himself in private business and older readers would remember his being pilloried over the Giridara Mill in the sixties and references in newspapers to plantations he had owned – Oakfield and Moragolla. While he could be attacked for being a capitalist while professing socialism however, none would dare accuse him of ever making a dirty rupee”.  

 
The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), which was appointed to recommend ways and means of healing and peace-building to consider post war reconciliation, had advocated a rigorous language right policy as an essential step towards ethnic harmony. In other post-conflict countries, too, ‘language pluralism’ thereby bilingualism has become a useful consideration primarily to strengthen ethnic harmony. This had been the prime reason why Dr. C.W.W. Kannangara, the then Minister of Education, in the pre-independent era, had promoted bilingualism in his free education policy. Why did successive governments destroy that?   
The present-day politicians too, for several decades, used political power to serve themselves. They have competitively entrenched systems and policies where they protect themselves for their own benefit. They have not addressed the other issues pertaining to the social, political well-being of the citizens.   

We had once been made to believe that we were the ‘Wonder of Asia’. Do you know that there had been around 200 Heads of States since late 1950s in post-colonial Africa to-date? From among all of them, only four had relinquished political power voluntarily. All the others had been overthrown after a decade or more in power. A majority of them had robbed and ruined those countries mercilessly. Thus, most of them had been assassinated in military coups.   

 
Nevertheless, our leaders too during the past several decades had looted our Treasury and mismanaged the country making ours a ‘farcical democracy.’ Why is it that the laws against corruption don’t apply to them? Why are they holding up the National Audit Bill and other important legislation? Aren’t they dragging their feet in the delivery of promises? The system is corrupt because they are egocentric, narrow-minded and strictly profit-driven. How much have we told the PM and MPs that they should first be committed to serve the peoples’ best interests. They refuse to lend their ears. Let us accept our own responsibility to create a better future. The country is weeping for want of better leadership. Donald Trump said – “Politics is such a disgrace, good people don’t go into government”.   

Mahinda slams sub-committee proposals for new constitution 

By Dharisha Bastians -Monday, 5 December 2016

Former President and Kurunegala District MP Mahinda Rajapaksa fired his first major salvo against the proposed new Constitution yesterday, saying that by rushing through the constitutional reform process, the Government was prioritising matters that were ‘only of interest’ to “separatists” and “foreign parties”.

Taking blatantly Sinhala nationalist positions in a lengthy essay released by his office, Rajapaksa puts forward 10 points of opposition to proposals – especially regarding devolution of power – made by six sub-committees set up to go into specific areas of the new Constitution. 

“None of the recommendations listed above should be in the final draft of the constitution,” Rajapaksa’s statement said. The former President charged that the new Constitution would divide the country without specifically using the word “division”. 

The opposition comes only days after President Maithripala Sirisena slammed political forces led by Rajapaksa, who he claimed were deliberately misleading people to sabotage the Government’s efforts to achieve national reconciliation and deliver a permanent political solution to end decades of ethnic strife.

But Rajapaksa slammed President Sirisena, saying he had chosen to make a case for devolution of power in Parliament while the country was facing major strikes and protests against the Government’s budget proposals.

Predictably, the former President opposes proposals made by subcommittees on centre-periphery matters – specifically related to the devolution of powers and the granting of greater political autonomy to the provinces – including reduced powers to provincial governors and land powers being granted to provincial councils.

He also opposes the abolition of the concurrent list, a provision of the 13th Amendment that allows the central Government to retain overarching powers over all subjects devolved to the provincial councils. The former President also opposes recommendations to consult the Attorney General and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka in the nomination of Supreme Court judges and the requirement for a special parliamentary majority to extend the state of emergency beyond three months within a single 180 day period.

But the most controversial point on Rajapaksa’s list was his opposition to Sinhala and Tamil being recognised as the official languages of Sri Lanka, even though both languages have already been granted the official status under the current constitution. 

The former President also appeared to make a case for provisions of the controversial 1956 Sinhala Only Act - which is widely believed to have exacerbated ethnic tensions and proved strongly discriminatory towards the Tamil minority - noting that S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike had applied the same principle with Sinhala as the official language and reasonable provision for the use of Tamil especially in the north and east. “These are arrangements that should not be disturbed with ill-advised experiments,” the former President warns in his statement. 

Critics say these remarks are deliberately misleading, because both Sinhala and Tamil are already recognised as official languages of Sri Lanka in Chapter IV of the 1978 Constitution. The recommendation of the sub-committee makes no significant change to this policy. 

Speaking to Daily FT, Luwie Ganeshathasan an attorney and researcher at the Centre for Policy Alternatives said the former President’s statement contained several half-truths and inaccuracies. 

Rajapaksa’s statement about language rights was particularly worrying, he said. 

“It seems to be in ignorance of Article 18, 19 and 22 of the Constitution which recognises both Sinhala and Tamil as the official and national languages of Sri Lanka. This position has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, including most recently in the FR case on the national anthem,” the CPA researcher noted.

He added that the statement also contradicted the former President’s stated support for a “Trilingual Sri Lanka”, a policy towards which he as President and Finance Minister appropriated considerable public money. “Either Mr. Rajapaksa was disingenuous about his stated support for the language policy when he was President (which could explain its poor implementation) or he is deliberately trying to create new issues,” Ganeshathasan added. 

During his presidency, Mahidna Rajapaksa launched a 10 year program for a Trilingual Sri Lanka and declared 2012 the ‘Year of trilingual Sri Lanka’. His recent statement marks a departure from that policy. 

The former President’s only single input that is considered progressive is his opposition to exceptions being granted to Personal Laws, such as the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) in the fundamental rights recommendations for the new constitution. The exception, endorsed only by fundamental rights sub-committee member M. H. M. Salman of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, would allow personal laws to be upheld even when certain provisions of those laws are inconsistent with the new constitution.