No mandate to continue Rajapakse policy – Academics and Citizens’ Organization

Jan 16, 2017

Academics and Leaders of Citizens; Organizations jointly called for a press conference and expressed their opposed against government’s policy on Hambantota land deal with China.

“Before the government made a policy they should make a dialogue with people,” said Dr. Nirmal Ranjith  , Senior Lecturer at University of Colombo at the press conference held at CSR in Colombo on Jan. 13, 2017.

“People have been given the power to government for five years and urged them to govern the country according to good governance policies. Who gave the power to the government to give 15,000 acres of lands in Hambantota to China for 99 years on lease?”

He added, “People have a right to know about the land deal with China. Government should respect to the peoples’ opinion,”

“Prime Minister told that they will inform to the people after they taken a decision. Before they make a decision government should aware the people and discuss with them. Do they ready to change their decisions if the people say that they are not agreeing with land deal?” Ranjith said at the event.

Addressing the media Keerthi Tennakoone, executive director of CaFFE said that government did not call for the tender and it is a violation of good governance policies.

“The government maintains an office called Southern Development Agency for develop south in Sri Lanka and it is not a registered institute.”

Chameera Perera, Co-convener of Left Centre, Dr. Lalithasiri Gunaruwan, Lecturer at University of Colombo and Akalanka Hettiarachchi, convener of Aluth Parapura also spoke out at the event.

Talking to Lanka News Web Chameera Perera, Co-convener of Left Centre said that prior to go for agreement with China or any other country government has to expose the agreement and discuss with the people.

He added, “That is the mandate. The mandate is not to continue their own agenda with their military or political powers. So, it is kind of a consultation democracy means that government has to discuss with the people.

- Lawrence Ferdinando - Colombo.

Sri Lanka: Dilemmas of “Good Governance”, two years later

Democratic reform has three elements — reduce presidential powers, strengthen parliament and fortify independent institutions.

by Dr. Ram Manikkalingam-Jan 16, 2017

( January 16, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The National Unity Government with Maithripala Sirisena as President and Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister has lasted for two years. How much longer will it last, given the policy, political and personal dilemmas that bedevil it?

The coalition that governs Sri Lanka came together to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa. And it has stayed together because Mahinda Rajapaksa is down, but not out. He is still the glue that holds the coalition together. Political differences between the UNP and the SLFP are sometimes papered over, and at other times exaggerated with the objective of keeping Mahinda Rajapaksa out.

While sufficient to win elections, and survive two years of muddling through in office, this anti-Rajapaksa glue is insufficient to see the coalition through what is likely to be its most critical third year of 2017. Now the honeymoon is over, an overarching strategy is required to address three critical areas – democratic reform, national reconciliation and economic transformation.

While each of these areas is hard enough on its own, addressing all three simultaneously is particularly challenging. Meanwhile Rajapaksa and his followers are waiting in the wings for this coalition to fail.

Democratic reform

Democratic reform is high on both the political and popular agenda. Mahinda Rajakaksa was voted out despite having more political, economic and military power than any other previous leader in Sri Lanka.

Indeed, it is this very context that brought the coalition together to make the case against Rajapaksa – centralising political, economic and coercive power in the first family.The case was easy to make, because Rajapaksa made it himself, believing that it helped him accrue and secure power. He did not shy away from using blandishments, threats and sometimes outright coercion to get his way. If you cooperated you became rich and powerful, if you did not you became poor or worse. The people came together to elect Sirisena. He was the anti-charisma candidate — self-effacing, quiet and consensual.

Democratic reform has three elements — reduce presidential powers, strengthen parliament and fortify independent institutions.

While the presidency under Rajapaksa was associated with autocracy, the presidency under Sirisena is associated with maintaining a political balance between factions and opening up space for different voices. And from a political point of view, it is precisely Sirisena’s perch on the presidency that enables him to control the levers of the SLFP relegating Rajapaksa to a secondary role. If the presidency is to be done away with, there is a risk that a party with a political majority in Parliament could ride roughshod over other views whether political, ethnic or economic. At the same time the presence of the presidency presents the possibility of a single individual like Rajapkasa using it to thwart democracy. We need Sirisena at the helm of the Presidency to keep Rajapaksa at bay in the short term, but we also need to do away with the Presidency to keep the likes of Rajapaksa away, in the long-term. This is the first dilemma faced by the coalition.

National reconciliation

A second key platform of the national unity government is national reconciliation.

To address this, the government has set up an Office of National Unity and Reconciliation, released land, engaged the Tamil community and initiated a process of autonomy and accountability.

In addition, the government has taken critical symbolic steps, such as the singing of the national anthem in Tamil.

While many areas of national reconciliation have been welcomed by a wide range of Sri Lankans, some areas are politically controversial. These include accountability for war crimes and greater autonomy for the Northern and Eastern provinces.

Accountability for past crimes is important to many Sri Lankans, particularly victims of the war. A decent political dispensation with the political power to manage provincial affairs is important for the future of many Sri Lankans, including Tamils and Muslims. Raking up the past may aggravate polarisation and political conflict, delaying rather than accelerating reconciliation.

Pursuing both accountability and devolution runs the risk that neither will be implemented, as the political controversy over war crimes overwhelms the political effort to get autonomy. Similarly, pursuing autonomy for the Northern and Eastern provinces first, runs the risk that the delay would make it harder to get accountability for war crimes.

Here the government, war affected communities and Sri Lankans, as a whole, will have to choose between pursuing accountability or autonomy. Doing both may not be feasible in a tricky political climate. The second dilemma the national unity government faces is should it pursue accountability, at the risk that this might delay, if not, defeat autonomy. Or should it pursue autonomy, which risks delaying and even denying accountability.

Economic transformation

The third dilemma the government faces this year is how to combine growth and equity.

The national unity government inherited a “bubble economy”. The Rajapaksa administration had a simple strategy to deal with the economy. Borrow to create jobs for the lower and middle classes by growing the public sector and create wealth for the rich by giving them contracts to invest in infrastructure.

The international and domestic private sector paid off the former political leadership for business contracts and investment deals. While the deals were flawed and the investments were risky (for Sri Lanka) money flowed. And those who played the game with the former first family got richer. There was growth. But the poor and middle classes benefited as well. This was a short-term strategy and it worked for as long as it lasted, i.e., until the bill was due. And the bill has come due just as the national unity government is entering its third year.

The government is faced with a difficult policy dilemma. Cut spending and balance the budget to satisfy international lenders and investors, or increase spending and invest in infrastructure to address poverty and stimulate the economy. The former will make the government unpopular during a year when it is aiming to make radical reforms that require the support of the people. And the latter is unsustainable in the context of debts coming due and fewer lenders willing to lend.

Balancing between factions, parties and policies

These three policy dilemmas will invariably play out in the political tensions of a coalition government in its third year in office.

In Sri Lanka, overall authority lies in the hands of the President, who is both the Head of State and Head of Government. At the same time, the machinery of the state — the running of the ministries and the bureaucracy — is the job of the Prime Minister, who is first among equals in the Cabinet. When the President and the Prime Minister are from the same political party with a majority in parliament, political power in the party and in parliament closely maps the hierarchy in the state structures, i.e., the Prime Minister will also be reporting to his or her party leader.

But when the President and the Prime Minister are from different parties, this is not the case, as in Sri Lanka. Here Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is a party leader in his own right and has to deal with the pressures from his own party and constituency, even as he has to report to President Sirisena, in his capacity as Head of Government and Head of State.

Similarly, President Sirisena has to deal with the pressures of his own party and constituency even as he has to work with and consult the Prime Minister under whose leadership his own party is subordinate in parliament. This creates a complex political dynamic where the President and the Prime Minister have to work together to address the concerns of the country, and sometimes work at cross purposes to pander to their political parties. They have managed with the Prime Minister dealing with the nitty gritty of governance and the President rising above the political fray, but entering it when an issue of good governance is at stake.

It would of course be naïve to ignore the political reality that even as they work together, they represent and fight for different political parties and constituencies. And even as we expect them to co-govern as national leaders in a national unity government, we must also expect them to compete as rival leaders of two of the largest political parties in the land vying to govern.

Despite political differences, dilemmas and distractions the coalition continues to rely on President Sirisena as “balancer in chief”.

Just as he won the elections by balancing diverse forces, from the SLFP and the JHU, to the UNP, the TNA and the SLMC. President Sirisena will have to balance between the SLFP and the UNP on democratic reform, national reconciliation and economic transformation.

In each of these areas the President will have to balance the individual-oriented capitalism of the UNP with the state-oriented socialism of the SLFP.

The coalition will have to steer a course between Wickremesinghe’s liberal individualism and Sirisena’s social democracy. Much of the policy and political controversies we have witnessed, from the clash over the VAT, the leasing of public facilities to private companies, even the governorship of the Central Bank and economic policies, more generally, reflect these differences.

So far the personal, political and policy partnership between President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has held despite the vicissitudes of coalition politics. Can this partnership stand the test of the third year of yahapalanaya, helping the national unity government reach its third anniversary in January 2018?

If it does, irrespective of whether we have succeeded in achieving all the desired reform, Sri Lanka would have become a country with a different style of politics — more democratic, more flexibe and more effective — demonstrating that simultaneously collaborating and competing with each other is possible in a way that benefits the whole country. We would have changed our political culture.

(The writer is Visiting Professor, University of Amsterdam & Member of the Board of the Office of National Unity and Reconciliation, Sri Lanka.)

That perennial debate on the executive presidency!

 2017-01-17

Few institutions in this country are as vilified as the executive presidency. The SLFP has been campaigning to abolish it since the very first day it was introduced under the 1978 Constitution. However, after they were elected to power, SLFP leaders did anything but abolishing the executive presidency. Chandrika Kumaratunga won a landmark election victory in 1994, promising to abolish the executive presidency within 100 days and she completed her two lukewarm terms and retired in 2005. Mahinda Rajapaksa promised the same. At least he ended the war (making use of the extensive powers accorded to him by virtue of the office), but could not satiate himself with two terms. He changed the Constitution to serve himself with a presidency for life. Save J.R. Jayawardene who drafted the 1978 Constitution to be in line with his personal and political ambitions (and later tampered with it habitually). Mahinda Rajapaksa was the only politician who changed the country’s Constitution to fit into his whims and fancies. Even R. Premadasa who was demeaned during his time being a ‘one man show’ never stooped that low.
The only executive president in this country who voluntarily gave up a portion of powers in his office was Maithripala Sirisena. During his administration, the Constitutional Council was reactivated under the 19th Amendment and the power of the president to dissolve Parliament after one year was removed. President Kumaratunga conceded to set up the Constitutional Council under the 17th Amendment, but was forced to do so by the JVP as a precondition for her probationary government with the JVP. Hers does not count as an act of altruism. 

Now the SLFP itself seems to be plotting to go back on its word. SLFP ministers at a party meeting have passed a resolution calling for the continuance of the office of the executive presidency and nominating President Maithripala Sirisena as the presidential candidate for the election in 2020. The president’s stoic silence at the meeting was more evocative than words, a political columnist observed. So we are back to the same old hide and seek game. First cronies test the waters, while the president tactfully keeping away, then at the opportune time and numbers are ready, the president springs up his own surprise. That was how Mr. Rajapaksa got his infamous 18th Amendment passed.
For the SLFP, the real problem is internal. The President’s loyalists fear a takeover of the party by the Rajapaksa faction. Sirisena’s executive presidency is the fortress that keeps away the Rajapaksa cohort from launching a concerted attack. If that is brought down, the Sirisena loyalists could well end up being sitting ducks. 

Leaders cannot appear to be weak. If they do so, their followers will desert them. The prospect of President Sirisena running for a second term may appeal to his immediate supporters. But there is a flaw in their logic. Mr. Rajapaksa is disqualified from running for another term. His cronies would find he is of no use. Yet, there is no suitable alternative. Perhaps, Gota may give it a shot, but he has skeletons in his closet and may not survive a rigorous political scrutiny. In the absence of a suitable contender, the 50- odd Rajapaksa associated MPs would either have to live in the political wilderness with Mr. Rajapaksa, or jump the ship. Many will choose the latter.
All that sounds like a perfect winning formula for the Sirisena faction. But there is a glitch. What if Gota or someone else chooses to run, not to win, but to deny Sirisena the victory? In a three-man race, provided that the UNP chooses to run, President Sirisena’s chances of winning is limited. Why Mr. Wickremesinghe did not contest in the previous two elections was not because he did not like to be the president, but he knew he could not win. This time, he could foresee a good chance of winning. Mr. Sirisena would be vying for a second term with a blotch on his integrity due to not abolishing the executive presidency, though part of that promise was fulfilled by the 19th Amendment. On the other hand, if President Sirisena can run as the joint candidate of a combined UNP and SLFP, he could sweep the board. But then, what about that promise to abolish the executive presidency? 

"The only executive president in this country who voluntarily gave up a portion of powers in his office was Maithripala Sirisena. During his administration, the Constitutional Council was reactivated under the 19th Amendment and the power of the president to dissolve Parliament after one year was removed."

The executive presidency itself has a very persuasive logic. It gives ethnic minorities a greater ownership in the political process. Though that influence was eroded during the war, mainly due to ethnic polarization, at peace time it would reinforce itself. Mr. Rajapaksa lost because he alienated both the Tamils and Muslims. A Westminster system would not grant an equal leverage to ethnic minorities and especially, given the historical disinterest of the Northern Tamil Parties to be part of the centre, a Westminster system could potentially have the opposite effect.
Second, given the political fragmentation in the South where the electorate is divided almost equally between the two main parties, a Westminster system could well be a recipe for political instability. It is open to question whether the proposed Mixed PR and first past the post voting system would alleviate the level of potential political instability.  Sri Lankans like most South Asian tend to view politics and elections as an end by itself. But, they are actually means to an end. No one can be blamed when the people’s will is reflected in a hung parliament, but, political instability would kill economic potentials, drive away investors and reign over poverty. 

Countries at our social economic level have immediate priorities, above all, to fast-track economic development, more so since we have under-performed in that area since independence. The executive presidency was meant to address those urgent special needs. However, what J.R. Jayawardene created was an abomination, which had no precedent in anywhere in the world. His arrogance of power made things worse, and by the time he left the office, the country was on fire, both in the North and South. He failed to materialise his only positive policy, economic liberalization, though he might have left an economic opening for his successors.
However, the executive presidency that J.R created and M.R fostered was tamed under the 19th Amendment. Whether a reformed executive presidency is better than an executive prime minister is open to debate. Reaching a conclusion on that debate would not be easy: Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s reign (1970-77) was no better than J.R.’s two term presidency. 

Follow Ranga Jayasuriya @RangaJayasuriya on Twitter  

Where is the presidential elections in 2020 and where is the candidature? -Rajitha’s billion dollar worth question

(Lanka-e-News -16.Jan.2017, 6.05AM) It is a well and widely known fact that  51.28 % of the people (majority) of the 81.52 % voted on 2015-01-08 in favor of a new constitution after abolishing the executive presidency to elect  president Maithripala Sirisena as the president , and the latter  himself gave  that solemn promise umpteen times to the masses confirming that. Yet  some political opportunists  and  bankrupt politicos  of the SLFP are these days circulating a bogus  story that because a referendum has not been held to abolish the executive presidency , Maithripala Sirisena will be the presidential candidate at the next presidential elections 2020. 

In response to these wild and vacuous statements , Minister Rajitha Senaratne the frank , forthright and fearless speaker gave an answer yesterday (11) which  silenced these rascals and scoundrels on a scale even the Hiroshima bomb , perhaps couldn’t have. He explained most clearly  thus ….

''Where is the presidential elections in 2020 and where is the candidature?  It is to abolish the executive presidency this new constitution is being brought.  The executive presidency shall be abolished through that. It should be mandatorily be abolished. That was the clear unambiguous undertaking given on 8 th January 2015.

President gave that solemn assurance before the remains of Late Ven. Sobitha Thera too , and that it is his unwavering stance all along. I know the stance of the president very well. The group which is saying there is no referendum were nowhere there when we received the people’s mandate .''

Rajitha’s multi million dollar worth answer to bankrupt political villains..

It was in a political column of the Sunday Times newspaper , there was a small  comment a day before the second anniversary celebration of the president’s investiture  that a group of SLFP ministers took a decision that the executive presidency shall be continued , and SLFP’s  presidential candidate at 2020 elections shall be  Maithripala Sirisena. The following day – that is  on the second anniversary celebration day  , the Sinhala counterpart –the daily Lankadeepa gave wide publicity to it as headline news. However this news was not written by any specific reporter.

After  Lanka e news inquired about this from an SLFP and UNP front line minister , on the same day we published a report under the caption , ‘the headline news of Lankadeepa is an absolute lie. The SLFP ministers have not decided to continue with the executive presidency. An SLFP –UNP minister and a frontline   leader reveals the true story’ .

This  frontline minister  speaking to us further disclosed ,  one minor topic was of course discussed  that is to halt the claims   ‘I  am the future  leader ‘  and creating groups. However  one minister had said , it is alright if the  publicity campaign carried out is that  the president  will be contesting again in case there is going to be  a presidential election. Thereafter , minister Dr. Sarath Amunugama and SLFP secretary Duminda Disanayake confirmed the story hereinbefore mentioned . Dr. Amunugama told  , this is a decision that was  taken by the SLFP Central working committee . But that is a lie because the SLFP working committee had not met during that period. 

Rajitha on the other hand , while confirming this announcement  yesterday , said , he is not aware that the central executive committee of the SLFP has taken such a decision.

SB who is not fit even to tread on  parliament soil blabbers regarding people’s referendum…..

Meanwhile on the 10th , S.B . Dissanayake a sidekick of Maithripala Sirisena  convening a media briefing, went on to comment further. S.B. who was thrown  into jail once because of his spittoon of a   mouth , in characteristic style blabbered there has been no people’s referendum to abolish the executive presidency ,and the SLFP did not seek elections by giving  such an assurance . Hence , without abolishing the executive presidency and just by curtailing the existing powers ,instead of going for a referendum , by a constitutional amendment alone , the presidential elections shall be held in 2020 , when Maithripala himself will  field again  as the presidential candidate . This is the decision taken by the SLFP , and Maithripala Sirisena as the party leader  cannot act contrary to that decision, S.B.   pointed out .

S.B . ‘s verbiage usually smells worse than garbage ,but in this instance it  merits serious attention … 

S.B.’s contention is something even a grade two  child would not advance. He argued ,because SLFP did not go for elections saying the executive presidency will be abolished,  there isn’t a  people’s  referendum . This view is untenable, for the simple reason the people’s referendum he is talking about was defeated on the 8 th of January 2015 by a 51.28% majority of the people voting in favor of abolition of executive presidency.  Besides , S.B.’s stupid utterance  that in view of the SLFP decision Maithripala cannot contravene  it ,  is also invalid since Maithripala Sirisena was not in the SLFP at that time when the people voted for the abolition of the executive presidency. SLFP had expelled him at that time. In the circumstances , Maithripala is not bound by   the SLFP view , but rather by  the views of the section he represented then  , and their mandate.  Even today  he is seated in the presidential chair because of that mandate . Therefore if he has  to fall in line with the SLFP view , what he  must do first is move out from the presidential  seat  , since that was the clear mandate the SLFP received at that time.

It is high time , these political opportunists and villains who are propagating bogus and malicious tales  try  to understand the primary and main stance of the consensual government , and extend support to it . In fact that is their primary and paramount duty if they are honorable politicians instead of seeking to selfishly serve their personal agendas , because the people clearly threw them out lock , stock and barrel at the August 17 th elections thereby proving  beyond doubt they are a vanquished group. Therefore after   having crept into to become a part of the  consensual government , they should without seeking  backdoor treacheries  to revive the  mandate of theirs that was defeated ,  on the contrary  must express solidarity with the victorious people’ s mandate received by the consensual government on 2015-01-08 and  2016-08-17 , and rectify their past  mistakes .

Mad monkeys clustered around the ‘King’

If there is a dispute within the party what ought to be done is not blabber and bluff that ‘Maithri will be contesting the next presidential election’ and kick away  the sacred people’s mandate  irreverently. Instead , reveal the truth  ,because the executive presidency is to be abolished by the new constitution , there cannot  be a presidential election , and  ‘in 2020, Maithripala Sirisena shall be contesting the post of prime minister as the leader of the party’. Those  who are fond of blabbering will not in that event drive Sirisena into a muddle and uncalled for issues , which will also help  resolve the leadership controversy within the SLFP . 

But now , by the stupid announcements and senseless vacuous speeches , these opportunists  and morons are trying to make their own leader  whom the people elected to power , a villain and hypocrite  among the very people wittingly or unwittingly. In that event  these political opportunists who are trying to pose as heroes by conspiracies and treacheries at the expense of the president  will be making Maithripala Sirisena a clown , villain  and enemy  among the people who installed him in power, vis a vis  Maithripala’s  solemn promises he made  before being elected as president that the executive presidency will be abolished within 100 days of his becoming president . 

It is therefore for  Maithripala Sirisena to realize, when mad monkeys are clustered around him , the  attack of the sword wielding monkeys will not kill the fly on his body , but  him. 

Diplomatic circles too in doubt…. 

It is well  to recall at this juncture what took place at the residence of a former president Chandrika Bandaranaike prior to the January 8 th people’s victory . Discussions were held with the participation of Maithripala Sirisena and party leaders who were in the frontline . Among them was also TNA leader  R. Sambandan.

The final discussion to enlist the assistance of the Tamil people was held on that day . It was inquired from Sambandan whether a written agreement is required in regard to the abolition of executive presidency and devolution of power . Sambandan gave a startling   answer to that question : Even when there is or not such an agreement , the Rajapkses are provoking and inciting the Sinhalese people . ‘Therefore the verbal promise given by all of you that the executive presidency shall be abolished , and justice will be done to the Tamil people will suffice ,’ Sambandan asserted. It will be best if everyone recalls at this moment   , who was the politician who gleefully said  at that moment, ‘  I felt like kissing that aging Tamil politician’ . 

We are reminding those incidents so that the president will come to his right senses and  take guard ahead against the sword attack of the  foolish monkeys now clustered around him. 

Indeed the serious attention of  foreign diplomatic mission offices in Colombo has by now  been drawn to the announcements made on the second anniversary celebration of the president regarding non abolition of the executive presidency , and that  Maithripala will be  contesting presidential elections in 2020 .

With a media personnel close to the president publishing these villainous statements as    headline news , and the president who emerged victorious  after making a solemn assurance that the odious executive presidency will be abolished within 100 days of his coming to power , saying  nothing at all  about it on his second anniversary  celebrations speech  as president ,at the BMICH had unfortunately triggered grave doubts and misgivings  among the foreign diplomatic circles . 

The  president is behind those aforementioned announcements  ?  If that is truly  so, it is the view of the foreign diplomatic circles that it would be impossible to progress on the reconciliation as there could be sabotage , the consensual government cannot go ahead any more, and the development programs will also be a mere dream . The responsibility is on  president’s shoulder  to clear the cloud of doubts hovering about the foreign Diplomatic circles.  

On the other hand  if anybody  is having any idea of giving a sly  ‘hopper clout’ , it is better they take heed of the warning : though  the masses who rallied to elect the government of good governance may eat  ‘ araliya rice’ (hal kanawa) they are certainly not halparuwas ( worthless incapable beings  )  .  They have already proved clearly and demonstrably what they are capable of at the last two elections.

By Wimal Dheerasekera 

Translated by Jeff 

---------------------------
by     (2017-01-16 00:43:54)

Maithri vetoes Ranil – billions in losses in projects!

Jan 16, 2017

The president has instructed the prime minister that it should only be the subject ministers who would be submitting papers to the cabinet on matters of development. Government sources say the president has given the instruction after considering the difficulties the government has faced due to the submission of cabinet papers not by the subject ministers, but by the PM or the economic affairs subcommittee on his instructions, as well as the complaints he has received personally from ministers.

Relaying his decision, the president also said collective responsibility of the cabinet has been affected by the practice of outsiders’ submitting papers, and that the government was subjected to ridicule due to contradictory statements being made by the subject ministers and the ministers who submitted the papers. Also, many issues have arisen due to the subject ministers’ being overlooked and only officials being involved. Furthermore, the subject ministers will be held responsible if the policy decisions taken by the government on matters of development are not properly implemented or the projects make losses.

Government sources also say this decision follows inquiries being made by the president into the Hambantota port issue, SriLankan Airlines’ lease agreement for three A-330 aircraft with Pakistan Airlines, corruption allegations over the coal tender, the draft bill on creating a super minister position and several other matters. The president has stressed that the decision should be strictly enforced. The president has further told the PM that a decision should be taken with regard to the ministers of the ‘Yahapaalana’ government who face various corruption accusations, adding that it was bad for the political future of the two key parties in the government that there are accusations of financial frauds amounting to around Rs. 50 billion, the sources add.

The 58 preconditions to obtain GSP+

By C. A. Chandraprema-January 16, 2017, 7:58 pm 

The government has been ecstatic at being granted GSP+ again by the European Commission. It hasn’t however revealed the conditions it has agreed to in order to get this trade concession. In this context, two documents are of interest to us. The first of these is the ‘Report on assessment of the application for GSP+ by Sri Lanka’ by the European Commission dated 11 January 2016 (Staff Working Document 474) which is available in the public domain and another document which was obviously a part of the application made by Sri Lanka to the European Commission to obtain GSP+, which is not available in the public domain. The two documents complement and authenticate one another.

The 58 preconditions to obtain GSP.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Differing from the EC in its ‘sunny’ reliance on government assurances

Sunday, January 15, 2017

The European Commission’s proposal this week to the European Union (EU) regarding the restoration of GSP (General System of Preference) Plus to Sri Lanka’s export market did not carry with it, any element of particular surprise. This was a step long predicted.

Checking displays of untoward jubilation

And as a rider, it must be said that the deprivation of the trade benefit to the country under the Rajapaksa Presidency was not due to an overriding zeal on the part of the EU to ensure good governance at the time. It was simply because the Rajapaksas flouted every convention, every rule and every practice in existence relating to the Rule of Law, to trespass beyond all propriety in regard to illegal acts.

In other words, even if the EU had strained at every sinew to justify continuation of the trade benefit under that Presidency, it could not have been successful as the range of violations was just too great. So the GSP Plus was cancelled (then) as unsurprisingly as the EC proposal before the EU (now) is to restore it.

That said, the untoward jubilation of Government ministers in cheering the EC’s announcement needs to be abruptly checked in its tracks. To be quite clear, the proposal does not indicate an off-the-charts endorsement of the Unity Government’s progress in ensuring good governance. This is underscored by the EC’s own caution that ‘removal of customs duties would be accompanied by rigorous monitoring and would be conditional on continued commitment to sustainable development, human rights and good governance.’

Treating governance failures flippantly

Easier said than done, a critic would remark. And that acerbic comment would most probably be true. Underlying the comforting rhetoric, there is a simple truth at play. If the Government does not offend the proprieties too much, then one may assume that no terribly unpleasant consequences will ensue where the trade benefit is concerned.

However, that does not really offer much reassurance to the people of Sri Lanka. And it is telling that even though the inclusion of labour rights into the monitoring process is welcome, the EC’s assessment report this week treats highly problematic performance failures with a flippancy that is regrettable. For example, the EC’s conclusions in regard to Sri Lanka’s compliance to the Convention against Torture or CAT (as a key international treaty which the country must commit to implement before qualifying for GSP Plus) are remarkably disingenuous to say the least.

After a lackadaisical reproduction of some paragraphs of the Committee against Torture’s Concluding Observations issued last year following consideration of Sri Lanka’s Periodic Report to the Committee, the EC notes that ‘salient shortcomings have been identified in a relatively low number of areas’ while there have been ‘significant elements of progress.’ It concludes thereafter that ‘there is no serious failure to effectively implement the Convention.’

Patterns of systemic failures

Yet this airy conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the CAT Committee’s own findings which identified serious systemic failures and breakdowns in implementing the Convention against Torture CAT. The Committee expressed disquiet in regard to the total inability of State representatives to answer questions of actual performance in regard to prosecuting and sentencing public officials for crimes of torture. This was in the context of official statistics on reported cases differing ‘very significantly’ with the data of other organizations including the main oversight body, the Human Rights Commission.

Indeed, the CAT Committee found systemic failures to uphold the Rule of Law at all stages of the legal process, from investigative to the judicial, asserting in fact that judges who fail in their judicial duties in this regard should be held accountable. Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court had oft made that same observation when hearing fundamental rights applications alleging torture. Other systemic problems abounded from the patterns of false arrests to failure to bring detained persons promptly brought before a judge and in any event, not exceeding 48 hours and complete failure to ensure that arresting officers must register the exact date, time, ground for the detention and place of arrest of detainees.

And while Tamil detainees were at far greater risk of torture given the ethnic dimension in these cases, Sinhala and Muslim victims were also vulnerable. Lest it be forgotten, these systemic failures of due process amounted to a fundamental disregard of the Rule of Law which the CAT Committee quite rightly stressed. It went so far as calling for an independent authority to investigate and prosecute torture cases. That level of concern which emanates from the Committee’s findings is certainly not adequately reflected in the EC’s assessment report examined here.

Gingerly handling of the proposed counter terror law

Dissecting each and every similar discrepancy belongs elsewhere than in the limited spaces of a newspaper column. But it must be said that the EC’s cursory treatment of the proposed Counter-Terror law, which is far worse than any national security legislation proposed by any Government since independence, is equally disappointing.

It was cautioned earlier in these column spaces that GSP Plus restoration should only be after full and firm knowledge (as opposed to vague assurances) that the proposed draft law has been amended to be in conformity with the Rule of Law. However, the EC’s gingerly handling of the issue invites considerable derision.

Thus we are told that the Government has ‘committed’ to replace the Prevention against Terrorism (PTA) with a new Bill on counter-terrorism, to be presented to the Parliament in January 2017 which ‘is to be compatible with international human rights conventions and counter-terrorism standards.’ No further concerns are articulated, not even the need to ensure that the revision of the draft law needs to be placed before the public for transparent scrutiny.

Taking bitter realities into account

It is hoped that the review of the EC’s report by the European Parliament and the Council during the coming months will evidence a somewhat more rigorous assessment than what is reflected in this report. Given what has transpired during the past two years, the people of Sri Lanka cannot (with good reason) afford to be as sanguine as the EC in its sunny reliance on the Unity Government’s ‘commitment’ in regard to adherence to the Rule of Law.

That singularly bitter reality needs to be properly taken into account if these assessment exercises are not to degenerate into mere farce.

SRI LANAK GOVT. TO RESTRICT PROTESTS TO TWO LOCATIONS IN CITY

16/01/2017

The government has unveiled a plan to restrict protests in Colombo and its suburbs and areas surrounding Parliament.

Law and Order and Southern Development Minister Sagala Ratnayake has directed his ministry Secretary Jagath Jayaweera to take immediate steps to issue a gazette notification naming two places where people could gather to carry out protests.

Minister Ratnayake gave the directive in response to representations made by Senior DIGs at a meeting presided by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe held at Temple Trees on Jan. 13. Minister of Prison Reforms, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs D. M. Swaminathan was also been present at the meeting.

Senior DIGs told Premier Wickremesinghe and ministers that recurring protests in Colombo and its suburbs as well as along the roads leading to Parliament severely inconvenienced the public.

Premier Wickremesinghe, in his brief remarks, urged the police to focus on the structure of the department, training and the bilingual ability.

The PM said that restructuring and modern technology were required to achieve their objectives. He also recommended devolving police powers to divisions to improve efficiency.

The PM revealed government plans to provide helicopters to the police to carry out their duties more efficiently.

Minister Ratnayake promised a 23 per cent salary increase to police officers and men in 2017 on top of 16 per cent salary increase given last year.

By Shamindra Ferdinando /The Island

Crook Thiru Nadesan rules the roost; Sagala stoops and good governance shows escape route for culprits..!

(Lanka-e-News -16.Jan.2017, 6.15AM) Following the transfer of FCID  Director DIG Anura Premashanatha due to pressures brought to bear by the corrupt and the crooks , SSP Dhammika Priyantha has taken over his duties at the FCID.

Based on reports reaching Lanka e news inside information division , it is Thiru Nadesan the husband of Nirupama Rajapakse who is the key man behind the sabotage activities which are militating against the FCID investigations that are being conducted against the crooks and the corrupt.

On the 3rd of January SSP Anura Premashantha well noted for his integrity, efficiency  and honesty was promoted as DIG  , and transferred from the FCID to Moneragala district. 

Anura Premashantha after the advent of the new government was sent even abroad for training in relation to  financial fraud investigations and returned after training. He is well known for his dedication to his duties. His commitment was such, it is learnt  he even sleeps on the table because of the pressure of work with a view to clean up the corruption and thefts in the country . Naturally therefore removing such an officer suddenly from the FCID where he was doing yeoman service is suspicious and is  to disrupt and derail the investigations at the FCID. 

The authorities however have a different story in their defense over the transfer of Premashantha.  That is , after a promotion that officer has to be transferred because there is a police circular to that effect. If that is true , then why doesn’t that circular apply to officers of the police anti narcotics division? Kamal Silva , the Director of the anti Narcotics division who was promoted as DIG is still allowed to be in that division  as Director ?.

In fact what ought to  have been done was , transferred notorious Kamal Silva the corrupt and inefficient from the post of Director who had completed five years   in the anti narcotics division  , and retained Premashantha in the FCID where he is discharging his duties with absolute commitment and dedication. Strangely ,though Nilantha Jayawardena also like Premashantha was promoted to the post of DIG  while he was the Director of the State Intelligence division  , he too was not transferred. No matter what defense the state officials advance , truly in practice obviously  the right procedure has not been duly followed.  

It is a well and widely known fact that it is infamous Thiru Kumar Nadesan who managed the  illicit affairs and assets including the Malwana mansion of notorious fraudster Basil Rajapakse .While Thiru Nadesan was evading arrest for a long while , it was following the initiative taken by Premshantha  the former Director of the FCID , and under his exhaustive investigation  Thiru Nadesan was arrested. It is rudely shocking therefore , how is that Thiru Nadesan the most notorious culprit is now wielding powers so much so  that he is able to transfer the officer who conducted the investigations duly into his rackets, to Moneragala to watch wild Elephants. In other words the police transfers are so lop sided with crooked and the corrupt holding sway, currently.

It is a most crucial question ,how did this happen and on whose backing? 

Is Thiru Nadesan a friend of Vajira Abeywardena ? Did Sagala Rathnayake minister in charge of the police in order to please Thiru Nadesan ,stoop that low to  instruct the IGP to transfer Premashantha out from the FCID ? If the minister can effect police transfers , why was the Police Commission established ?  Was it to send the Police Commission  on minister’s nefarious errands ?  Naturally ,  these are the pertinent questions perturbing the concerned pro good governance masses .  

When DIG Ravi Waidyalankara in charge of the FCID was contacted , his opinion was , Anura Premashantha is most essential to the department , and that he had  informed the Commission about it in writing . In that event , was it minister Sagala who kowtowed to the request of Thiru Nadesan ? Like how Sagala gave an answer when the issue was who is IGP’s ‘Sir’ , the public is waiting to have an answer from Sagala in this regard too.

The corrupt and the crooked who have now advanced from a toehold to a foothold  on the FCID , are sure going to be encouraged under the circumstances to make moves to remove the DIG who is in charge of the FCID too , and get a stranglehold  on the FCID to the detriment of the department  and the country at large.  

The IGP Koloma who is tapping the calls of the DIGs  currently , is already preparing the necessary groundwork towards that  devastating end , it is learnt. After gathering  information  via the tapping , the DIGs are to be vilified and mud is to be slung at them through the social media using the henchmen after distorting the information gathered. 

Under the circumstances , the pro good governance masses of course are justifiably  demanding that DIG Anura Premashantha who received foreign training out of public funds be kept back in the FCID –that is ,  transferred back as Director FCID without playing into the hands of crooks and the corrupt. 

On the contrary , if the officers of the FCID are transferred to suit the dastardly aims and destructive  agendas  of crooks and the corrupt , the much hyped attempts made by the good governance to trap them  will be just an eye wash and a hogwash .

---------------------------
by     (2017-01-16 00:53:44)

Rs. 400 million loss to CPC due to tar sale fraud

Jan 15, 2017

The Ceylon Petroleum Corporation’s top management is involved in a massive financial fraud by granting special concessions to two companies that buy tar from the Corporation, CPC sources say. The two companies in question are Bitumen Lanka and Oru Mix. CPC sources say the scam is going on by using two letters obtained from the two companies.

In its letter, Bitumen says it will buy 40,000 barrels of tar, and from 02.09. 2015, it has been issued with tar at Rs. 46.20 per kilo. However, other buyers have to pay Rs. 53 per kilo. The sources also say Oru Mix promises in writing to buy 20,000 barrels, and the CPC issues same at Rs. 48.50 per kilo.

 

The other buyers have to buy not from the CPC, but from Bitumen Lanka and Oru Mix which use facilities at the CPC Muthurajawela complex for the purpose. The CPC top management is allowing a free hand to the two companies, while intentionally delaying the issuance of tar to other buyers. It has supplied to the two companies, while postponing to honour an order by CECB that has undertaken a Rs. six billion project to develop 28 roads in Polonnaruwa. However, when payments are made, just like the others, these two companies are allowed to pay on a weekly basis. An assistant manager T.G. Jayasinghe, who had questioned these irregularities, had been transferred to Kurunegala by the corrupt top management of the CPC.

 

Furthermore, the CPC’s top management  has also caused a loss of nearly Rs. 400 million to the institution in the importation of tar, by making payments to a supplier at the 2014 rates in 2015 when world market prices declined, although it had failed to deliver an order on time.

 

When contacted, a top CPC official said he was not responsible for any financial irregularity and that he was unaware of any such occurrence either. CPC sources add that the corrupt practices of the top management have allowed Lanka IOC to claim a 70 per cent stake in the local tar market.

Cut On The Funds To Jaffna College And Uduvil Girls’ College: Trustees Note Serious Irregularities In Administration

Colombo Telegraph now has access to a letter sent by the Trustees of Jaffna College Funds based in Boston, USA which states that the Trustees have decided to reduce the funds allocated to both Jaffna College, Vaddukoddai and Uduvil Girls’ College for the first quarter of the year 2017 by 20%.

January 16, 2017

This letter, signed by The Rev Richard H. Huleatt, the President of the Trustees of Jaffna College Funds, was emailed on the 5^th of January to the Bishop of the Jaffna Diocese of the Church of South India The Rt. Rev. Dr. Daniel Thiagarajah, the Chairperson of the Boards of Directors of Jaffna College and Uduvil Girls’ College.

Failure on the part of the two schools to submit the audited financial statements for 2015, violence unleashed on the students who were protesting against the appointment of the new Principal at Uduvil Girls’ College last year, the administrators’ failure to hold those who were involved in the violence accountable, threats of physical harm and punitive measures, recruitment of under-qualified teachers to both schools in the recent past, abuse and misuse of power and the funds sent by the Trustees , intimidation and manipulation of the teachers and the board members placing their personal interests above the welfare of the students and the school are among the reasons cited in the letter for the reduction of funds to these two educational institutions in Northern Sri Lanka.

The Trustees in their letter copied to 19 individuals including the Chief Minister of the Northern Province Justice C. V. Wigneswaran, the Education Minister of the Province Mr. T. Gurukularajah, the Principals of the schools and members of the alumni all over the world insist that 9 major reforms ensuring transparency and fairness in the areas of administration, financial reporting, and recruitment of teachers and officers be implemented before the 30^th of June 2017. These reforms include independent audits of the funds utilized by the schools and internal controls, prudent and open nominations for persons to serve as directors, appointment of qualified officers and teachers, disclosure of related party transactions, avoidance of cronyism and nepotism, and regular meetings of Boards and Committees, followed by public reports of deliberations and decisions. The letter notes that the changes that they require are “consistent with governance and reporting standards that are accepted and implemented by well-run organizations worldwide, including educational institutes”. The Rev. Huleatt also observes that for the Trustees “to act responsibly as fiduciary, [their] beneficiaries should provide [them] with transparent financial reporting, demonstrate responsible governance practices, communicate cooperatively with [them]”.

Irregularities in Governance and Administration

The Trustees have requested the two Boards to send them the audited financial statements for the year 2015 and a letter detailing the steps taken by the Boards to implement the reforms proposed by the Trustees by the 15^th of March 2017 and noted that failure to do so would result in the reduction of the payment for the second quarter of the year 2017 as well.

The letter also states that the Trustees arrived at the decision to reduce the funds allocated to the two schools based on credible reports about serious irregularities in the governing bodies and administration of the schools that they received from various constituents of the school community and discussions they had in October 2016 with the alumni associations of the schools, parents and teachers of Uduvil Girls’ College, senior church officials of several Christian denominations, the Governor of the Northern Province and the Minister of Education of the Province.

On the 15^th of January 2017, Sunday Times reported that the Chairperson of the Boards The Rt. Rev. Dr. Thiagarajah had called the letter “a very high handed act”[i]. Even in his Charge for the 64^th Session of the Jaffna Diocesan Council of the Church of South India in November 2016, the Bishop alleged that the United Church of Christ’s (UCC) Global Ministries and Jaffna College Trustees “cling blindly to their need for privilege and status in their dealings with [them]”[ii]. Quoting the Bishop, the news report that appeared in Sunday Times says that lawyers are in the process of preparing a response to the letter. The Bishop also alleged that someone with vested interest was behind the letter and that the Boards’ lawyers were drawing up a defamation case. The newspaper also notes that among the counsel is Attorney-at-Law and Jaffna District MP M.A. Sumanthiran.

Read More