SRI LANKA: SLFP AGAINST ANY MEANINGFUL CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND POWER SHARING

22/01/2017

Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) has decided to oppose any meaningful constituional refrom and any power sharing going beyond the 13th amendment.

This position has been elobereted by SLFP ministers at a meeting with leading Buddhist monks heald at All Ceylon Buddhist Congress (ACBC)  headquarters in Bauddhaloka Mawatha reports Sunday Times.

“Seven SLFP ministers who took part in the two-hour talks made clear their party’s position in respect of the proposed constitutional changes. Among the highlights were:

   The SLFP will ensure that the foremost place is given to Buddhism.
    The unitary status of Sri Lanka will be protected.
    The SLFP will not support any Constitutional change that requires a referendum.
    There will be no change to the Executive Presidential system.
    There will be no merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces.
    Devolution of power will only be through the fuller implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

The SLFP Ministers who took part in the discussion were Nimal Siripala de Silva, Sarath Amunugama, Mahinda Samarasinghe, Mahinda Amaraweera, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, John Seneviratne and Duminda Dissanayake. Chairing the meeting on behalf of the ACBC was Venerable Tirucunamale Ananda Thera, Mahanayaka of the Sri Amarapura Dharmarakshita Nikaya. Others who took part were the Ven. Professor Bellanwila Wimalaratne Thera, Chancellor of the Sri Jayawardenapura University, Ven. Diviyagaha Yasassi Thera, Chief Sanganayaka of the Kolomba Nawa Korale, Ven Prof Agalakada Sirisumana Thera, Sri Vajiraramaye Gnanaseela Thera, Dr Praneeth Abeysundara, President All Ceylon Buddhist Congress, Dr. Anula Wijesundara, Manohara de Silva, President’s Counsel, Prasanna Lal Alwis, President’s Counsel, Jagath Sumathipala, former President of the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress and Thilanga Sumathipala, Deputy Speaker.

Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva explained that agreeing to a referendum at this juncture would only divide the country. Ven. Tirucunamale Ananda Thera declared that the same position has been explained to a delegation of Buddhist clergy including himself when they met President Sirisena. He praised the President for taking such a position. Though the SLFP position was that maximum devolution should be through the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, the prelate said they held a different view. He noted that there was provision in the 13A for a provincial police force where the Deputy Inspector General of Police in a province will come under the Chief Minister. They were not in favour of such a situation for it would politicise the Police in the provinces. Minister de Silva was to point out that such issues could be further discussed.

Thursday’s meeting between the seven SLFP ministers and a delegation from the ACBC has added to uncertainty over constitutional reforms. The United National Party (UNP), the other constituent partner in the Government, has been spearheading a reform package. Reports of six different Steering Committee reports on the proposed changes were to be debated in Parliament from January 9 to 11. It was indefinitely put off since the SLFP participants in the process sought more time to study the matter.

“The SLFP and the UNP are now at loggerheads over constitutional reforms. Until they find common ground, these reforms will be in limbo,” ‘Joint Opposition’ leader Dinesh Gunawardena told the Sunday Times. He added, “As a result, we have not been able to agree on a date for the debate.” It is quite clear we will not be able to proceed since the two sides are taking divergent and irreconcilable positions, he pointed out. The veteran Mahajana Eksath Peramuna politician said it was imperative that the two main partners in the Government tell the people what their positions are, instead of leaving the country in suspense.

The position taken up by the SLFP ministers is largely similar to the position taken up by the ‘Joint Opposition’. The 14-point proposals it submitted to a Steering Committee said that there should be no merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces. They also say that there should be no change to Chapter II, Article 9 of the Constitution that; “the Republic of Sri Lanka shall give the foremost place to Buddhism”. They have said that the Provincial Councils system shall not endanger the Unitary State and its security and added that PCs should exercise their powers subject to the executive and legislative powers of the Centre.

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa also came out strongly against the six reports of Steering Committees appointed by the Constitutional Assembly. In a statement last month he noted that “During the last presidential election campaign, the two main constitutional reforms promised to the people by the Government were: the abolition of the executive presidency and the reform of the electoral system. Neither of these two key issues has been dealt with by the subcommittees appointed by the Constitutional Assembly. Instead, six reports have been released on matters that were never even mentioned during the presidential election. It is only in reading the subcommittee reports that the connection between the above mentioned events become clear. The subcommittee on “Centre-Periphery Relations” has openly stated that the ‘unitary character’ of our constitution is an ‘impediment’ to the functioning of the provincial councils and some of the reports have made recommendations that are designed to end the unitary character of Sri Lanka without however deleting that word from the Constitution…”

Impact Of Buddhism, Politics & Corruption On The Rule Of Law – Part II

By Mass L. Usuf –January 22, 2017

Mass Usuf

Gnanasara’s rendezvous with President

The grotesque picture of Ampitiye Sumanarathana Thero must have truly embarrassed the decent Buddhists and the respected monks. He is attempting to assault a female police officer unashamedly looked on by the others. Substitute citizen Perera or Subramanian or Abdullah in place of the monk and imagine how the picture would then have looked like. Another instance of the Rule of Law (ROL) becoming impotent when it relates to monks violating not only the law but, also, the very arm of the law.

Gnanasara Thero who famously called President Sirisena, “rukada nayakayek – a puppet leader” among other matters stated as follows:

(ජනාධිපති තුමනි, ඔබ වහාම ඉල්ලා අස් වෙන්න)
“President, you resign immediately”

“…Meka api palamuwenma kiuwa me ratata enna yanne rukada nayakayek …… Sirisena mahaththayo dan kale hari dan yanna …. Purushayaek inna oney methena.”

Translation : “We said that a puppet is becoming the leader of this country…….. Your time is up Mr. Sirisena. Now go……. There must be a man (masculinity) in this place. (10.04.2015)

This very Gnanasara has taken centre stage as a bedfellow in an apparently intriguing political gamble. This will be stretching the argument to include politics as influencing the ROL.

Akusala Kamma (Bad Action)

Chronicling the records of Gnanasara thero provides additional perspective to the paralysed ROL even during the Rajapakshe era.

In June 2014, he was alleged to have incited violence against the Muslims of Aluthgama and Beruwela. The rioting caused several deaths, destruction of properties and damage to businesses worth billions of rupees. The Muslim community’s call to appoint a Commission to investigate this incident has fallen on deaf ears.

As journalist Dharisha Bastians observes: “The Government that arrested journalist J.S. Tissainayagam, politician Azath Sally and human rights activists Ruki Fernando and Father Praveen Mahesan under sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act dealing with an incitement of communal tension, has been criminally derelict in the case of Gnanasara.” (DailyFT, 26 June 2014).

Gnanasara, who as a monk administers the virtue to abstain from intoxicants that causes heedlessness, has himself pleaded guilty to a hit-and-run and drunk driving case and been fined by the Court (CT 11/04/2013).

In October 2015, warrant was issued for his arrest for failing to appear before courts on two cases. One for allegedly obstructing a media briefing by the Jathika Bala Sena while the other case was for defamatory remarks against Quran opposite the Slave Island police station. In January 2016, he was remanded for alleged contempt of court and threatening Sandhya Ekneligoda, the wife of missing journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda. Earlier, a warrant had been issued for his arrest on a case regarding his alleged participation at an unlawful assembly in front of the Bribery Commission. Besides this there have been several other complaints filed against him.

The latest episodes was the statement made by Gnanasara blaspheming Allah (please see my article, CT of 09/12/2016). These unabating incidents prompted the 21 Parliamentarians to write to H.E. The President requesting investigation and prosecution. Nothing done!

Read More

Are drones invading our privacy?

Drone journalism: Social and legal aspects

by Theodore A. Fernado Warnakulasuriya-Jan 22, 2017

( January 22, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) As we begin a new year, unmanned aerial vehicles – a.k.a. drones – have left the realm of science fiction and are making their way into our living rooms and have become an important topic in the public sphere. Our attention was drawn to “drones” recently when a drone was used to photograph the coverage around the exhumation of slain journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge’s body in Colombo, without the consent of the family members who did not want the media to cover the event due to personal reasons.

A drone was used to photograph the coverage around the exhumation of slain journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge’s body in Colombo. Seen here are policemen at the scene.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), known also as “drones” are a technology now hovering over, on many fields, including journalism and mass communication. It is said that “drones,” or these small remotely-guided aircraft have gained prominence in the post-9/11 era through their increased use in the hunt for Al- Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We live in an era where, with increasingly sophisticated navigation systems and dramatically decreased costs, drones are purchased and put to use by commercial organizations and private citizens. Drones are used at present to obtain aerial footage in a variety of locations around the world. Use of drones for surveillance and their implications have posed or raised new questions for the field of journalism and mass communication.

Surveillance has long been identified as one of the primary functions of media (Lasswell 1948). According to Lasswell and Wright, one of the Functions of mass communication is surveillance of the environment. This is one of the important function of the media, and media is supposed to be always vigilant, use its surveillance eyes on, of all the happenings around the world and provide information to society at large. Because of this function, the media has the responsibility of providing news and covers a wide variety of issues that are of use to society. The surveillance function of the media helps to maintain social order by providing instructions on what has to be done in times of crisis, thereby reducing confusion among the masses. To put it another way, people make use of media and communication technologies to see the world beyond the reach of their own senses. As an important surveillance instrument, unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, extend and help the surveillance capabilities of the media, helping it to function as a watch dog of society at large.

Although, media surveillance has been understood as contributing positively to the well being of society at large, a more critical view of surveillance is articulated by Foucault’s analysis of Bentham’s Panopticon. It is understood as a platform, from which authorities could view the activities of everyone without being directly observed themselves (Foucault 1977; Bentham and Bozovic 1995). Surveillance under this view is a concept of power (Deflem 2008). Scholarship attests that new digital technologies allow powerful entities the ability to track citizens’online and offline behavior. In other words, automatically, against a will of an individual, it is a kind of centralization of power (Mattelart 2010; Lyon 2003, 2007; Magnet and Gates 2009). The panoptic view of surveillance is further characterized by the many being observed by the few (and the powerful). As stated by (Mark Tremayne and Andrew Clark 2017), however, when those doing the watching are journalists or citizens other terms may be more appropriate. If one “reverses the panoptic gaze” then the watched become the watchers and the surveillance is synoptic

(Haggerty 2006; Dupont 2008; Mathieson 1997; Elmer 2003; Lyon 2003; Yesil 2009). Examples of this phenomenon include surveillance of police by citizens concerned about racial profiling (Huey, Walby, and Doyle 2006) or the use of surveillance technology by individuals or marginalised groups against government or corporations (Dupont 2008).Synoptic surveillance also applies to voyeuristic entertainment when an audience (the many) observes cast members (the few) on reality television shows (Lyon 2006; Mathieson 1997), although in some of these cases the cast members are in on the voyeurism. According to many scholars, sousveillance is another variation of surveillance. Sousveillance (observation “from below”) occurs when a participant in some activity records events rather than an authority figure (Huey, Walby, and Doyle 2006; Yesil 2009). Examples of sousveillance include citizens recording themselves during interactions with police (Huey, Walby, and Doyle 2006) and use of cell phone cameras by individuals to capture events that might have gone unrecorded in the past (Yesil 2009). The proliferation of low-cost cameras among citizens has led to a related idea, the “democratization of surveillance” (Kiss 2009; Huey,Walby, and Doyle 2006; Dupont 2008). Scholars further attest that one of the serious consequence is that, all of these types of surveillance are leading to a blurring of the public–private distinctions of the past (Ford 2011). Peoples’ expectations of privacy, their “zones of immunity” (Lyon 2001), are shrinking due to digital data mining (Gandy 2006; Lyon and Zureik 1996) and a proliferation of video cameras. Increased use of camera-equipped aerial drones is likely to further aggravate, this erosion.

There is no doubt, that when the words employed by a journalist is backed up by facts and evidence gathered with all the tools at their disposal, they can have a significant impact on the minds of the public. Being able to capture, aerial photographs when reporting on a story, makes a drone a valuable resource, for media outlets, but in this regard the norms and guide lines warn that there is opportunity for abuse – especially when it comes to matters of privacy and safety.

The right what makes drones so appealing to journalists is that they give reporters access to the sky. That’s something that was not nearly so accessible before these machines made their presence known in the public sphere. Usually, to get aerial shots one needs a helicopter, a hot-air balloon or an airplane, all of which are dependent on others to operate and cost much money. However, one of the dangers, of using drones, especially in populated areas, is that they can come crashing down on the very citizens they were sent up to look down on.

In the United States, out of fifty states, already 43 states, and nine have enacted drone legislation, and bills are still active in five more (Bohm 2013). But because these drones are being operated in public, at present, there’s not much in the way of U.S. privacy laws that prevent their use. However, The Fourth Amendment provides the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The law practised especially in the United State, recognises that at some point an individual right to privacy limits the media’s First Amendment right to inform the public. Unlike the law of defamation, which is at least 700 years old, the law of privacy is of relatively recent origin. The law of privacy is mainly concerned with those actions that intrude into personal space. In a broad sense, privacy law includes such things as trespass, harassment, eavesdropping, wiretapping, telling secrets, and exploiting reputations. According to the late Professor William L. Prosser, privacy law should be thought as a complex of four torts: appropriation, intrusion, public disclosure of private facts, and false light in the public eye. While, these four torts share a common name, they are clearly distinct and can be summarised briefly. Intrusion into a person’s mental or physical solitude is closely related to trespass. The difference however, is that trespass violates a person’s property, while intrusion violates the person. It involves entry without permission, into another’s personal space and in a manner that is highly offensive. Journalists who use subterfuge to gain entrance to a private home are especially vulnerable to suit as intruders. A photographer who harasses a newsworthy subject also may be an intruder. So may an eavesdropper or wire tapper. A disclosure of private fact occurs when a medium, without consent, disseminates personal information that a reasonable person would find to be highly offensive and not of legitimate concern. To cite a case, for example, following journalistic convention, a photo of a nude woman taking a bath is probably not newsworthy, (McCabe v. Village Voice, 550 F.Supp. 525). A photo of a topless Duchess of York cavorting near St. Tropez might be, and a photo of a nearly nude woman fleeing to waiting police after being held hostage almost certainly would be (Cape Publications v. Bridges, 431 So.2d 988, 8 Med.L. Rptr. 2535). By definition, a person can be put in a false light only through publicity. He or she must be the subject of a publication, tape, film, or broadcast that distorts his or her personality. Appropriation involves, the unauthorised use of one person’s name or likeness to benefit another. Commonly, such use occurs in an advertisement or in other promotional material designed to help the user to make a profit.

It is clear the sword of law is hanging and hovering in many countries, over journalists especially due to lack of clear guide-lines in the use of drones. In order to ward off potential lawsuits, media owners need to ensure that drones are used in an ethical manner consistent with professionalism and appropriate news practices. News directors and editors and professional associations need to establish codes of conduct for the use of such devices in order to avoid costly law suits.

(The writer teaches media law, visual research, communication theory, and Asian cinema at the Open University and many other higher institutions of learning in Sri Lanka.)

Campaign for new constitution kick starts..! President Maithripala has not changed his stance..!!

–Rajitha’s special statement (Audio and Video)

(Lanka-e-News -22.Jan.2017,11.30PM) President Maithripala has not changed his stance in regard to the solemn assurance he gave then  that via the new people’s constitution , the powers of the executive presidency shall be abolished ; powers shall be devolved ; and the present election system shall be amended . Moreover he is steadfast in this stance . Minister Rajitha  Senaratne and Gamini  Veyangoda addressing the decisive meeting today of the good governance forces revealed . They said , when they met the president yesterday , the latter swore that he is unwavering and steadfast in his earlier stance. 

In addition ,the president had assured he would join in the campaign that is being conducted Island wide towards the accomplishment of these  goals. 

The good governance forces that rallied together on 2015 -01-08 to prepare the country for a people’s referendum with  regard to a new constitution met this evening at the Water’s edge Hotel . The meeting was a roaring success  and a crowd as large as  about 200 participated . 

The SLFP secretary announcing  the decision  of his party disclosed that they are concurring in the stance pertaining to all three proposals. If for any reason the people’s referendum does not materialize , it is  because a group of the party is announcing the name of an individual as the presidential candidate , it was discussed Maithripala Sirisena shall be the presidential candidate for the second term  in order to counter that . In any event , the party’s stance is for the abolition of the executive presidency  , and that stance remains unchanged , he pointed out .

Minister Mangala Samaraweera and minister Rajitha Senaratne were in the vanguard of the discussions  today leading the two parties. Saman Rathnapriya , Professor Sarath Wijesuriya , Gamini Viyangoda , Mujibur Rahman and Thusitha Halloluwa the convener of the SLFP rescue organization also played key roles . 

A large  crowd attended the meeting including Mangala Samaraweera , Rajitha Senaratne, Professor Jayampathy Wickremeratne, Dr. Wickremebahu Karunaratne, Dr. Harsha De Silva, Dr. Arshu Marasinghe ,Eran Wickremeratne , Sarath Fonseka, Mujibur Rahman , Mano Ganeshan , Duminda Dissanayake, Chathura Senaratne,  a number of politicians , leaders of civil organizations and trade unions, lawyers , journalists and intellectuals . Truly speaking , there was no change at all among the forces that rallied together on 2015-01-08

The special statement made by minister Rajitha Senaratne to Lanka e news following the meeting is hereunder…. 

If you wish to save data , you may click here and listen only to the audio tape.

Video footage is below 

---------------------------
by     (2017-01-22 20:05:11)

Mangala Says Lasantha And Prageeth’s Investigations Moving Forward Despite Delays

January 22, 2017

In the backdrop of the suspects in the murders of Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickrematunge and Prageeth Ekneligoda been released on bail, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera has declared that the investigation into both murders were moving forward as both cases were of very high importance to his government.

During a visit to Stockholm on Wednesday, he told a group of special invitees who had attended to listen to a lecture delivered by him, “Lasantha was a personal friend of mine, and his death anniversary was on the 8th of January. I went to the cemetery again to pay respects to him. Yes, there is a lot of talk, that because of the delay in nailing the suspects, that the government is trying to hide the perpetrators of these murders. But I have been following the investigations and I can assure you, there is no such thing. In fact, many of the suspects are already under arrest. But they have yet to file the B-report. Also, about Lasantha’s killing the investigators feel that they will soon be able to learn where the orders came from, in order to assassinate Lasantha.”

He made this statement in response to a question raised by journalist Johan Mikaelsson who highlighted that there were claims where moves were afoot to safeguard the culprits behind the two murders.

During his official two-day visit to Sweden, he delivered a lecture on the invitation of The Institute for Security & Development Policy (ISDP) in Stockholm.

Elaborating his answer further he also said that even in the case of Ekneligoda, Samaraweera recalled how several army intelligence officers were arrested and were now released on bail. “But this is till the final case commences. These two cases are of great interest to us, and politically it is of great importance to our government that we proceed with these investigations. So, I can assure you that despite the delays, both cases are moving forward,” he said.

Read More

Steamrolling of Central Bank by Minister of Finance: An unsavoury development?

Monday, 23 January 2017

An unsavoury rift between the Central Bank and Minister of Finance

A growing rift between Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake and the senior management of the Central Bank is surfacing now, worrying both financial markets and prospective foreign investors. The relationship between the Finance Minister and the Monetary Board of the Central Bank is not very clear under the new work allocation of the Government.

Steamrolling of Central Bank by Minister of Finance.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

No restrictions for stage demonstrations – Citizens’ Organizations

Jan 21, 2017

Leaders of Citizens’ organizations express their opposed against governments’ decision on provide specific two venues to stage demonstrations.

“Government has taken a decision to provide two specific venues to stage demonstrations,” said Chameera Perera, Co-convener of Left Centre at a press conference held at CSR in Colombo on Jan 20.

“When the heath sector workers have problems they staged demonstrations in front of ministry of health. Likewise, education sector workers staged demonstrations in front of ministry of education.”

He added, “People have so many problems with the government and they need to stage demonstrations. That is their right to expression. If the government strictly follows their decision on allocate two places in Colombo to stage demonstrations, and then they have to follow the waiting list for stage demonstrations.”

D. M. D. Abeyratne, Chairman of Government Trade Unions Workers Association said that government does not have a right to take such decisions against people’ right to expression

“Government should abolish their decision, if they failed to do that we will take a stern action against the government.”

Lawerence Ferdinando - Colombo

Part VI: Socialist Utopia, But Despotism In Politics! Why?

By Laksiri Fernando –January 22, 2017 

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

Ambiguity between socialist economy and democracy has been a continuous problem in socialist thinking and socialist movements, unfortunately since Thomas More’s time. There are no signs of resolving the contradiction. This was the case in the former Soviet Union and still the case in Cuba. Even many present day socialist or leftwing parties also reveal many authoritarian tendencies.

In terms of socialist regimes (e.g. Russia, China, Cuba etc.), the problem was identified as ‘socialism’ emerging in backward countries. This cannot fully be the reason. Because it is there within the ‘socialist’ thinking itself. A different answer refers to the ‘abolition of all property’ which goes against the fundamental nature of human instincts and rights. This extreme tendency also was there in Thomas More. The advocacy of a (violent) ‘revolution’ is another facet of the tendency in more modern movements.

The purpose of this part of the publication is not to probe into the reasons for this contradiction. It merely shows how this was manifested unfortunately even in Thomas More’s socialist ‘Utopia.’ The question is raised only for readers’ contemplation. However, it should be noted that Thomas More also had several admirable liberal propositions for governance: fewer laws, elected representatives, secret ballot and contemplative decision making.

Here we are celebrating the five hundred years of Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’ (December 1516) by publishing the chapters of ‘Thomas More’s Socialist Utopia and Ceylon (Sri Lanka)’ every Sunday courtesy of Colombo Telegraph and Sri Lanka Guardian. This will allow anyone who wishes to read it, free access to the book. The publication link to the original for those who wish to obtain a printed copy is https://www.createspace.com/4688110

What is published today is Chapter 4 of the book titled ‘Utopia, But Despotism in Politics.’

 UTOPIA, BUT DESPOTISM IN POLITICS

“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” – Plato[1]

Thomas More’s vision and the outline of Utopia show many weaknesses in respect of political matters. The political system in Utopia is explained in different chapters in the book, sometimes inadequately or even contradictorily. In what is explained, there are admirable features as well as distasteful ones. In early sixteenth century England, More definitely had a difficulty in visualizing a system of proper democracy with socialism or something similar in that direction. If his main information was from Ceylon or any other country in Asia, neither it was helpful for this venture.

Referring to its history, reminiscent of Vijaya story, it says that the people of Utopia were ‘rude and uncivilized’ first, but Utopus who conquered them, brought the “inhabitants into such a good government, and to that measure of politeness, that they now far excel all the rest of mankind.”[2] That far it was good. However, what was explained as ‘good government’ in latter part of the book was not always admirable.

Few Laws

“They have but few laws, and such is their constitution that they need not many,” More says. The sufficiency of few laws is explained clearly. According to More, many laws in a country are necessary if the country is poor or some people are poor and if there are conflicts. But in Utopia, “There is no reason for giving a denial to any person, since there is such plenty of everything among them and there is no danger of a man’s asking for more than he needs. They have no inducements to do this, since they are sure that they shall always be supplied.”

More argues that “it is the fear of want that makes any of the whole race of animals either greedy or ravenous.” It is interesting to note that he talks about ‘the whole race of animals’ and this means both humans and other species of animals. Then he argues “But besides fear, there is in man a pride that makes him fancy in a particular glory to excel others in pomp and excess.” This is what we call selfishness and excessive self-indulgence. “But by the laws of the Utopians, there is no room for this,” he assures. It is also interesting to note that he talked about “fear of want.” It is to eliminate fear of want that Utopia or socialism is created. This is the other side of the ‘freedom from want’ that Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), the US President, talked about.[3]

More went further on the subject. “Therefore, they think that not only all agreements between private persons ought to be observed, but likewise that all those laws ought to be kept.” These are the laws “which either a good Prince has published in due form” or the people have consented without any compulsion of tyranny or oppression on the one hand or circumvented by fraud on the other. These are also the laws that “distribute those conveniences of life which afford us all our pleasures.” More argued strongly for a distributive justice.

Minimum of laws is a system that More advocated. The prevalence of few laws later considered a main aspect of a liberal government by democratic thinkers. More also said that,

“They have no lawyers among them, for they consider them as a sort of people whose profession it is to disguise matters and to wrest the laws.”

Read More

Dole Lanka workers go bananas over decision to terminate manpower company 

Monday, 23 January 2017

An arbitrary decision taken by banana exporter Dole Lanka Ltd. to terminate current contracts with a labour supply company has given rise to concerns over job security among the workforce employed in Buttala plantation, prompting workers to take trade union action.

The decision to suddenly terminate the service contract Dole Lanka had with The Southern Force Ltd. to supply labour for their Wekannda-Buttala banana plantation has created uncertainty among workers, Ceylon Industrial Workers Union General Secretary Chamara Nanayakkara told Daily FT.

The 400 workers who are paid bi-monthly did not receive their salaries last Friday due to this issue, he said.

Dole Lanka Ltd. was not immediately available for comment. When contacted, their Finance Director Tilak Gunerathe said he was unable to comment on the matter as it did not fall within his purview.

The company is said to have awarded the contract to supply labour to the plantation to a different company, which has a history of labour disputes with other companies in the country, Nanayakara claimed. However, he claims that Dole Lanka has instructed workers to accept their payments through the new service company, which the workers have refused.

“The matter has been brought to the attention of the Labour Commissioner in Buttala, and we expect have a discussion with the authorities soon. If the company does not want to take us through the manpower company, then they should absorb us. We do not want to join any other manpower company which has already got a bad reputation for fraudulent activities,” Nananyakkara said.

He said the workers will stage a protest within the plantation today, with hopes of reaching a settlement.

“If we do not get a solution, we plan to march to the town and then to Colombo,” Nanayakkara claimed.

The service provider The Southern Force claimed that their contract has been terminated without prior notice, citing an issue which occurred in 2012. 

The Southern Force Managing Director Ishan Gunasekara claimed that the dispute which Dole was already aware of has already been settled through the Court.

“Their target is to avoid paying gratuity for the workers. If Dole Lanka breaks service of the workers, then they will not have to pay gratuity,” he claimed. Gunasekara also alleged that another dispute with the same company which is under investigation may have also influenced the arbitrary decision. 

FCID To File Further ‘B’ Reports In Courts Against The Renegade Wimal

The ‘B’ report filed by the FCID and Weerawansa’s statement that he was unaware that his siblings and friends were given vehicles and Wimal Weerawansa

by Nirmala Kannangara- Sunday, January 22, 2017

• Houses given for his and his wife’s siblings from Kahathuduwa and Mattegoda Housing Schemes
• Family’s sole asset was a four perch land in Pahala Biyanwila, Kadawatha at the time he entered parliament in 2000
• Vehicles had been hired from people known to Weerawansa but was never used for SEC work

The Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) is to file further ‘B’ reports in courts against the renegade Marxist Weerasangilige Wimal Weerawansa for his alleged involvement into many other large scale scandalous corruptions that has cost the country millions of rupees during the Rajapaksa regime.

FCID To File Further.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s “lack of confidence” in the CTF: Revengeful and racist

Featured image courtesy Daily Mirror

AYESHA ZUHAIR on 01/22/2017

Justice and Buddhasasana Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe has declared that he has “no confidence” in the government-appointed Consultation Task Force (CTF) on Reconciliation Mechanisms (Daily Mirror, 07 January 2017, p.1).

Minister Rajapakshe’s decision to express his lack of confidence in an important Task Force belatedly (nearly one year after its appointment and many moons of hard work culminating in the public release of its final report on January 03, 2017) is inexplicable to say the least. He may have forgotten that the CTF was appointed by none other than his party leader Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

It is an insult to the 11 members who comprised the CTF but also to the Cabinet of Ministers which is still to consider the report. Even more significantly, the Minister’s statement discounts the 7,306 submissions made during the consultations – dealing a severe blow to the democratic process of listening to the people’s views on the matters tasked by the government to the Consultation Task Force.

All those who made oral and written submissions to the Task Force will no doubt be shocked by the Minister’s dismissive remarks. The report itself notes the duality in attitudes of the people who appeared before the CTF. Considerable frustration, bitterness and anger had been expressed at yet another initiative despite failure of past efforts to provide relief or redress. Still, there was the expectation and yearning that this particular exercise would be different. However, the Justice Minister’s statement at this juncture will only exacerbate scepticism about the government’s sincerity in taking forward its reconciliation programme.

Anyone, including Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, has every right to disagree with any of the recommendations contained in the report. The question of hybrid courts and the inclusion of foreign judges to hear and determine war crimes’ allegations is indeed a contentious and divisive issue. Personally, I am of the view that inclusion of foreign judges will amount to a lack of confidence in our judiciary. Even the acquittal in the Raviraj murder case cannot be argued as an instance of judicial indiscretion, because the acquittal was based on a decision by the jury not that by the judge. One might say the process laid down had led to a miscarriage of justice but one cannot fault the judiciary for it.

If the accused in the murder case were Tamil speakers and if they had opted for a Tamil speaking jury, one might expect a similar miscarriage of justice if the victims were from a different community. The fault is primarily in the very high level of communalism pervading the society which, well known lawyers like Rajapakshe should confront. That, to say the least, was the brief the government gave the CTF going by the mandate that I shall quote later.

Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s utterance quoted by the Daily Mirror exposes not so much one’s right to disagree with the CTF but the outright rejection shows more convincingly that racism, tragically, will continue to play the central role in our country. One can see how even a few professionals of repute do not hesitate to sow the seeds that will keep the country far behind other countries in the region.

How can Rajapakshe say that he has no confidence in the Task Force now, after its final report has dealt with many other issues that may help solve critical issues facing the county including strengthening the rule of law and the administration of justice?

Where was he (the Cabinet Minister holding the Justice portfolio no less!) when the CTF was appointed? Has he suddenly woken up from a deep slumber like Rip Van Winkle? He could surely have made his views known soon after the CTF was appointed. It is apparent that the Minister has rejected the report – outright – without a proper reading of the meticulously prepared document which runs into well over 900 pages in total, and without any discussion at Cabinet-level on a subject of urgent national priority.

The CTF report refers to consultations had with the security forces and the police. The report notes that international involvement in the accountability mechanism had been categorically rejected by the security forces. However, it states, “in most submissions made by the Security Forces and Police there was unequivocal support for the Government’s reconciliation initiatives and for a restorative as opposed to retributive approach, with a call by them (security forces) for the involvement of religious leaders to enhance the former.” How can Rajapakshe ignore the views of the security forces?

Minister Rajapakshe is also quoted in the same Daily Mirror article as follows:

“No one is complaining about the independence of the judiciary anymore. We have reconciliation and peace processes in place. This report, at this juncture, is totally unwarranted. Therefore, we don’t have to follow these recommendations by the CTF.”

The only comments that are unwarranted at this juncture are those of the Minister himself. The CTF was appointed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on January 26, 2016 to conduct island-wide public consultations on transitional justice mechanisms following nearly three decades of armed conflict. The Task Force consisted of well-known members of the civil society and was appointed directly by the Prime Minister.

Its mandate was:

“to carry out, on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka, a wide process of consultations involving all stakeholders including victims of conflict, to ascertain their views regarding the steps that they would like the Government to take including mechanisms to be established to ensure a durable peace, promote and protect human rights of all, strengthen the rule of law, administration of justice, good governance, reconciliation and non-recurrence including measures for reparations in line with the ideas of mechanisms that the Government proposes to establish, which were articulated in the Human Rights Council”.

Rajapakshe’s assertion that the CTF report is “unwarranted” at this juncture is an attempt to side-track a mechanism set up by the government itself to ascertain people’s views. Where is the democracy in this country if the opinions of key sections of society are not even considered and just rubbished away? Was the CTF not appointed with a view to restoring the democratic rights of the citizen to participate in the policy-making process? Could this perhaps signal a resurgence of the tentacles of the dictatorial regime that was defeated on 08 January 2015?

Minister Rajapakshe has further stated that no one could force us to have foreign judges or make us do things for the sake of reconciliation and impartiality. In his words:

“If forcing continues, Sinhalese and Muslims will also be compelled to ask for justice for the crimes committed by the LTTE. They will ask for probes on terror attacks on the Dalada Maligawa, Sri Maha Bodhiya, Aranthalawa, Kattankudy and so on.”

It is the Minister’s ethnicisation of the issue that is unwarranted. All victims of war deserve justice irrespective of race, religion, caste or creed. His words sound more retributive than just or fair. “If you ask for this, we will ask for that.” Revengeful and racist, and most unbecoming of a Minister of Justice. 

Another question is who is ‘forcing’ him, as alleged by him? Little wonder then that the vast majority of peaceful citizens who hoped for a restoration of the rule of law, democratic governance and accountability post January 2015 will now have no confidence left in their so-called Minister of Justice.

If you enjoyed this post, you might find “Wijeyadasa Rajapaksa: Unfit for the job of Justice and Buddha Sasana Minister” and “Deconstructing the CTF Report” enlightening reads.