Tamil Lawyers Oppose Any Extension of Time Given to SLG

- Feb 14, 2017

Tamil people, especially the victims and their representatives oppose any extension of time given to Sri Lankan Government to fulfill its commitment to UN Human Rights Council on accountability beyond the March 2017 deadline.

They urge Sri Lanka to be referred to UN General Assembly with recommendation to refer to the UN Security Council to be forwarded to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or to create an ad-hoc International Criminal Tribunal on Sri Lanka.

Creating an international mechanism to prosecute war crimes has been the fervent wish and aspiration of the Tamils ever since the war ended in 2009. The Resolution (though diluted from its original version) passed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2015 gave a glimmer of hope that their wishes and aspirations would be fulfilled.

However, the Tamil Lawyers Forum has observed with alarm and concern the attempts made by the Government of Sri Lanka and it’s leaders reneging on their own commitments incorporated in the Resolution which they co-sponsored. It is obvious that there is nothing ambiguous about the Government’s strategies vis-à-vis the Geneva Resolutions. In it’s attempt to mislead and deceive the international community over and over again, Sri Lanka seeks to further delay the process eventually urging the UN and others to treat it as water under the bridge and dump it in toto.

In regard to meeting it’s commitments on ethnic issues, Sri Lankan leadership had always acted in bad faith, and often, in branch of faith. After co-sponsoring the Geneva Resolution and agreeing to the creation of hybrid court comprising foreign and local jurists to investigate war crimes, Sri Lankan leaders have been acting contrary to the letter and spirit of the Resolution and their maneuvers are designed to frustrate and defeat the Geneva process. The mala-fide intention is manifest from the leaders’ vociferous public posturing.

VOLTE- FACE BY GOVERNMENT LEADERS:

President Sirisena, Prime Minister Wickremasinghe and their Ministers have, individually and in unison rejected a hybrid court umpteen times, on different occasions, through state-owned media interviews and from public platforms.

Mainstream media in Sri Lanka, owned by the majoritarian media moguls have unleashed a propaganda blitz castigating the Western sponsors of the Geneva Resolution and trashing the resolution, as a Western conspiracy against sovereign Sri Lanka.

Sensing US President-elect’s rather unconventional approach on many matters, President Sirisena had tried to pre-empt the international community. The Indian media reported that President Sirisena had asked Donald Trump to “pressure the UN Human Rights Council to drop war crimes allegations against the country’s troops. Sirisena’s office said he had sent a “special message” to President-elect Trump seeking US intervention at the council, where Sri Lanka faces censure for wartime atrocities”. (The Indian Express, 27 Nov.2016.) This is in line with the stance taken by all Sinhala political leaders including those in the former Mahinda Rajapaksa regime.

Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga one of the powers behind the throne has in her recent press interview, impulsively laid open the government’s plan. She has brazenly said that with the making of a new Constitution, and the establishment of the Office of the Missing Persons, “there would not be any necessity to have courts to probe war crimes” (Daily Mirror, 2nd Feb. 2017). Chandrika Kumaratunga has ruled out even the pretense of a domestic probe, as touted by the Government in defiance of the UN mandate and the victims’ demand for foreign judges. She has also criticized Ms. Manouri Muttetuwegama, the chairperson of the 11 member Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanism (CTFSL), for recommending an international mechanism to probe the war crimes.

RESPONSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY:

The sheer magnitude of the number of ruthless killings and massacres within a short period of time and the shocking manner in which these cruel and wanton acts were carried out resulted in the outright condemnation by the international community which brought out a well-documented Report from the Panel of Experts commissioned by the Secretary General of United Nations. This was followed by a series of Resolutions by the UN Human Rights Council in the years 2012, 2014 and 2015 the last of which was co-sponsored by the GOSL itself.

In the above background, the events leading up to the current state of imbroglio may well be recalled as follows:

Main points to recall:

1) According to UN Internal Review Report on Sri Lanka 2012, around 70 thousand Tamils were killed in six months in the final stage of the war in 2009 and Tamil women were sexually assaulted and raped by Sri Lankan Security Forces.
2) Several reports by UN and other international organizations also documented in detail the killings of Tamils and rape of Tamil women by Sri Lanka Security Forces.
3) UK based Channel 4 released series of videos documenting the war crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, including live shots of actual killings and other abuses. The footage in these documentaries were certified by the UN as authentic.
4) Thousands of victims and witnesses are eager to give evidence.
5) The killings in Mullivaikal is one of the few well documented killings, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity, by independent international groups, including the United Nations.
6) The latest Resolution was passed unanimously in September 2015 directing Sri Lanka to take specific steps to bring perpetrators of these killings and rape to justice. Sri Lanka co-sponsored the Resolution and voluntarily committed to fully implement the requirements by March 2017. 
7) One of the steps specified is to have international judges be part of the judicial team that investigates these abuses.
8) Sri Lankan President, Prime Minister and other senior officials have not only spoken against the involvement of Foreign Judges but also rejected any attempt to bring Sri Lankan Security Forces to face justice.
9) Any extension given to Sri Lanka beyond March 2017, will result in the denial of accountability for Mullivaikal massacre. Every time extension comes to an end, Sri Lanka comes up with new excuses to seek additional time.
10) North Korea was accused committing only Crimes against Humanity, but Sri Lanka was accused of committing both War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
11) Documented evidence against Sri Lanka is far more extensive and numerous as compared with North Korea.
12) Due to North Korea’s inaction to abide by UN specification, the UN Human Rights Council referred North Korea to the UN General Assembly urging it to recommend UN Security Council to refer North Korea to International Criminal Court (ICC).
13) Sri Lanka is attempting drag this accountability process until it falls off the international attention, thus escaping from the laws and rules laid down to prosecute the offenders in war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

MAIN REQUEST BY THE TAMIL LAWYERS FORUM TO THE MEMBER STATES OF THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY:

Srilanka has totally failed to implement it’s commitment to UN Human Rights Council within the stipulated time period. Extensions and grace period have been given already, but no progress has been made on any front, and victims are further frustrated. Srilanka therefore should not be given any more additional time and should be referred forthwith to the UN General Assembly to be referred to the UN Security Council with a mandate to be submitted to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or for the establishment of an ad-hoc International Criminal Tribunal on Srilanka similar to that of North Korea being referred by UN Human Rights Council to the UN Security Council.

HRC 34: UK IN DISCUSSION WITH SRI LANKA TO MOVE A NEW RESOLUTION

Image:A Sri Lanka mother who’s son was abducted in Colombo in 2010 taks a rest  in front of UNHRC Geneva office after attending a protest calling for justice for the disappeared. (c) s.deshapriya.

14/02/2017

The United Kingdom announced yesterday that it is working on a follow-up resolution in reaction to the High Commissions’s report and they are having  discussions with the Government of Sri Lanka. This announcment was made at the organisational meeting for the 34th session of the UNHRC at Palce des Natiaons, Geneva.

The USA which sponsor last two resolution has not make any announcement for any activity at the organizational meeting.

The dicision to move a resolution will depend on whether the Sri Lanka Government would agree to UK proposal. Informed sourses within the GoSL say that it will not sponsoer any resolution which is critical to on going the Transcitional Justice process.

The resolution may simply calls for a extention for the time for Sri Lanka government to implement UNHRC resolution 30/1.

FM Samaraweera who was in London recently has had discussion with relavent offcials over drafting such a resolution, according to Sri Lanka Brief sourses.

Sourses in Geneva says that Sri Lanka government has been opposing any interactive dialogue  on the report ( A/HRC/34/20 )on Sri Lanka to be submitted the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Al Ra’ad Al Hussein. The High Commisssioner’s report is sheuduled to be presnted on 22nd March along side three other such reports. There are on Libya, Ukraine, and Guinea.

Most probably there will not be a Sri Lanka specific interactive dialogue, as all three reports will be taken together in a general debate.

Going back to an alliance that can win elections

by Jehan Perera-February 14, 2017, 8:27 am 

The government has been dogged by negative public opinion on its failure to tackle what it promised during its election campaigns of two years ago. In the public perception it has yet to satisfactorily tackled corruption, bring about visible economic development or ensure the correction of war-related injustices. It has been losing popularity due to its inability to defend its performance on these issues. Marriages of convenience tend to get weakened in times of prolonged stress. There has been open bickering between the two main constituent parties of the government alliance. It is no surprise in this context that the government has been balking at facing local government elections. These have been postponed on various grounds for the past two years. The government’s justification with regard to not holding the local government elections has been wearing thin.

One reason given for the delay in conducting these elections is that the review of delimitation of electorates (wards, in the case of local government institutions), is not complete. First the issuance of the delimitation review report was itself delayed. Then the report was said to be insufficient. Now it has been accepted by the government but the start date for the electoral process to unfurl will be in another two or three weeks. There could be legal challenges, this time in the courts, to further delay the local government election date. It is reported that the delimitation report would be gazetted on February 28 to conduct the local government elections. An official of the Local Government ministry said that after the Committee Chairman Asoka Peiris handed over the report, the defects in it were rectified and amounted to 312 mistakes in 121 pages of the English report, 535 in 151 pages of the Tamil report and which were later corrected.

The government’s apprehension about holding the local government elections is that it may not do too well at them on account of having to compete both within itself and with other political opponents. This in on account of facing down a tussle between the UNP and SLFP as to what they want to do and what they should get. At the general elections of 2015 the UNP and SLFP contested separately. The larger number of parliamentarians from the SLFP is now with the Joint Opposition. The fear of the SLFP is that if there is an electoral contest they could be beaten into third place by the Joint Opposition. This would harm the credibility of President Maitripala Sirisena and his hold over the SLFP. In the absence of strong leadership, the continuing failure of the government parties to tackle corruption, bring about visible economic development or ensure the correction of war-related injustices will only weaken their position further.

NEW CONSTITUTION

The government has announced in parliament its intention to forge ahead with constitutional change and to consolidate it with a referendum. The government intends to go in for a referendum with the consent of all parties including the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) on the new Constitution. Leader of the House and Higher Education and Highways Minister Lakshman Kiriella said that it was the government’s objective to bring forth the new constitution, followed by a referendum with the support of the SLFP. The Minister said that the government would not form the new constitution behind hidden doors. He said there were certain political parties who were still forwarding their proposals for the new constitution. He also said that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa had said that the country needed to go beyond the 13th Amendment to 13th Amendment Plus. He added that the government would steer the new constitution within the provisions of the 13th amendment to the constitution and not go for a federal state.

The government’s declaration that it will go ahead with a referendum might come as a surprise. Previously government spokespersons had been saying that they would not go for a referendum as their election manifestos did not call for such. They also said that recent international experience showed that referendums for constitutional change proposed by governments were being defeated by disgruntled electorates worldwide, as in Colombia and Italy. A referendum on constitutional change in Sri Lanka can be potentially divisive as it can pit the ethnic communities against each other. The issues of the nature of the state, whether it would remain unitary or become federal, and the merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces have the potential to divide the ethnic and religious communities.

In anticipation of the constitutional changes to come sections of the Tamil polity with Northern Provincial Council chief minister C V Wignewaran giving leadership are putting forward long standing Tamil demands for the right to self-determination and the merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces. A referendum opens up the possibility for far reaching and significant changes in to be proposed in the political structure. The present constitution has several clauses that are entrenched by virtue of the fact that they cannot be changed by a 2/3 majority in parliament unless accompanied by approval of the people at a referendum. The most important of these would be the clause pertaining to the unitary nature of state which gives to parliament the supreme power over every other institution.

RECREATE ALLIANCE

Article 2 of the constitution has been used to restrict the possibility of devolution of power to the provinces. It has permitted the governor of each province, who is appointed by the president, to override the decisions of the provincial councils or not give assent to them. All chief ministers of all provinces have complained about the overriding powers of the governor and the paucity of resources allocated to the provincial councils. However, the unitary state does not necessarily have to give the governor such powers or limit provincial resources. Therefore a new constitution that continues to retain the unitary state can also permit a much greater devolution of power and allocation of resources to the provincial councils. This may be the direction on which compromise that meets the interests of all communities needs to be found.

A referendum on constitutional change also has the potential to recreate the alliance that unexpectedly defeated incumbent president Mahinda Rajapaksa in January 2015. The former president called the elections prematurely due to confidence in his chances of victory. However, the coalescing of all the opposition parties and the fragmentation of his own, together with their alliance with influential civil society groups, led to a narrow but decisive defeat for the former president. President Maithripala Sirisena and a group of nearly 50 civil society organizations have agreed that the proposed new constitution should be subjected to a referendum. Their stand is compatible with that of the UNP, main coalition partner in the government strongly pushing for a new constitution.

The key to mobilizing the alliance that won the presidential election of January 2015 would be to find a suitable political accommodation that makes the new constitution acceptable to all parties and all communities. If the new constitution proposes changes that any ethnic or religious community is strongly opposed to, it will not get the support of that community. Unless the majority of all ethnic and religious communities agree, the proposed new constitution could fail at the referendum, which requires the votes of the majority. It is therefore important for the constitutional drafters to ensure that the concerns of the Sinhalese majority are met even while those of the Tamil and Muslim minorities are also met. If the government alliance can prevail at the referendum it will also pave the way for it to contest the overdue local government elections, and provincial elections too, on a similar footing. The referendum on constitutional change can bridge the gap that currently exists between the political parties in the government alliance. If agreement can be obtained amongst the same parties it will be possible to recreate the election winning alliance to replicate the outcome of the presidential election.

The limbo of Sri Lanka’s ‘perpetually displaced’

Sunday, February 12, 2017

In early November 2012, a heated public discussion took place at a crowded hall in Tangalle just yards away from the abode of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The space was packed with indignant and vociferous community leaders in the deep South brandishing their property deeds and railing against the (then) Government’s modus operandi of gobbling up every available inch of land for post-war ‘development.’

This was the time that the previous regime had reached the heights of the profoundly surreal with the Ministry of Defence sending out a circular ordering that public discussions on land rights should not be held. There was a clear logic to this patently unconstitutional circular.

Government intimidation, no deterrent

Immersed in its project of land grabbing from Dondra in the South to Point Pedro in the North, the Rajapaksa enterprise had foreseen the fact that while the Sri Lankan villager would suffer the most degrading attacks on life and liberty without public complaint, a savage inner fury would come out into the open when the land is touched. Despite the ravages that civil and ethnic conflict had wreaked on Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities, ties to their lands were deep and generational.

Affinity to land was a common bond across all peoples regardless of their ethnicity. In that steamy hall in Tangalle, as we battled to answer complex questions on the legal protection of property rights in the menacing backdrop of a regime that showed its utter disdain for the law and for the courts, this was very clear. Ministry directives were no barriers to outrage. The presence of cronies of a ruling family within virtual hailing distance of that discussion did not deter. The chorus of inflammatory public anger went on and on, unstoppably at times it seemed.

These were the growing manifestations of a stronger tide that would finally, in early 2015, sweep former President Mahinda Rajapaksa from the virtual monarchical throne that he had conjured for himself. Thus it is now difficult to look on patiently as the former President wraps the garb of a crusader around himself and professes concern for the continuing displacement of villagers in Hambantota due to a Chinese funded industrial park. This is despite initiating Chinese ‘white elephants’ that have now, among other reasons, resulted in an enormous debt burden for the country.

Advice that should have prevailed then

Challenged on this singular hypocrisy, the former President has taken refuge in semantics and argues that he is not against development but only opposes displacing people and harming the environment. But this is canny advice that he should have directed to himself when in power instead of mindlessly parroting them now in a bid to regain popularity.

The so-called Greater Hambantota City Development Program, a pet Rajapaksa project consisted of various frivolities including a port and airport and of all things, another international cricket stadium in the middle of nowhere.

Villagers were ruthlessly dispossessed and moved to elephant corridors where their very lives were at stake. The former President’s touching concern for the environment now stands in rude contrast to the fact that during his Presidency, all environmental concerns were swept to the four winds. Unlike in the past, neither could the judiciary be appealed to, given the rude pressure exercised over judges by the regime at the time. This was the very same pattern in the North and East where Tamil and Muslim villagers faced the twin threats of loss of land right by the military as well as due to hotel development.

Mapping out this unconscionable seizing of lands at that time in a study (co-authored, Not This Good Earth, Land Rights, Displaced Persons and the Law in Sri Lanka, 2013), a repeated pattern which emerged was the complete contempt shown for decades-long legal precedents that protected peoples’ rights from unlawful State action.

The State is in the wrong

This disregard seems to prevail even now. To give the Unity Government its due, unlawfully seized lands in some areas like Sampur have been returned to their lawful owners. But others live in the limbo of the perpetually displaced. In a scenario replicated across the North and East at several points, the residents of Keppappilavu in Mullaitivu are continuing mass protests started almost two weeks ago due to their lands held by the military not being returned to them. It is a crucial question whether this Government will heed their anguish.

But overall, this attitude which is commonly prevalent that the giving back of land by the State to their owners is a magnanimous act on the part of the political authority must cease. The contrary is the case. The very act of seizure of these lands has been, in many cases, against the law. The deprivation of the legal rights to property therefore puts the State in the wrong. It must plead clemency from the displaced.

Correspondingly, ad hoc amendments to the law at the whim and pleasure of this Minister or another must also cease. Laws such as the Definition of Boundaries Ordinance, the Land Survey Ordinance, the State Lands (Claims) Ordinance, the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act, and most importantly the Land Acquisition Act must be expertly assessed and reformed. A well developed land audit must be done in the North and East. Even if a National Land Commission is not established, the Government must put into place administrative structures that bring together public officers, affected communities and land rights advocates to settle land disputes over militarization or post-war development.

Prioritise proper policy reform

Meanwhile Sri Lanka’s legal and constitutional protections of land rights need to be strengthened. The explicit right of any person not to be arbitrarily deprived of property and to be protected from arbitrary evictions needs to be guaranteed. Where justifiable acquisitions do take place, fair compensation must be secured before eviction.

These are matters of policy and law reform that the Unity Government should have attended to immediately on coming into office. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) should have urged this as a priority. Certainly these matters may not be as glamorous as the tempting carrot of constitutional law reform but rest assured that they are equally important and indeed, far more achievable.

In the alternative, the tide of popular anger that swept the Rajapaksa phenomena away in 2015 can well change its course. As we saw then, it was ordinary people’s reactions that made a difference, not the cacophony of political agendas that conflict as politicians quarrel with each other. This is a good reminder to ruling politicians at this time.

Report that FCID officers who visited US to investigate fraud of Gota’s son and daughter in law escaped arrest is an absolute lie !

(Lanka-e-News-14.Feb.2017, 11.30PM) The story which was circulated  that the officers of the FCID , senior DIG Ravi Waidyalankara and chief police inspector Anura Premaratne were nearly arrested in the US by the FBI  when the officers went to US to  investigate a criminal  misappropriation of  public funds committed by Gotabaya’s son and latter’s wife who are in California, has been proved as absolutely false. The  weekend newspaper and the website belonging to the same owner which reported this near arrest bogus news are to be sued under section 5 of the right to  information Act . based on reports reaching Lanka e news. 

Report that FCID officers who visited US to investigate fraud of Gota.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Yahapālana Neoliberal State Reforms Vs Democratic State Reforms

By Sumanasiri Liyanage –February 15, 2017

Sumanasiri Liyanage

A German friend of mine whom I met after 7 years in the middle of our conversation asked me about the state reforms project of the Yahapalana government. He said that many people whom he had so far talked to gave a positive nod in spite of the presence of some minor difficulties. Lankans, have been talking about the state reforms since the second republic constitution was promulgated in 1978. Three main questions have been posed, namely, (1) The executive presidential system and over-centralized architecture of the constitution; (2) the constitutional relevance in ethnically divided society; and (3) the representational deficiency in the system of election. After a heated debate in the 1980s and 1990, the heat of the constitutional debate has now subsided as many seem to believe that the present system has reached some stability. This may be partly due to the rigid character of the constitutional design. However, it is not totally true as we have had Parliaments with the necessary 2/3 majority. Hence, the more realistic reason appears to be the fact that the system serves quite well those who hold and exercise power. Already the moribund section of the SLFP has announced that they would field the incumbent as their candidate in 2020. Gotabaya Rajapaksa appears to be the leading contender from the Joint Opposition. What is the position of the UNP is still unknown. In such a context, I told him that the state reforms would be a highly unlikely happening. Since my friend was very much interested in the aforementioned second question and our discussion was also focused on the nexus between the state reforms and the national question, my focus in this article is confined to that issue.

Let me begin with my conclusions. My first conclusion is that a substantial constitutional reform package or a new constitution will not be passed by the present Parliament even the government has enjoyed 2/3 majority in the Parliament and the proposal for constitutional reforms process was adopted by the Parliament unanimously.

My second conclusion is that even a new constitution is passed, it will not be an adequate measure for the resolution of the national question. If we say that the non-adoption of the 1994 constitutional draft was a tragedy, the non-adoption/ adoption of the prospective constitutional draft would be a farce. The whole exercise in fact reminded me what Marx wrote in his beautifully written book, the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

Two Observations as a Point of Departure

Late Dr. Newton Gunasinghe in the mid 1980s before his untimely death stated that the contemporary Lankan politics was overdetermined by the Tamil national question. I am not sure whether he used the term, overdetermination in rigorous Althussarian sense. It seemed he wanted to emphasize the overarching influence of the national question in Lankan body politics. In my opinion he was correct. My submission is that that phase has come to an end in May 2009. Since 2010, roughly during the second tenure of the Rajapaksa regime, and that the class is in the process of being emerged as the driving force of the contemporary Lankan politics replacing the nation in its previous precedence. I am sure that Martian who potters around the Colombo city will be in agreement. Nonetheless, I do not imply that the national question is not of importance in contemporary Lankan politics.

The dominant tendency of Tamil politics in Lanka has always been right-wing. In domestic politics it preferred to align with the UNP and not with the Left even in the pre-1964 period. Before 1964, the Lankan left had realistically correct position on the national question. The Ceylon Communist Party had even included the right of nations for self-determination in its program. The Lanka Samasamaja Party’s stand was in my opinion more realistic and included (1) the parity state for Sinhala and Tamil and (2) extensive Rata Sabha system of governance. Left fought courageously against exclusive Sinhala nationalism when the Parliament was littered with exclusive legislation like citizenship bill and language bill. However, the Tamil Congress and the Federal party wanted to keep a distance from the left because of their right wing economic policies and pro- Western foreign policies. Of course there were exceptions like the Jaffna Youth Congress and the EPRLF under Pathmanabha’s leadership.

Two Kinds of State Reforms

On the basis of these two observations as a mid-point conclusion to my aforementioned two conclusions, let me state that there is no bourgeois solution to the Lankan national question. The maximum solution the bourgeois has had is what we have seen in 2009 May, a non-solution. To find a solution to the national question it is absolutely imperative to have substantive state reforms. There are two kinds of state reforms, namely, the neoliberal state reforms and the democratic state reforms. The basic tenets of neoliberal reforms were outlined in the World Bank, World Development Report in 1997. Of course there are formal similarities and overlapping between the substantially and qualitatively different state reforms projects.

Read More

Central Bank’s mad rush to mandate credit: Shocking banks is not in accord with PM’s Social Market Economy 

Mandating credit allocation without fanfare

Monday, 13 February 2017

The Central Bank of Sri Lanka has, without fanfare or publicised press conferences, issued a one and a half page long circular to commercial banks urging them to maintain a minimum percentage of their total loans for six sectors identified as priorities in the said circular (available at: http://www.cbsl.gov.lk/pics_n_docs/09_lr/_docs/directions/bsd/BSD_2017/BSDCircularNo1of2017.pdf).

Central Bank’s mad rush to mandate credit Shocking banks is not in accord with PM’s Social Market Economy.... by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Heidelberg University Opens More Opportunities for Sri Lanka’

Feb 14, 2017

During the speech delivered by Prof. Dr. Bernhard Eitel - Rector of the Heidelberg University, at the ceremonious opening of the Sri Lankan Chair at the South Asia Institute (SAI), on 9th February 2017,

he stated that opening of this Chair would provide more opportunities to the Heidelberg University to enhance its academic, research cooperation as well as student exchange between Sri Lanka and the Heidelberg University.

The proposal of creating a Sri Lankan Chair at this prestigious Institute was proposed by Ambassador Amunugama, during his visit to the Heidelberg University and it was realized through the MoU that was signed between the Ministry of Higher Education of Sri Lanka and Heidelberg University during the visit of His Excellency the President to Germany in February 2016.

Professor Siri Hettige, one of the most senior scholars in Sri Lanka has being appointed as the first Chair holder for Sri Lankan Studies for the winter term 2016/2017. He would be engaged in teaching and conducting research at the Institute in Heidelberg and would also be involved in developing concepts for further research on and with Sri Lanka. At his inauguration lecture, Professor Hettige presented his views under the topic of ‘Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in Sri Lanka, Prospects and Challenges’.

Heidelberg University, founded in 1386 is regarded as Germany’s oldest university and one of the most prestigious universities in Europe. Throughout these years, the university has been successful in maintaining its reputation as a high quality research university of international standards with a strong international orientation.

The South Asia Institute at Heidelberg University was established in 1962 and in addition to its branch offices and regional representatives in India, Nepal and Pakistan, the SAI opened a branch office in Colombo in 1995 which has been able to provide high quality collaborative research, publications, MAs and PhDs. After a lapse of a number of years, the Colombo branch office has been re-opened in February 2014 and has started continuing its work and activities and fosters academic interaction and cooperation with universities and academic institutions all over Sri Lanka.,

The Institute also cooperates closely with other Departments and Institutes at Heidelberg University that have a focus on South Asia, especially with the Chairs of Global Art History, Visual and Media Anthropology and Buddhist studies.

Delivering a speech at the opening ceremony of the Sri Lanka Chair, Ambassador Amunugama appreciated the support Sri Lanka has received from the Federal Foreign Ministry for the quick implementation of the MoU and highlighted the Importance of initiatives as such which would help further enhance our solid bilateral relations with Germany.

It is expected that this newly founded collaboration with the Heidelberg University will pave the way for expanding of other areas of academic research to strengthen closer cooperation between Sri Lanka and Germany for the betterment of the future generations.

Executive too is bound to obey court order.! President can only implement while raising standard of medical education –legal luminary

(Lanka-e-News-14.Feb.2017, 11.30PM)  Every citizen of the country who is aggrieved or is a victim of  injustice  has a right to seek redress via the courts and not via the executive . The SAITM  students sought court redress duly therefore  , and the court after hearing all sides delivered its verdict duly . Hence the Executive is bound to carry out  the court order duly, while  the only thing the executive  can do of his own accord  is raise the standard of medical education and introduce ways and means towards that end  . Hence he cannot act unheeding  the  court order , a senior eminent lawyer revealed to Lanka e news . 

This revelation was made by the senior lawyer when Lanka e news inquired from him about the statement purportedly made by the president following the discussion held by Padeniyas , Soysas, their terror organization , and another association of Dental doctors with the president .

The president has told ,   the proposals and recommendations made by all the parties shall be submitted to  the special committee of experts appointed by the president . Thereafter based on the recommendations made by this committee , the president will take a final decision .

The opinion expressed by the senior legal luminary pertaining to these developments is : The president cannot in any case act in transgression of the court order. All what the president can do while implementing the decision of the court is register the SAITM Institution and  raise  the standard of medical education . Moreover ,in case  the appeal court decision is subjected to a review of  the Supreme court (SC) by the medical board ,the ultimate decision which will prevail is that of the SC , and not president’s, the senior lawyer emphatically pinpointed. 

The senior lawyer  repudiated the false statements made by Padeniyas and Soysas (who have broken  world records in lying) , and their terror organization -GMOA that they were not given an opportunity to be a party to the case aforementioned . He  pointed out  , three members have been  appointed to the medical board by the Padeniyas’ GMOA , and  since  the medical board was involved in the case , ipso facto means the GMOA is a party to the case. 

Profesor Carlo Fonseka the president of the medical council who gave evidence in the case revealed to the media , ‘irrespective of the decision delivered by the court the students will not be registered.’  This self centered obstinacy alone demonstrates the fanatical propensity  and their extremist stance, that  they are not ready to obey the  sacrosanct  laws of the country  , and prefer to act like the terrorists ,  the legal luminary  observed.

The laws of the country permits to remove the president of the medical council who is refusing to abide by the laws (an outlaw) , and replace him with another . Since that power is vested in the minister of health , he should take the crucial decision, the senior lawyer elaborated.

Meanwhile , the minister of higher education speaking to the media lamented , it is the medical council that should be blamed  owing to  its recalcitrant attitude  and obstinate conduct imitating a  stubborn mule. 

When the medical council was made a most justifiable request to permit  the graduates passing out from SAITM to sit the exam conducted by the medical council , and register those who are successful , the council rejected that too. The SAITM students went to courts only thereafter . Now that the sacrosanct court has delivered a verdict , everyone must abide by  that decision . If not that will be tantamount to committing contempt of court , Kiriella clearly  explained. 

---------------------------
by     (2017-02-14 19:27:07)

RTI: Call made for financial reports of political parties

2017-02-14

A civil society group has asked for the financial statements of all political parties in the country under the Right to information (RTI) Act. 

Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) Director Sankhitha Gunaratne told Daily Mirror that her organization had officially requested the Elections Commission (EC) to submit the financial statements of all political parties by February 7. 

“We met the EC Chairman. He gave us a file number and assured us that the information will be given as soon as possible. The EC is well prepared to provide the information asked for under the RTI and appears professional in its approach,” she said. (Yohan Perera)

I struck a deal through Dudley – Dhanasiri says after returning home!

Feb 14, 2017

Dehiwala-Mt. Lavinia former mayor Dhanasiri Amaratunga recently returned home after in hiding in the US and several other countries. He returned from Los Angels together with ex-defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. His facebook page has several pictures he has taken with Gotabhaya in LA.

Amaratung had to flee the country after the CID began an investigation into a double murder at the Dehiwala-Mt. Lavinia municipal council premises over a meat stall tender in 2007. Yesterday (13), at the invitation of multimillionaire businessman Dhammika Perera, he participated as chief guest in the opening of Valibal Finance Nugegoda branch. He is now saying to his friends that he has been able to strike a deal through Dudley Sirisena, Perera’s good friend and the president’s brother.

Soon after Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka gave a statement to the CID, Gotabhaya left for the US. Fonseka’s lengthy statement is an earth-shaking one, reports say. What has transpired so far from his statement is only that former Army intelligence chief Kapila Hendawitharana was responsible for the grenade attack on senior lawyer Weliamuna’s home in 2008. However, Dudley has promised Amatunga and Gotabhaya not to fear anything as long as he was there. Dudley and members of the Sri Lanka Rice Mill Owners Association, which he heads, were seen having a breakfast meeting at JAIC Hilton in Colombo today. Witnesses remarked, “This is a country which is having a Rs. 100 price for a kilo of rice after electing a rice mill owner as the president.”

Neethan Shan wins Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River municipal byelection

Shan won by a margin of 4763 votes, representing 45.76 per cent of the total, according to city website

Neethan Shan has won the Scarborough-Rouge River (Ward 42) municipal byelection held to replace former city councillor Raymond Cho. (Adrian Cheung/CBC News)

 Feb 13, 2017
Neethan Shan has won the Scarborough-Rouge River (Ward 42) municipal byelection held to replace former city councillor Raymond Cho.

Shan won the ballot by a margin of 4763 votes, representing 45.76 per cent of the total, according to the city's website. 

Shan is a current Toronto District School Board trustee and will replace Cho, who left his council seat vacant last fall after winning the Scarborough-Rouge River provincial byelection, replacing Liberal MPP Bas Balkissoon.

• Nearly 30 candidates vying for city council seat in Ward 42 byelection

"People in this community feel like they're not being given the importance the community deserves," Shan told CBC Toronto ahead of the byelection.

Shan took up a trustee position in January 2016. His win could mean yet another byelection for the area, this time to fill his vacant trustee spot. 

More than two-dozen candidates were vying for city council seat to replace Raymond Cho. (CBC)

Twenty-nine candidates vied to replace Cho.

Following the results, Mayor John Tory congratulated Shan on the win.

"The voters in Ward 42 have sent a strong message that they want a councillor who supports the Scarborough subway extension. I look forward to working with Councillor-Elect Shan to push ahead on the project that the people of Scarborough have voted for time and time again," Tory said.

Monday's byelection marked the first time Cho's name isn't on the ballot since the ward's creation 17 years ago.

Advanced voting was held last weekend and polls were open Monday from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Corrections

• A previous version of this story suggested Shan was a former executive assistant to Raymond Cho. In fact, fellow contender Hratch Aynedjian was in that role.
  Feb 13, 2017 10:23 PM ET