“Do Not Give Sri Lanka More Time” – TNA MPs Tell UN

March 6, 2017

Some 11 MPs representing the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has appealed to the United Nations against granting an extension of time to the Sri Lankan government to implement the 2015 resolutions.

Some 11 MPs representing the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has appealed to the United Nations against granting an extension of time to the Sri Lankan government to implement the 2015 resolutions.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein – The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

The MPs have signed the appeal to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), requesting the UNHRC to not give the Sri Lankan government an extension to implement the resolutions, which was to be implemented by this month.

The signatories include; S. Sritharan, S. Adaikalanathan, Siva Mohan, Dharmalingam Sitharthan, S. Yogeswaran, Shanthi Kantharaja, Sivasakthi Ananthan, G. Srinesen, Charles Nirmelanathan, S. Viyalanderen, and K. Kodeeswaran have signed the petition.

In the appeal, the signatories have pointed out that even though the Sri Lankan government voluntarily signed the resolution and committed to fully implement the resolutions as required by March 2017, no progress have been made on the declaration despite an initial commitment by the government,

“Extensions and grace periods have been given already, but no progress has been made on any front,” the appeal claimed.

The signatories have said that granting a further extension will allow the Sri Lankan government to continue to commit abuses against Tamils.

Read More

No one can sabotage adoption of a new constitution – PM

 Mar 06, 2017

Two years into its office, the ‘Yahapaalana’ government has still failed to fulfill its promise to pass a new constitution to abolish the executive presidency, to solve the national question etc., which was a key promise of the common candidate at the last presidential polls.

The UNP and the SLFP in the government are divided on this, with the former hoping to bring in a new constitution to fulfill the promise. The latter says a constitutional amendment is enough and opposes the inclusion of anything that should be subjected to a referendum.

Recently, UNP MPs met the PM and noted a new constitution should be introduced very soon, or else, the people would lose their faith in the government. They also said those who are opposing it had joined together with the ex-president and tried to defeat Maithripala Sirisena, but after their loss, they have become close to the president and are trying to change his stand, which should be overcome.

The PM told them that a new constitution would definitely be adopted. The subcommittees appointed for the task have concluded their deliberations, with the remaining work to be completed soon.

Reports say political parties and civil society and other organizations have submitted differing opinions to these subcommittees. The steering committee on a new constitution that meets next week with the PM at the chair will study those proposals.

This committee will decide if a referendum should decide a new constitution, and the fate of the executive presidency, the PM noted. Also, the electoral system, devolution of powers and the provincial councils system will come under discussion.

Decisions taken by this committee will be reported to parliament which will hold a debate, he said, adding that after all those a new constitution would be adopted.

Certain parties might be trying to sabotage it, but it would not be stopped halfway and taken to the end as promised to the people, the PM added.

The ‘scarlet pimpernel’ garb of Sri Lanka’s elusive witness protection authority

Sunday, March 05, 2017

Akin to the fabled (and damned) Scarlet Pimpernel of Baroness Orczy fame, one is constrained to search high and low for Sri Lanka’s elusive Witness Protection Authority. In fact, advocates in this country may be forgiven for indulging in the ditty ‘we seek (it) here, we seek (it) there, is (it) in heaven or is (it) in hell…?’ as they look for this (hopefully not) damned body in terms of its actual performance.

Many peculiarities in the process

This is a question that comes to the fore given the singular absence of any compelling interventions by the Authority into what remains one of the most agonizing failures of our justice system. True, a law was enacted to that effect many moons ago and some sort of body was established, to all intents and purposes.

This itself was attendant with many peculiarities, such as when its Chairman, a former High Court judge resigned shortly after taking up the appointment. After struggling with other issues including an embarrassing lapse in the legal procedures relating to the appointment of its members, we were informed that the Witness Protection Authority had been ‘reconstituted’ late last year after a long lapse following enactment of the law. This was apparently ‘launched’ in January this year.

Regardless and even though frequent references are made to such an Authority by the spokespersons of the Government of Sri Lanka when defending their brief overseas such as was the case recently in Geneva, the operationalising of an effective witness protection scheme for Sri Lankans seems to be more far distant than ever.

Proliferation of grandiose bodies

Its spluttering progress or lack thereof brings to mind, that other example of similar dysfunction, the Office of Missing Persons (OMP), the law relating to which was also passed with much applause in Colombo last year. Is Sri Lanka doomed to see a proliferation of these types of bodies with high-sounding titles but little concrete substance? The credibility of the members appointed to these bodies is also a significant factor that militates against the genuineness of the Government in bringing them into being in the first place.

Sri Lankans were also informed that a Division for Assisting and Protecting Victims of Crime and Witnesses came into being in November 2016. But as frequently pointed out in these column spaces, the operationalising of this Division within the police command structure is highly problematic.

This was a concern raised very early on but which was sublimely disregarded. How can the police, with outstanding allegations of threatening witnesses in court cases and other instances too numerous to mention, be trusted with undertaking protection of these people at risk? Who would be those naïve enough to claim such protections?

It was essential to have this Division operate independently like in other countries which have good witness protection schemes. It was also essential that the very members of the Authority had credibility and public legitimacy in terms of the functions entrusted to them. On both counts, Sri Lanka’s experiment in witness protection has failed miserably.

A deadly intent to patterns of witness intimidation

In the result, widespread impunity continues to be enjoyed by perpetrators. The cases therein are far too many to list. Some time ago a complainant in a bribery case, Sugath Nishanta Fernando who had also filed a fundamental rights application after being tortured by twelve police officers, was brutally killed. He had been repeatedly threatened to withdraw the cases and had appealed for protection from government authorities, including the Inspector General of Police, to no avail.

In the legal process, there is a deadly intent to these patterns of intimidation. The Gerald Perera case is classically symptomatic. This innocent man was killed days before he was due to give evidence in a trial of his alleged torturers under the Convention Against Torture and Other Inhuman and Degrading Punishment Act No 22 of 1994 (CAT Act).

Later, the torturers were acquitted by the High Court on the basis that the criminal responsibility of the alleged perpetrators had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The victim himself was unable to give evidence as to the identity of his torturers due to his being killed. In the absence of any direct evidence, it was judicially ruled that the available circumstantial evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction on the facts of the case.

Judicial orders are disregarded

And in particular, women victims and witnesses are vulnerable in this terrible spiral of violence. Most often, they are denied access to criminal and civil remedies including reparations. Instead, at the most, perpetrators in uniform who intimidate are transferred away from their stations. Witness intimidation results in the collapse of the case half way through the trial. Basic requirements of prosecution of rape cases including medical examinations are often subverted.

Even in instances where the highest court in the land has pointed to action having to be taken against perpetrators of rape, this guidance has been disregarded. One good example more than seventeen years ago is still replicated in various other forms.

The Supreme Court’s stern response to the gruesome torture of Yogalingam Vijitha from Vavuniya was to pass severe strictures on the responsible police officers. The Court stated that there had not been a shred of evidence to support her arrest on suspicion that she had been implicated in acts of terrorism.

As it so transpired, the actual reason as to why she had been abused was that her husband with whom she had been having a dispute over her children had instigated the police officers with whom he was well acquainted, to arrest and torture her. Later, when questioned under the United Nations Special Procedures as to whether indictment had been filed against the perpetrators, the Government replied that this was not possible as the victim had left the country.

This is the common answer in complete disregard of the State’s own duty to protect victims.

Containing national anger

Sri Lankans do not need to be subjected to denials of this nature or ‘half baked’ laws that continue a culture of impunity. That might suffice to contain the international community for a while but the Government will not be able to contain the anger of its own nationals very soon.
This caution needs to be kept in mind.

Sri Lanka in a catch-22 situation - EDITORIAL

2017-03-06

fficially Sri Lanka today is in a situation best described by the Sinhala idiom ‘Girayata ahuwechcha puwak gediya wage’ –a Catch-22 situation- a paradoxical situation from which there is hardly any chance of escape.
The country faces an almost insurmountable foreign exchange and external debt repayment crisis; a problem of finding backers to help extricate itself from this situation.
The External Debt in Sri Lanka averaged 42,142.63 USD Million from 2012 until 2016, reached an all time high of 47,302.10 USD Million in the third quarter of 2016. Since independence Sri Lanka has never defaulted on its repayments, but today a repayment default is staring the country in the face. It is claimed that the last regime frittered away the IMF/World Bank life-line extended, leaving the present regime to carry the baby.

Be that as it may, the billion dollar question facing the country is how we are going to address this problem. The sources available to the Government to even temporarily tide over the problem and keep the country economically afloat are few.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank whose funding comes with conditions imposed by the institutions The second option is China, whom unfortunately the present regime antagonised, not only in the run-up to the election, but also in the aftermath of an unprecedented election victory.
These are the sources which could provide a financial lifeline to the country. The billion dollar question is which option the country will opt for.

Unlike in many other countries, Sri Lankan politicians have never shown an inclination to come together when the country faced destabilisation or danger.
When al-Qaeda carried out attacks in the US mainland on 9/11, we did not see the unedifying spectacle of the Opposition parties in the US blaming the administration of President Bush for the attack.
Instead we saw the Democratic Party totally backing the then President to unite Americans against a common foe. In neighbouring India, whatever the differences of caste, creed or party affiliation, the politicians and people unite as Indians against anyone seen as an opponent.
Unfortunately in Sri Lanka party-political affiliations and personal agendas override national need. The country was never able to unite in the war against the LTTE –described as ‘the most brutal terrorist organisation in the world’.

Sri Lankans could not recognise the woods for the trees –we pay too much attention to details- the Tamil mainline political party and people backed the LTTE because they claimed to be fighting for Tamil rights, despite Tamils being more oppressed under the LTTE than at that time under a Sinhalese government.
India promoted the rebels to promote its domination in what it sees as its backyard. The Western ‘democratic’ countries –upholders of Human Rights values when it suits their purposes- backed the LTTE despite its flagrant rights violations.
It was only the Non-Aligned Group of Nations including China, which backed this country in its efforts to overcome the terrorists.

Today we are facing an equally difficult uphill task, the problem is different but the situation is equally grave. We are caught in a debt-trap of our own making as was the ethnic problem of yesteryear. As then we do not see our country and its people uniting to overcome the foreign exchange and debt repayment trap we have entrapped ourselves in. To overcome the problem we need to attract foreign investment into the country. The Chinese have already made huge structural investments in the country by way of highways, a mega port and
port city.
But the investments are not generating revenue to repay the loans, they were taken for. We need to move onto the second stage to transform the original investments into capital
earning entities.

Sadly we now have a situation where we have the very persons who initiated the original programmes, blocking the second stage of the programme. Effectively preventing their becoming capital earning capacities and in this way easing the debt repayment problem the country faces. India continues to see bogeymen in the Chinese involvement in Sri Lanka’s development claiming it endangers Indian security, but while opposing Chinese investment in Sri Lanka India herself makes no effort to fill the vacuum.
The Forbes magazine in an article of Jan 21, 2017 regarding the offer to partner with India in developing the Trincomalee harbour and thus ease Indian fears of Chinese involvement in Sri Lanka’s ports encapsulates India’s attitude towards our country… “India Tells Sri Lanka: You Can Take Your Port And Shove It”.
It’s time to put Sri Lanka first. 

It’s President Sirisena’s call now

JSC disowns Ramanathan Kannan recommendation:

--

By C. A. Chandraprema-March 6, 2017, 8:27 pm

The standoff between the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and the Judicial Services Association over the appointment of a member of the Batticaloa bar as a High Court Judge has ended. Accordingly, members of the JSA will be officiating at the BASL elections to be held on 15 March. Earlier, in a strongly worded letter to the BASL, the JSA had made it clear that they would not officiate at the BASL elections unless the latter took steps to undo the damage done by some members of the BASL in canvassing for this appointment. When the JSA first became aware that a member of the private bar had been appointed to the High Court on the recommendations of the BASL, they had made inquiries and found that the recommendation had been made by the BASL’s outgoing President Geoffrey Alagaratnam and not by the BASL itself with even its Secretary being unaware that such recommendation had been made.

Thereupon, the JSA made three requests to the BASL and made their participation in the BASL elections conditional upon the latter acceding to these requests which were: a) that the BASL should officially confirm in writing that they did not make this recommendation to appoint a High Court judge b) if someone had used the name of the BASL to make this recommendation that they should inform the President and the Judicial Services Commission of this fact and c) that the BASL should make a formal request that this decision be reversed. Following this stand taken by the JSA, the BASL election which was to be held on February 21 had to be postponed indefinitely. When the executive committee of the BASL met to discuss this matter, one group of lawyers had suggested that the BASL constitution should be amended to enable them to hold the election without the participation of the JSA and accordingly the BASL election was rescheduled for March 15.

As the standoff escalated, Amal Randeniya the Secretary of the BASL took steps to defuse the situation and after holding talks with the JSA, a letter was issued to the Secretary of the JSA under the hand of the Secretary of the BASL stating unequivocally that ‘the Executive Committee of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has not arrived at any decision in the past to recommend the appointment of Mr R.Kannan as Judge of the High Court and therefore there is no recommendation from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka’. Copies of this letter had been sent to the Judicial Services Commission and the President of Sri Lanka. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) deals with matters relating to the appointment, transfer disciplinary control and dismissal of Judges below the Appeal Court. The covering letter sent by the BASL to President Sirisena also stressed that this letter was being placed before him to explain the stand of the BASL with regard to the appointment of R.Kannan as a High Court judge.

Based on this letter from the BASL, the Judicial Services Commission had in turn written to President Sirisena stating that the Secretary of the JSC had written to him earlier, recommending the name of R.Kannan for appointment as a High Court judge on the strength of a letter from the BASL dated 15 December 2016. They stated that if the BASL has made ‘no proper recommendation’ in this regard, the recommendation that the JSC had sent to the President has ‘no force or avail in law’. Thus in effect, the JSC has by this letter dated 23 February 2017, retracted the recommendation they made to the President to appoint R.Kannan as a High Court judge. However in terms of Article 111(2) (a) of the constitution, judges of the High Court can be appointed by the president only on the recommendation of the Judicial Services Commission and the JSC will in turn have to consult the Attorney General before making such recommendation to the President. It is clear from this constitutional provision that the central role in the appointment of High Court judges is played by the JSC and the President cannot appoint HC judges on his own without the recommendations of the JSC.

The question now is, what happens if the JSC makes a recommendation to the President to appoint a certain individual as a High Court judge and then due to information that surfaces after that appointment is made, retracts the recommendation it made? This is an unprecedented situation but logically, one would think that in such instances, Article 111(2)(b) which provides for the removal of High Court judges by the president on the recommendation of the JSC should kick in automatically. It should be noted that in the JSC’s letter to the President of 23 February 2017, they have not directly asked for the removal of Ramanathan Kannan from his position. What they have said is that the recommendation that the JSC made for his appointment has ‘no force or avail in law’. What this would logically mean is that Ramanathan Kannan has no right to be holding the position of a High Court judge.

The President may not have any option but to remove Kannan from the High Court. If he is allowed to remain as a High Court judge one major practical difficulty will be that every judgement that he delivers can be and will undoubtedly be challenged as having been delivered by an irregularly appointment judge who had no right to be sitting in judgement over any case at all. Overriding even that will be the issue that Kannan had originally been recommended for appointed as a HC judge to Minister of Justice Wijedasa Rajapakshe by an unnamed political party. Minister Rajapakshe had reconfirmed this story to President’s Counsel Hemantha Warnakulasuriya when the latter made inquiries about it. How can there be a sitting High Court judge with such an allegation hanging over him? The High Court now even has appellate jurisdiction and no HC judge should be seen to be a camp follower of any political party.

Judging by the organisations and individuals who were publicly supporting the appointment of Kannan it is clear that there is substance in what Minister Rajapakshe said about him having been recommended by a political party. Anyway, the ball is now in President Sirisena’s court.

"The JSC stated that if the BASL has made ‘no proper recommendation’ in this regard, the recommendation that the JSC had sent to the President has ‘no force or avail in law’."

CAA removes 11 over-60 yr. cronies of its DG

Mar 05, 2017

The subject minister has ordered the removal, effective from March 31, of 11 employees of the Civil Aviation Authority, who have received extensions even after completing 60 years of age due to their close friendship with the CAA’s director general. The director board of the CAA has unanimously approved the order.

The over-60 employees who will not be given an extension are Lucien Ratnayake, N. Keil, Romani Lawrence Hewa, Daya Jayasekara, Ajith Jayasekara, Mahesh de Silva, Ranjith Perera, E. Abeyratne, G.A. Fernando, Athula Jayawickrama and M. Ariyasena. They have been getting service extensions and drawing six figure salaries even if some of them are over 70 years of age.

Also, an Aviation additional secretary has been relieved of his responsibilities after it was found he had attended director board meetings without permission, in order to receive the attendance allowance.

CAA employees have informed the subject minister about the administrative shortcomings and they say they are thankful for these decisions taken collectively by the minister, ministry secretary and their director board. Noting that the CAA had an authoritarian rule during the previous regime that did not listen to their voices, they appreciate the correct decisions being taken by ‘Yahapaalana’ government minister Nimal Siripala de Silva and other state officials.

A portrait of a false revolution

Uditha Devapriya-2017-03-07

Prof. Kumar David in an article titled "Centenary of the February Revolution in Russia" tries to draw parallels between the Leninist coup and Maithripala Sirisena's election. His point of comparison is flawed but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. What compels my attention isn't his handling of history, but his handling of the caveats that flow from it. He claims that the Revolution (in Russia, not here) could have almost ended in capitulation, with the forces of reaction gaining over the revolutionists, if those chosen to head the latter were not realistic enough. "He was no petty bourgeois romantic" is an apt summing up of Lenin by Prof. Kumar.

Such a revolutionist would compromise on nothing, nothing at all, in his quest to erase away the Opposition and institutionalise those structures of power which are essential to sustaining ideological coups. Who could have, after all, inferred that a country which was feudal and was run by a king who had no clue about the existence or suffering of his people would be the first to send man to space 40 years later? That needed force.

After indulging much in history, Prof.Kumar reveals his objective: "There will be no new Constitution, no useful amendments, no economic programme, 'no peace, no rest' until the counter revolution in full swing under the leadership of the Joint Opposition is confronted and crushed." The focus, as always, is on the Joint Opposition, on Mahinda Rajapaksa and the forces of reaction he (allegedly) represents. The professor may or may not know that the Left/Right dichotomy in this globalised world of ours has dissolved, but again, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am not, however, willing to be so lenient when it comes to his blatant acts of cherry-picking when confronting the shortcomings of (t)his government.

Democratic process

I am aware of the pitfalls involved in letting the opponent(s) of any revolution into the democratic process. I am also aware, however, that such opponents can serve a useful function in a modern liberal democracy, opening up dialogue, debate, and if necessary conflict. We are not, of course, a liberal democracy, but we are a democracy and being one empowers us to question, critique, and by all means DEMOCRATICALLY eliminate those forces antithetical to communal amity. Prof. Kumar, however, has empowered the government to attack the JO. Not democratically, but forcefully. What are the problems that flow from this?

There are two issues that unearth the rifts of any government: ambiguity from itself and ambiguity from the Opposition. I see the latter with the debate over SAITM and private (medical) education. I see the former with this regime's stance on war crimes and the economy. Ambiguity, particularly policy ambiguity, is reckonable as long as it's not sustained for long. Unfortunately for this government and for us, policy statement after policy statement flow in, only to be contradicted, refined, added to, and subtracted from by whoever is spouting them. We have a Cabinet spokesman, I believe, but not even that Cabinet spokesman has been enough to wade away the flaws that have beset Maithripala Sirisena's regime in this respect. I am not complaining, but nor am I celebrating.

It is the State's responsibility to set things right. Not the Opposition's. By the latter, I am referring to the official Opposition as well, but then as last week proved yet again, the likes of R. Sampanthan and his cohorts in the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) are more concerned about indicting our armed forces than questioning the regime over its handling of the economy, a more pertinent issue (it must be added) that spills over to the entire polity. But then, when did the TNA ever get out of its communalist mindset, even as it alleged that other mainstream parties were caved in the same?

Efficient job

As for the JO, it's doing a rather efficient job of worsening the ambiguity of both the Opposition and the government. With the ruckus over private education, certain elements of the JO have come out in favour of abolishing SAITM. As I pointed out in my column two weeks ago, what brings the nationalist movement and the anti-SAITM bandwagon together is the fact that the former is opposed to the position the SLMC and GMOA have been led to by this regime. How does this make the problem even more ambiguous? By the glaring fact that these same elements were behind the previous regime as it green-lit the establishment of the campus AND the private teaching hospital.

As of now, the likes of Mahinda Rajapaksa, Bandula Gunawardena, and Dinesh Gunawardena are more concerned with indicting the government and judiciary for questioning the authority of the "national body", the SLMC. Being the political creatures they are, they do not attack SAITM directly (they leave that task to the student movement), but rather highlight the government's complicity in aggravating an already problematic issue. What the government can do in this regard is not to crush the JO, but to address the burden the JO handed over to it after 8 January 2015. Not fair, yes. But then politics rarely is.

The ruckus over war crimes allegations, however, is a different ball-game altogether. There the government has itself to blame, over both the handling of the issue by Chandrika Kumaratunga and the contradictory statements given by the President, the Prime Minister's party, and the Foreign Minister. Of these, the President is trying to pacify the Sinhala Buddhists by saying, "No foreign judges!" The UNP is trying to pacify its electorate by saying, "The SLFP and JO are crying over hot air!" The Foreign Minister is trying to pacify the international community by saying, "Give us time, we will implement what even you do not insist!" I personally believe Dayan Jayatilleka's criticism of the latter is valid, which is why I am worried about the doublethink being perpetuated: "We will not create a war crimes tribunal with foreign intervention, unless we want to."

Government's inaction

Prof. Kumar has always stood for what's right (for him, at least). We may not agree with what he writes, but we agree with his cause (lost though it may be). That is why I was almost completely sure that he would, in his latest piece, not single out the JO and instead condemn the government's inaction. I am frustrated that he has not. Not because I expected much from his pen, but because he has conveniently highlighted and ballooned the largely absent (or absented) Left/Right dichotomy. For if he charges that the JO represents the forces of reaction, it goes without saying then that the government represents the forces of revolution.

In other words, he compares or rather equalises February 1917 to January 2015 on the basis that the government is more amenable to a leftist/liberal revolution.

This interests me. Not because his reasoning is flawed, but because he gives the impression that he believes in his own flawed reasoning. If the UNP and even the SLFP were so "revolutionary" as he thinks they are, then why have they not addressed the issues being aggravated by their silence? Should a government be more worried about its own inaction or about the actions of the Opposition? Given that the likes of Prof.Kumar were empowering the UNP, the JVP, and the LSSP (that party still exists) to question, critique, and bring down the Mahinda Rajapaksa plutocracy then, he is being logically inconsistent now. That doesn't interest me. That upsets me. So much in fact that I want to revisit history.

If Prof. Kumar revisits the archives, he will hear of something called the Workers' Charter. He will know that Sri Lanka is a democratic country that does not possess such a document, just as much as it is a country which runs on a free education system without having a right thereto in its Constitution.If he digs even deeper, he will know that the workers of this country, the people he theoretically should be in support of and writing about, were denied security and patronage by BOTH the UNP and SLFP regimes. He will also realise that the only attempt to bring such a Charter to the government was made by the man he vilifies, condemns, and attacks to the point of logical inconsistency, Mahinda Rajapaksa. If he digs even more, he will face the fact that the only document which could have statutorily empowered and protected the workers of this country was done away with in Parliament by the SAME PARTY he covertly praises and condones, courtesy of the man who would become the Minister for Finance, Ravi Karunanayake.

For the record, this is what Karunanayake had to say: "We don't need this Charter to protect the workers. We ourselves will protect them." That was what even Mahinda Rajapaksa implied after he clinched the presidency, but for the time being my question is this: if the workers of this country were belittled by both parties, why should we bother about doing away with the Joint Opposition? Such a radical move needs justification. Not hot air. Prof. Kumar has given us the latter. Not the former. Again, it's upsetting.

The Old Left of this country forgot the working class after the eighties. They were not worried about fighting for the poor. They were not worried about class discrepancies (which cut across every political and racial divide). They were bedding with the class enemies while harping on about the 13th Amendment. When Rajapaksa became president, they bedded with the SLFP, while a section thereof distanced itself from him even before Maithripala Sirisena announced his candidacy. That particular section, Prof. Kumar speaks for and defends. That is what has led him and the constitutionalist de-legitimisers elsewhere to a rather unfortunate crevice: defend a government that is economically at odds with their interests against an Opposition that is dismantling the hypocrisy and the doublespeak being perpetuated by it.

Real issue

He ends on this note: "The real issue right now is not the words in the Draft Constitution, or economic ideology, or the national question." I agree. The real issue is none of these, because the people are tired. The Constitution will not feed them, ideology will not feed them, and the resolution of the national question will not pacify even the poor, common Tamil man, woman, and child. I am sure Lenin would have agreed, which is why he went ahead with an economic program to empower his base, the proletariat.

So if we insist on an analogy here, as Prof. Kumar does, then all I can say is that state inaction on the part of the government will not sustain its base. It will only help the JO erode it even more. For the suffering of the people is INDEPENDENT (to a considerable extent) of the JO's protests. I am surprised that the Professor still has not realised this.

That article compelled a reply days later. The title of that reply itself was alluring: "February 1917 and January 2015: Fake Similarities." It was not written by a Mahinda Rajapaksa stooge, moreover. It was written by the General Secretary of the United General Employee Union, Neil Wijethilaka. Given the good professor's affirmation of the current government, Wijethilaka ended his reply with an apt comment: that his take on history was "part of the Ranil Wickremesinghe project to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution." For the record, I love the oxymoron there. Who wouldn't?

One more point. A political commentator known for his heated exchanges with the professor summed up what he had written in just two words: "Saw. Crap." Made me grin, I swear.

UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM

Sri Lanka: House Representatives Joined Counterparts to Safeguard Child Rights!

The First Meeting of South Asia Parliamentarian Platform for Children

(March 6, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Four members of Parliament from Sri Lanka have joined fellow lawmakers from across South Asia in the first meeting of ‘The South Asia Parliamentarian Platform for Children’, to agree ways to prioritise and safeguard children’s rights in a region that is home to over 1.7 billion people including 621 million children under the age of 18”, the Communication Division of the UNICEF in Colombo said in a press communique.

The press communique further reads as follow;

The two day event, which took place on the 2 and 3 March, was organised by UNICEF South Asia in coordination with the Parliament of Nepal, and took place in Kathmandu.

Despite economic growth and consequent improvements in realizing the rights of children, massive disparities still exist preventing children from living in dignity, reaching their full potential and making choices about their futures. Sri Lanka, home to 8 million children under 18, has some of the region’s best health indicators, almost universal primary schooling, with nearly 90% of the population having access to safe drinking water. However violence against children, including physical abuse in the home remains a concern. And whilst the rate of extreme poverty has declining (by 16% between 2002 and 2012) child poverty rates remain higher with pockets of extremely high vulnerability across the nation.

“Even though our indicators are really good, we still have issues like child marriage, school drop-outs and migration affecting children” said the Dr. Sudarshani Fernandopulle, Member of Parliament for Sri Lanka and Chairperson, Sri Lanka Parliamentary Caucus for Children who was attending the Parliamentarian Platform, adding, “therefore we, as parliamentarians, have formed a Caucus to address the issues of children in Sri Lanka. We hope that this meeting will be a platform to share our experiences and learn from each other. We are committed to optimizing the survival, growth and development of all children across our country.”

UNICEF works to ensure that every child, especially the most vulnerable, deserve a fair chance in life – a chance to access quality healthcare, enjoy a quality education and to contribute fully to a peaceful and prosperous future for themselves and their communities. By bringing together parliaments from across the South Asia region to speak on behalf of children, UNICEF hopes to create lasting changes for children. Parliamentarians have the power to allocate resources from national budgets, establish strong policy directions, as well as formulate and enforce laws that protect children. They are therefore critical in moving forward the agenda for children.

“This meeting provides a forum to agree to establish a ‘South Asia parliamentarian’s network’, where we can share and learn from one another. Influencing programmes, policies and budgets in favour of the most marginalized and excluded children has the potential to help break intergenerational cycles of poverty and deprivation “ said Jean Gough, Regional Director of UNICEF South Asia, adding “I am confident that together we will find ways to translate our commitment to child rights into results, for EVERY child in South Asia.”

This regional meeting is a milestone in bringing together lawmakers from all eight countries in South Asia to prioritise, promote, and safeguard children’s rights. It is also an opportunity to plug in the critical role that parliamentarians can play in tackling key development challenges affecting children in the region in the larger framework of the Sustainable Development Goals. Moreover, the meeting’s goal is to establish a regional parliamentarian platform to ensure broad support and commitment in building sustainable public systems that work for children.

“Children remain at the heart of a country’s development and future economic growth. We need to invest more in policy reform and budgetary allocation in order to address the remaining disparities that prevent every child, especially the most vulnerable and marginalized, from reaching their full potential” added the Dr. Sudarshini Fernandopulle MP.

Attendees from Sri Lanka included Dr. Sudarshini Fernadopulle MP, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Caucus for Children and State Minister of City Planning & Water Supply, Thusitha Wijemanne – Chairperson, Parliament Sectoral Oversight Committee on Gender and Equity and Vice-Chair, Parliamentary Caucus for Children, Mr. Nalinda Jayatissa Vice-Chair Parliamentary Caucus for Children and Mrs. Kushani Rohanadeera, Assistant Secretary General of Parliament and Secretariat to the Parliamentary Caucus for Children.

CEDAW EXPRESSES CONCERN ON CLIMATE OF INSECURITY, PARTICULARLY FOR WOMEN IN CONFLICT AFFECTED ZONES.

Image: 15  women activists participated at the recently concluded CEDAW- Sri Lanka session.

06/03/2017

In its concluding observations  of the recently concluded consideration of the 8th Sri Lanka report,  Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women” (CEDAW)  has  expressed its concerns on many unresolved issues including difficulties faced by the war affected women.

The [ CEDAW] Committee welcoming the progress achieved since the consideration in 2011 of the State party’s combined fifth to seventh periodic reports  in undertaking legislative reforms has listed following steps:

(a)     The Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which restored the Constitutional Council to recommend appointments to the senior judiciary and key independent institutions, including the appointment of reputed members to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, in 2015;

(b)    The Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witness Act No. 04 of 2015, which created the National Authority for the Protection of Victims of Crimes and Witnesses; and,

(c)     The Amendment of the Local Government Elections Act to include a 25% quota for women in Local Government bodies, in 2016.

The committee empresses its concern  Conflict related sexual and gender-based violence against women  thus:

24.    The Committee notes with concern:

(a)    The continuing climate of insecurity, particularly for women in conflict affected zones;

(b)    Serious allegations that the military and police perpetrated harassment, violence, including rape, abductions, torture, sexual bribery, sexual slavery, and unjustified surveillance, including home invasions, especially of women in the Northern and Eastern provinces, and specifically targeting Tamil women, women heads of households, and former combatants, war widows and women family members of the disappeared who search for truth, justice and accountability, as well as women human rights defenders; and,

(c)    That the State party has been unable to provide the Committee with requested data on the number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and the sentences imposed for acts of sexual and gender-based violence against women perpetrated by the armed forces and the police.

Under the Militarisation of Land it says:

42.    The Committee is concerned about the ongoing militarization of large areas of private land in the conflict-affected areas of the country, the usurpation of civilian administration responsibilities by the military, and the resulting large scale displacements of women and men in the State party, where 32 camps for internally displaced persons continue to exist. It is particularly concerned that such militarization constitutes a barrier to the resettlement of internally displaced women, durable solutions for their housing, and their ability regain their livelihoods.

Read the full report as PDF:CEDAW Concluding observetion on Sri Lanka

CEDAW-Concluding-observetion-on-Sri-Lanka.pdf by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

UNP, SLFP at cross purposes on key issues

Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera addressing the UNHRC sessions in Geneva this week.

• Rajitha says new Constitution and referendum, but senior  SLFP leaders say no new constitution and referendum
• Cabinet reviews Arjuna’s proposals to link world cup winning cricketers with apartment project; Ranawaka says he was misled

By Our Political Editor-Sunday, March 05, 2017

Government leaders, it appears, are taking turns to contradict each other’s statements on matters of official policy.

Last Wednesday, there were two such occasions. Official Cabinet spokesperson and Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne at his weekly news briefing re-iterated that there would be a new Constitution for Sri Lanka. He said a referendum would also be held to win the approval of the people. However, Minister Chandima Weerakody, a former Deputy Speaker, uttered different words elsewhere almost at the same time Senaratne was speaking. Notwithstanding whatever the United National Party (UNP) says, he declared, there will be no new Constitution and no referendum.

UNP, SLFP at cross purposes on key issues.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Sri Lanka: Malayagam Tamils seek rights recognition

The suggestion is that many from this community should be provided facilities for better schooling and if necessary educational grants for study abroad and sought volunteer support from abroad to teach them vocational skills.

by our London Correspondent-Mar 6, 2017

Mar 6, 2017

(March 6, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) While many Tamils from Europe were concerned at ongoings at UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva, others hoping to promote another agenda met under the banner, “Solidarity for Malayaga Tamils” held at Sudbury Methodist Church Hall Harrow Road, Wembley, London HA0 2LP on 4 March 2017.It also commemorated the 200th anniversary of migrant workers imported by the British from South India to Ceylon.

The cry was every community has fought for survival and the Plantation migrant workers of Sri Lanka are no exception. A large presence of left of centre parties were among those who participated, presided over by Mr.V.Sivalingam a well known activist.

Speakers highlighted the plight of the minority migrant workers living conditions on tea estates today which they said had not improved over years. They live in labour lines with families cramped up, using common toilets and shared taps. Educational facilities made available to this community have been deplorable. Many estates have dispensaries in estates, but no doctors. The system is to keep generations of the migrant workers at poverty wages and bound to the estates.

One speaker complained that many of these Estate Tamils have no vision of themselves or their future. Women are forbidden to wear bangles on their hands, disallowed to plant banana shoots on allotments, forbidden to keep goat farming to supplement their livelihood. They have been kept as “koolies” for generations, with “kankanies” keeping watch over their activities with a “Durai”as overlord.

The plantation labour continues to be formed of a very deprived class without means of social advancement, kept isolated in line rooms and alienated from society. A few who have managed to obtain education and migrated overseas were among those who said that “something must be done now to provide for their betterment”.

The suggestion is that many from this community should be provided facilities for better schooling and if necessary educational grants for study abroad and sought volunteer support from abroad to teach them vocational skills.

The meeting was held under the photo of Late Fr.Guy de Fontgallen, a missionary who spent his life in the estates for their betterment and whose demise was greatly missed.

Indian Tamils are the descendants of workers sent from South India to Ceylon in the 19th and 20th centuries to work in British plantations originally coffee, tea and rubber. Thick jungle was cleared by this migrant labour working in conditions of poor health and disease and low wages.

In 1964 a large percentage was “stateless” and repatriated to India. By 1990’s many were given Sri Lanka citizenship. In 2003 Parliament unanimously decided to grant citizenship to Up Country Tamils. There are over 200,000 of these migrant workers still performing service in Tea estates today.