University students reject Mahapola founder

Mar 20, 2017

Students have caused severe damage to the memorial plaque for a four-storey hostel building with facilities to accommodate 400 persons at Peradeniya University in protest against its being named after the late Lalith Athulathumudali, reports say.

In view of a letter of protest handed over by the students union to the vice chancellor, the building’s opening had been postponed. The administration has launched an investigation into the incident.

The Rs. 148 million building with 100 rooms was to be opened by finance secretary Dr. R.H.S. Samaratunga on the 12th. The university administration says there is nothing wrong in naming the hostel after the founder of the Mahapola scholarship scheme. The higher education ministry is implementing the ‘Sarasavi Medura’ project to provide hostel accommodation for all university students. This is the 59th hostel built under the ministry plans to build 60 hostels for 24,000 students at a cost of Rs. 13.4 billion.

Pradeepa Weerasekara - Sathhanda

‘ProNats’ class adores Gotabaya

Uditha Devapriya-2017-03-21

The problem with political nationalists is that they are qualitatively and temperamentally inferior to other nationalists. I neither subscribe to nor do I oppose elevating a nationalist campaign through Parliament, but I am wary of career politicos who seem to use rhetoric to get power and then belittle those who helped them. That is why, as a citizen of Sri Lanka and an observer of its political shifts, I am also wary of those touted as the salvation for the problems afflicting this country. This of course brings me back to my first point. Political nationalists are exactly that: political. If we extrapolate from this premise, we can add that they are also amateurs.

When a set of professionals (lawyers, accountants, and engineers) came together for an event at the Golden Rose in Boralesgamuwa, not many noticed. I did see newspaper articles touting it as being successful, but I did not bother to check out why. That is, until Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka in an article summing up a speech he gave there caught my attention. The speech, I have not read. The summary, I have. This week's column is about the political nationalist he singles out for praise, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. At the inception therefore, I insert a caveat: I neither oppose nor support the man.

In my column last week, I referred to the above class as professional nationalists, whom the Mahinda Rajapaksa cabal knows only well. This class is different from the rabble-rousing rural folk that is the base of that cabal. It was this class, not the rural folk, which stood behind S.L. Gunasekara and his attempts to form a Sinhala nationalist party. With that party, the Sihala Urumaya, Gunasekara and his cohorts (including the now dormant Malinga Gunaratne and the late A.V.D.S. Indraratne) tried to complete what S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike idealized but could not achieve: the coming together of both Buddhist and non-Buddhist Sinhalese politically.

Sihala Urumaya

To understand the professional nationalist class and the underside to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, it would pay well to revisit history. The Sihala Urumaya was both birthed by and opposed to the nationalist tenets espoused by the Jathika Chinthanaya, which in turn was formulated by Prof. Nalin de Silva and Gunadasa Amarasekara. Both Nalin and Gunadasa were political at the outset, and both (barring the latter's early years in the South) were bred in the city. That it was disconcerting to come across their explicit repudiation of Western science and literature is another story altogether, but for now, what's important is that the Sihala Urumaya was an offshoot of all this, though as Malinda Seneviratne points out, there were other attempts to come up with a similar political party.

I have come to believe that there's no such thing as a pure follower of a religion, any religion. There are no pure Catholics, Muslims, Jews, and from that premise, Buddhists. Because I am a Buddhist, I am qualified (I hope) to suggest that there are only two kinds of Buddhists in this country: the Sinhala Buddhist and the Olcott Buddhist. The latter term was formulated, not by me, but by Nalin de Silva. It remains a cornerstone in his philosophy. What is pertinent to note, then, is that the Sihala Urumaya and its avatars depended on this 'Olcottised' professional class. It is from here, and not the village, that the Mahinda Rajapaksa cabal has picked up a campaign to promote the most enigmatic of the Rajapaksa brothers, Gotabaya.

What does Gotabaya Rajapaksa bring with him? He has experience in the military. Some say that he preferred the backbench to the frontlines. Such accusations, however, can't be verified. Temperamentally, he stands between Sarath Fonseka and Wasantha Karannagoda, the former prone to outbursts, the other not. He was hence a mediator in those difficult war years, when a cohesive strategy transcending personal vendettas was needed to defeat the LTTE. I believe that when history is written and the Rajapaksas are assessed 50 years from now, this will be Gotabaya's biggest legacy. That is why I am grateful, as a Sri Lankan and a young patriot. My gratitude, however, does not forbid criticism.

Biggest black-mark

The biggest black-mark against the man is his authoritarian streak. Taken by itself, this is not indefensible. That authoritarian streak got Colombo cleaned and gave the military a civilian function in maintaining our suburbs.

Owing to this, I agree with

Dr. Dayan when he compares Gotabaya to Mahathir Mohomed and Lee Kuan Yew. Both Mahathir and Lee are celebrated today by the SLFP and the UNP, for transforming their economies to middle-class, consumerist societies. They can be forgiven for sweeping away the fact that for such a transformation to take place, the media had to be gagged and the opposition (which in Singapore's case was never a problem, because there wasn't one) eliminated. Gotabaya fits both these visionaries because he at least superficially harbours a combination of brutality and efficiency, which defines the kind of administrator that the professional nationalists adulate.

In fact, what Dr. Dayan says in his article interests me because the people he alludes to bring up our collective, non-partisan, and politically neutral admiration for men of force. It is this mutual admiration for such men (not women, owing to how patriarchal politics still is in Asian societies) which tripped even intellectuals like Prof. H.L. Seneviratne, who devoted..... three-quarters of his book The Work on Kings cautioning against the Left's rationalisation of autocracy in Sri Lanka before praising Lee Kuan Yew and suggesting that Sri Lanka (or Ceylon) would have profited with a Singaporean political model. It comes to no surprise then, that die-hard UNPers I have met have told me that even they would vote for Gotabaya should he contest without bringing in ethnicity.

Loathed by extremists

It brings me to the second biggest black-mark against the man. Gotabaya is loathed by extremists in the Tamil community for having masterminded the defeat of their hero, Prabhakaran. That is understandable but not condonable. He is also loathed by the Muslim community for what they perceive to be his role in the formation of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS). That is understandable and condonable.

In other words, the hatred against him by the former is based on an irrational premise, while the hatred against him by the latter is based on a more empathetic premise. Regardless of their political affiliations, Muslims believe they have a reason to fear a Rajapaksa Resurgence in the form of a Gotabaya Presidency and Mahinda Premiership (the scenario that Dr. Dayan envisages).

Of all the Rajapaksa brothers, he is the most placid. Mahinda by contrast is more open. He has his sons. He has his family. He has ensured that even those who support him are wary of his offspring. Gotabaya, on the other hand, is not tainted this way. That is why I was not surprised when, at the launch of Kamal Gunaratne's book Road to Nandikadal, everyone got up unanimously when he came in with the kind of hallowed silence that did not greet Mahinda (who had come earlier). This may or may not be rooted in his militaristic outlook on politics.

Whatever the reason, we now know that Project Gotabaya (as my friend Hafeel Farisz, who countered Dr. Dayan's assertions in a separate article last week) has been helped by the fact that historically since independence, the Sri Lankan polity has always preferred order to chaos, and authoritarianism to anarchy.

Why has that been the case? It's simply because nearly every political and personal difference between the two mainstream parties in this country has been erased by a common factor: the mainstream's opposition to the Liberal Left. Gotabaya is to the Sinhala and Olcott Buddhists what Ranil Wickremesinghe is to the Cinnamon Gardens and Reid Avenue elite. Just as much as there is no real qualitative difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States, there is no difference between the UNP and the SLFP, both of which are unified by their electorate's admiration for men of force. Whether you agree with them or not, the professional nationalist class adores Gotabaya owing to this. Again though, why has that been the case? The answer can be found in the role the Liberal Left played in perpetuating a federalist discourse in the SLFP. It was Vijaya Kumaratunga who (despite being the husband of S.W.R.D.'s own daughter) shifted that party from a populist-nationalist to a federalist-devolutionist outfit. I have explored this in an earlier column.

Not even the UNP, whether under J.R. Jayewardene, Ranasinghe Premadasa or (at least until the turn of the millennium) Ranil Wickremesinghe subscribed to the ideology which defined this new SLFP. Because voters felt betrayed and disenchanted by a party that was fast rejecting the values they had stood for, they found their saviour in Mahinda. Since Mahinda was seen as cohabiting with the same Liberal Left (or Old Left) which had been responsible for this paradigm shift in the party, they then shifted their allegiance to Gotabaya, who staunchly opposes the 13th Amendment. That is why it is the elder brother, not the former president, who covets more attention from the Professional Nationalists (or "ProNats" as I'd like to call them).

Hybrid class

It brings me to another issue. The ProNats are part and parcel of the same hybrid class which spawned the Olcott Buddhists. This hybrid class has unearthed the fatal self-contradiction at the heart of the urban nationalist movement, which I will explain now.

With respect to the urban nationalist movement here, I can only think of Gevindu Cumaratunga, Malinda Seneviratne, Gunadasa Amarasekara, Nalin de Silva, and the rest of the Jathika Chinthanaya group as ideologues that are not enamoured of the brand of Westernisation they repudiate in their writings. I am worried, however, about the next generation, because the same ideologues that reject Westernisation let their offspring wallow in it, often at the same elite schools they condemn as being culturally castrated. Let's not forget that this is the same self-contradiction and disjuncture we saw and see between the Rajapaksa elders and the Rajapaksa progeny. Such a disjuncture, we have not yet seen with Gotabaya.

Someone once chided me recently by saying, "We should protect Buddhism from Sinhala Buddhists like you!" Agreed. That, however, does not shield the Olcott Buddhist or the ProNat. As I pointed out in the beginning, though, there are no pure Buddhists.

Tainted as we are by political nationalists, we can hence only conjecture as to what Gotabaya Rajapaksa, with or without Dr. Dayan's prognostications, will do if he wins the presidency in 2020. Until then, I can only say what a Muslim friend of mine told me the other day: if the ProNats find themselves pitted against Gotabaya one day.

UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM

On Dayan’s “Project Gotabaya”, Gunaratnam and moral hypocrisy

2017-03-20

“This is a debate about the future of Sri Lanka; our future; our fate. Which side are you on? Pick one”, Dr. Jayatilleka’s Facebook page screams right above his response to my critique. I agree. In his response he calls for non-digression, although such diversion is what his response is all about. None of the issues brought to light were addressed, instead he conflates on the theoretical paradigm of the international vs the national, with Gotabaya’s practical sensibilities. This is after insisting that this isn’t about theory.   
However, let us play on the turf prepared by him.   

The crux of the issue is not the call for a Gotabaya presidency. Given the direction the country is headed both economically and politically, such a call is inevitable. Five years after the death of Mugabe, you would find people speaking of the ‘Good old days’. Egyptians admit Mubarak’s authoritarianism was better than Sisi’s dictatorship. The day Netanyahu leaves office, Israel’s liberals, leave alone the Far Right, would be singing praises of his iron grip. The Black community in the USA insists on Clinton being the first ‘Black President’- despite the disastrous crime bill and the crimes he committed in the name of ‘freedom and democracy’. Heck, the neo-nazis still believe Hitler to be a hero and the Eelamists believe the same of Prabakharan.   
The call for Gotabaya is therefore not surprising or unusual. What is at moot however, is the hypocrisy of Dr. Jayatilleka and his band of intellectuals. Let us not digress from it.   
The thrust therefore, is one of ideology. What does Gotabaya stand for, and how has he proven himself in light of it, is the question. The practical sensibilities are secondary, for the masses don’t make political identification on practical sensibilities. Political identification-when it comes to the level of national direction-is formed through ideology. As much as ‘Colombo is beautiful because of Gotabaya’ being a component of the justification, the justification itself lies far deeper. A few layers through the conversation, you would find that beneath the ideal of ‘Colombo’s beauty’ there lies some ideological identification. Similarly, Gotabaya leading the war effort falls within the ‘practical’ or the ‘pragmatic’ realm- but the ideology lies much deeper. You won’t find people singing hosannas about Ranjan Wijerathne or Premadasa for killing scores of JVPers now, would you?   

When was the last time we heard a person insist that Wijerathne or Premadasa was a national hero for bumping off Wijeweera and for the brutal crackdown of the JVP? Similarly, the atrocities against the JVP are not featured in the Eelamists’ call for ‘human rights’ or in the narrative of “Sinhala state repression”. Nor are they featured in any of the international players agendas. Why?   
We don’t know anything of Gunarathnam’s practical sensibilities or of that of the Left in general. But there is an ideological connection which draws or dissuades people, over and above the fact that Gunarathnam or the Left have not proven themselves. Political identification runs far deeper and the side that needs to ‘picked on’ would and should be based on ideology.   
Let me take the liberty of conflating Dr. Jayatilleka’s ill-founded justification for the ‘Gotabaya vanguard’ with the Gotabaya we know. For unlike Gunarathnam or the left, we have the benefit of hindsight. The Gotabaya we know represents an ideology which was not willing to concede any or all the provisions of the 13th amendment to the constitution. As soon as Mahinda’s pragmatism took over and the Northern Provincial Council election was held, Gotabaya’s ideology prevailed. A Military officer was appointed governor despite the continuous calls from the North against it. Now this was not a do-or-die concession. To not appoint a military officer? S.L. Gunasekara or Gunadasa Amarasekara could have been appointed instead, for the call was for a civilian.   

• The ideology that Gotabaya represents, justified by Dr. Jayatilleka, extends further. Inherent within the nativism is also the militarist dictatorialism.

• As much as ‘Colombo is beautiful because of Gotabaya’ being a component of the justification, the justification itself lies far deeper.

• The world Gunarathnam calls for is a world of inclusivity and equality. Of liberty and progress. It is a world in which the North would not feel alienated and where calls for separation would cede. 

• Dr. Jayatilleka needs to pick a side. He can’t wish for a future with a ‘fair and just society’, while calling for its exact opposite for the present.

• The admission of Gotabaya to the abduction of Gunarathnam and Attygalle has been conveniently left out

• To get back to the crux, Dr. Jayatilleka and his band cannot pretend to wish for a world in which Gunarathnam’s ideology triumphs and yet call for the victory of Gotabaya’s ideology

But militarist authoritarianism prevailed. How such symbolic concession was too much to bear is only representative of a deep-rooted nativist, militaristic and authoritarian ideology. This does not mean Gunasekara or Amarasekara would have been better governors. Yet, the point is that he didn’t concede. How could such a supremacist and nativist ideology prevent the call for a new constitution, worse yet, a call of victimization by the minorities and a recognition of the need for secession by the international community, are questions he needs to be asking.   
Dr. Jayatilleka and I are yet to see a draft of the new constitution but what we do know is Gotabaya and the ideology he represents, which was a usurpation of Mahinda and his ideology, directly supportive of the 18th amendment. An amendment to which parallels are only seen in countries in which dictatorships are in place. Erdogan’s Turkey is its new member, which was why I could hardly disagree with the categorization put forth by Dr. Jayatilleka himself. This is the Gotabaya we know.  

"It was a past in which Gotabaya’s ideology was at its helm. The return of that ideology will result in the abduction of Gunarathnam’s ideology. Plain and simple. The lessons from those ‘glory halcyon days’ of Gotabaya at the helm are but a reminder that Sri Lanka could and should not fall back to it"

The discerning amongst us should use the above to negate the proposition that a Gotabaya presidency would result in the North conceding to the Gotabaya ideology. The actions of the Northern Province Chief Minister are taking place under what the Ultra-Right Sinhala nationalists claim- a government of the minorities pandering to the Eelamist ideal. Gotabaya taking over would only fester that wound and the calls will be louder, only further justified by the fact that the Presidency is in the hands of a nativist. To think it would be the reverse is naiveté.   
The ideology that Gotabaya represents, justified by Dr. Jayatilleka, extends further. Inherent within the nativism is also the militarist dictatorialism. The Weliveriya, Chilaw and Katunayake murders are but a minute fraction of the practical realities of this ideology. I was on the ground covering the Rathupaswela murders. A 19-year-old only boy living with his mother and grandmother was murdered, among others. For no reason. The Army shut off the electricity in the entire area that night and went on a rampage.   
The Church premises weren’t spared. The Army stormed into the Church and mercilessly beat those who sought safety from their rampage within it. Rathupaswala is an hour’s drive at most from Colombo and all of this and more would be attested to by the priest at the Church and the villagers. “Sinhala apita mehemanam, apita hithaganna puluwan Yaapane mun monawa karanna athda kiyala”( If this is how they treated us Sinhalese, we can only imagine how they must have treated those in Jaffna) was the villagers’ cry at the boys funeral, on record.   

The newspapers were barred from publishing the full story, because Gotabaya’s long arm extended that far. Dr. Jayatilleka would not know this, or pretends not to.   
Dr. Jayatilleka asserts that the “battle swirls around three interconnected projects, namely the new Constitution, the new Geneva resolution and the new economic policy direction” and says that it is in this context that his ‘Gotabaya project’ is being proposed.   
The above negates that Gotabaya is in fact the solution. If at all, the ideology that Gotabaya represents would provide fodder to the issue’s escalation. To think that the reverse would happen is an assumption rife with ignorance. Would the international community suddenly heed the calls of nativism and say “fine, you will be left alone because you have an alpha male at the helm”? Would the diaspora and Eelamists call for secession shrink, because suddenly you have a militarist dictator running the country?   
Would the fair-minded people in the country actually believe that Gotabaya has the economic wherewithal to take the country away from the neo-liberal agenda, which in fact was a key component of the Rajapaksa administration?   
The admission of Gotabaya to the abduction of Gunarathnam and Attygalle has been conveniently left out.   

The breakdown of the events of which I have listed down in the critique appeared on Friday. But to iterate, the fact that Dr. Jayatilleka tells the reader that this is a man fit for presidency should ring alarm bells. The assumptions that I made in tandem with the fact of his admission also seem too much to bear. But the polity must know that the ideology reeks with regression. An ideology that we are told is the best we have.   
Yes, it is time the country picked sides.The side we are told to pick by Dr. Jayatilleka is a side which this country has experienced. “Back to the glory of the past” is a phrase fundamentalists use all along. That glory of the past was non-existent. It was a fallacy. A creation of the mind, an utopia of sorts. It could be imagined due to the stark realities of the present and hysteria over the future but that does not mean such imagination is true. It remains a fallacy.   
To get back to the crux, Dr. Jayatilleka and his band cannot pretend to wish for a world in which Gunarathnam’s ideology triumphs and yet call for the victory of Gotabaya’s ideology. We don’t live in a world of fiction, where Marquez or Camus could create and recreate ideology and character.   
The future will be a result of the present. The world Gunarathnam calls for is a world of inclusivity and equality. Of liberty and progress. It is a world in which the North would not feel alienated and where calls for separation would cede. The Eelamist project could not extend beyond the people’s mandate and if the people of the North feel represented and at home, Wigneswaran and in extension, the Eelamist ideology would be defeated. Gunarathnam represents an ideology of a world in which the South has the same opportunities as that of those living in Colombo. That is what ideology represents.   

"The discerning amongst us should use the above to negate the proposition that a Gotabaya presidency would result in the North conceding to the Gotabaya ideology. "

I’m aware that the posit is an assumption of the future for which we have no guarantees. We don’t know the practical realities of a Gunarathman ideology at the helm. Dr. Jayatilleka is guilty of the same assumptions. However, the difference being that we have the benefit of hindsight- the benefit of knowledge of the hysteria, supremacy and an iron fist which is unashamedly willing to admit that they abducted people for the crime of engaging in politics. It was a past in which Gotabaya’s ideology was at its helm. The return of that ideology will result in the abduction of Gunarathnam’s ideology. Plain and simple. The lessons from those ‘glory halcyon days’ of Gotabaya at the helm are but a reminder that Sri Lanka could and should not fall back to it.   
Yes, Dr. Jayatilleka needs to pick a side. He can’t wish for a future with a ‘fair and just society’, while calling for its exact opposite for the present. He can’t wish for Gunarathnam’s world, while telling us that it is Gotabaya’s side we need to be on. This moral hypocrisy should not sit well with him, nor with anyone of us.

Nonentity Malith M.P. who abused chairman of Sectoral oversight Committee powers in deep trouble in mass murder of children case !

(Lanka-e-News -21.March.2017, 5.45AM) UPFA M.P. Malith Jayathileke  the nonentity best known as an Empty Dumpty and a   liability than an asset in parliament for not making  any statement in parliament despite being an M.P. for 2 years ( thankfully , not elected by the people but selected  by the president via the national list ) who is leaving no stone unturned to save the Navy murderers who killed innocent Sinhalese , Tamil and Muslim  school children  after collecting extortion payments , has abused the parliamentary powers by  his illegal interference , based on reports reaching Lanka e news . 

The good governance government introduced a new select committee body  which governs every parliamentarian. That is , the Sectoral Oversight Committee . Empty Dumpty Malith the nonentity is the chairman of the ‘Sectoral oversight committee for national security’ .

Malith  sought to save the criminal Lieutenant Commander Dhammika Anil Mapa who is now in remand custody by flaunting and abusing his powers he wields by virtue of his position as chairman of Sectoral oversight committee for national security .

This Empty Dumpty  nonentity Malith recently visited the Police headquarters along with members of the family of the criminal Dhammika Anil , and after summoning the IGP and the chief of the CID who is conducting the investigation had  questioned ,  what is the evidence against Dahmmika Anil , and at what stage is the investigation at present? while proudly claiming , ‘ these are on the orders of the president’. In addition he has forced the investigators to reveal  sensitive information to the family members of the criminal . The investigators who were nonplussed, embarrassed  and in a state of shock  as a result of the illegal actions of this nonentity are testifying to the unlawful conduct of Malith. The latter had also insisted , since he is the chairman of the ‘Sectoral oversight committee for national security’ he is entitled to  have the information he is demanding  from the IGP and the CID chief.  

Malith ‘s utterance, ‘this is on the orders of the president ‘ is a lie ..

Following our exposure under the caption ‘Now Maithri sends his National list lackey to save the Navy criminals who killed innocent students..! Why is Maithri at pains to wash away the blood stains for others’ sake?’ , the president’s side speaking to Lanka e news  denied  having given any instructions or vesting Mendacious Malith with any powers to say ‘ these are on the orders of the  president’.  This is clear evidence that Malith has therefore  blatantly and unashamedly  lied to the IGP and the CID investigators.

Police officers being intimidated and threatened while bragging  ,’I am the chairman of the Sectoral oversight committee for national security’ is most portentous !

Lanka e news then inquired from a high ranking officer in parliament about the attempts made by this nonentity Empty Dumpty  M.P. Malith to free the most brutal criminal who is in custody while flaunting his position as chairman of ‘Sectoral oversight committee for national security’ and abusing his powers.

That officer pointed out clearly , no chairman or  member of any select committee or M.P. can interfere in cases that are sub-judice .

Moreover if any inquiry is to be conducted  , the officer who is to  be questioned  by the select committee should be summoned before the select Committee within   parliament  by a written letter , and besides , such  inquiries cannot be conducted at any  place according to anybody’s whim.

The Parliament officer further said , simply by claiming that he is the chairman of the ‘Sectoral oversight committee for national security’, Malith  cannot go anywhere and everywhere and hold  inquiries . Moreover ,  under no circumstances can he have the relatives of the accused close by when inquiring from the IGP. This obviously  means  Empty Dumpty  nonentity Malith  has flagrantly abused his parliamentary powers.

Action that can be taken against Malith over his boorish  and foolish  conduct…

When Lanka e News raised queries from a legal expert , senior minister and the Judicial service Commission (JSC) in regard to what action that can  be taken against such an M.P. who unlawfully sought to avert a criminal investigation into mass murder , the following answers were furnished …

Legal action can  be taken against Malith for abusing his powers  .The Police officers can  complain to the magistrate court where the case is being heard that this M.P. is hampering the investigations. Based on the decision taken by the magistrate , secondly charges can be filed against this buffoon of an M.P. in the supreme court (SC) .

There are two ways in which the parliament can take action against Malith for his abuse of powers.
One method  : An M.P. under order 23 /2 can present a  question  to the speaker .
Second method : A civil Organization or the aggrieved party can complain in writing to the speaker .

Based on the two methods , the speaker can take action against this  nonentity M.P. the Empty Dumpty  for abusing his powers.

Navy Commander too in hot water because of nonentity Malith the Empty dumpty !

At the time of writing this article , it is learnt , the unlawful interference of nonentity Malith , had gone farther than expected . The suspects in the prisons in connection with the mass murder of students are being supplied with food ,beverages and clothes by the Navy out of public funds illegally.Even a Navy vehicle is being used for these supplies. 

Lanka e news  expects to  next reveal the details of the  unlawful activities of the Navy Commander .

---------------------------
by     (2017-03-21 00:30:33)

Dinesh is under investigation over bribery charge

Mar 20, 2017

Acting upon several complaints that MP Dinesh Gunawardena has accepted bribes to prevent legal action against unauthorized apartment owners, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has commenced an investigation. According to reports reaching us, Gunawardena had made use of a legal amendment, made when he was the urban and sacred area development minister, to solicit bribes in that manner.

According to the amendment, unauthorized additions to an apartment complex can be made legal by way of the payment of a fine to be decided by a committee functioning under the Urban Development Authority.

A case in point is that a Rs. 22 million fine had been imposed on an unauthorized apartment complex at Wellawatte, and Gunawardena had made a written request to reduce it to Rs. seven million. Due to this reduction, the then director general of the UDA Prasanna Silva was arrested on bribery charges and remanded. During the investigation, the ex-DG had failed to produce the Gunawardena’s letter, which has now gone missing from the relevant file.

After the UDA was taken over by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, an investigation was carried out into unauthorized apartment complexes in Colombo city and it came to light Gunawardena had mediated at the request of a businessman by the name Ajith Gallage to reduce the fines imposed on many apartment owners. Gotabhaya sent a detailed file about this fraud to the then president. UDA’s western province director Prasanna Wijetunga too, had got involved in reducing the fine.

All these files are now unaccounted for, but in consideration of the complaints it has received and the information made available by the UDA, the CID has obtained statements from several of these apartment owners as well as from Gunawardena. However, he is now trying to disrupt the investigation through his school-time friends, prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and minister Malik Samarawickrama. Furthermore, the joint opposition has discussed as to why Gunawardena did not get involved when the JO unleashed strong criticism against the PM. Certain JO MPs now jokingly ask Gunawardena about this matter.

Sanjaya Liyanage - Sathhanda

Campaign Against Antisemitism is a campaign against Palestinians

The UK-based Campaign Against Antisemitism was formed after massive protests against Israel’s military offensive in Gaza were held in London in the summer of 2014.Andy RainEPA

Tony Greenstein-20 March 2017

The Campaign Against Antisemitism is a British propaganda organization and registered charity that specializes in defaming Palestine solidarity campaigners. When I launched a petition calling for the group to be deregistered, it responded in a hostile manner.

Campaign Against Antisemitism is a campaign against Palestinians.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

FBI Director Comey confirms probe of possible coordination between Kremlin and Trump campaign

Members of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, heard testimony from FBI Director James Comey and NSA head Michael Rogers. Here are key moments from that hearing.(Video: Sarah Parnass/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

By Ellen Nakashima, Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett March 20 at 4:41 PM

FBI Director James B. Comey acknowledged Monday that his agency is conducting an investigation into possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign in a counterintelligence probe that could reach all the way to the White House and may last for months.

The extraordinary disclosure came near the beginning of a sprawling, 5½ -hour public hearing before the House Intelligence Committee in which Comey also said there is “no information” that supports President Trump’s claims that his predecessor ordered surveillance of Trump Tower during the election campaign.

Comey repeatedly refused to answer whether specific individuals close to the president had fallen under suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, “so we don’t wind up smearing people” who may not be charged with a crime.

The FBI traditionally does not disclose the existence of an investigation, “but in unusual circumstances, where it is in the public interest,” Comey said, “it may be appropriate to do so.”

Comey also said he was authorized by the Justice Department to confirm the existence of the wide-ranging probe into Russian interference in the electoral process. He drew fire last year after he notified Congress 11 days before the presidential election — and against the department’s strong advice not to — that the FBI had reopened an examination of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) urged FBI Director James Comey to disclose "quickly" any evidence he had linking the Trump White House to Russia at a hearing, March 20. (Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post/Reuters)

That move, Democrats charged, hurt Clinton as she was heading into the home stretch of her campaign. Now, the tables are turned.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the committee chairman, urged Comey to reveal if and when the bureau has information clearing any of its targets, and to do so as quickly as possible.

“There’s a big gray cloud that you’ve now put over people who have very important work to do to lead this country, and so the faster that you can get to the bottom of this, it’s going to be better for all Americans,” Nunes said.

Comey said that the investigation began in late July and that for a counterintelligence probe, “that’s a fairly short period of time.”

The hearing came amid the controversy fired up by Trump more than two weeks ago when he tweeted, without providing evidence, that President Barack Obama had ordered his phones tapped at Trump Tower.

“I have no information that supports those tweets,’’ Comey said. “We have looked carefully inside the FBI,’’ and agents found nothing to support those claims.

He added that the Justice Department had asked him to tell the committee that the agency has no such information, either.

FBI Director James B. Comey said at a House Intelligence Committee hearing that he has no information that Trump Tower was wiretapped by former president Barack Obama. (Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post/Reuters)

Under questioning from the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), Comey said no president could order such surveillance.

Remarkably, Trump’s presidential Twitter account continued to fire away throughout the widely watched hearing, live-tweeting comments and assertions that lawmakers then referred to and used to question Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers.

[Full transcript: FBI Director James Comey testifies on Russian interference in 2016 election]

Comey and Rogers both predicted that Russian intelligence agencies will continue to seek to meddle in U.S. political campaigns, because they consider their work in the 2016 presidential race to have been successful.

In an influence campaign that the U.S. intelligence community in January said was ordered by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, hackers working for Russian spy agencies penetrated the computers of the Democratic National Committee in 2015 and 2016, as well as the email accounts of Democratic officials. 

The material was relayed to WikiLeaks, the intelligence community reported, and the anti-secrecy group launched a series of damaging email releases that began just before the Democratic National Convention last summer and continued through the fall. The Russians’ goal was not only to undermine the legitimacy of the election process but also to harm Clinton’s campaign and boost Trump’s chances of winning, the intelligence community concluded.

“They’ll be back in 2020. They may be back in 2018,” Comey said. “One of the lessons they may draw from this is that they were successful, introducing chaos and discord” into the electoral process.

Rogers agreed: “I fully expect they will maintain this level of activity.” And, he said, Moscow is conducting a similar “active measures” campaign in Europe, where France and Germany are holding elections this year.

The panel’s Democrats focused on possible contacts between Trump associates and Russian officials. Schiff outlined a series of events that took place last July and August that he said appear to be “pivotal” to the question of whether there was improper contact.

He ticked off a list of more than a dozen incidents, including former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page’s trip to Moscow and alleged meeting with Igor Sechin, a Putin confidant and chief executive of the energy company Rosneft; and Trump political adviser Roger Stone’s boasts about his connections to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Stone’s prediction that the emails of Clinton campaign adviser John Podesta would be published.

“Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence? Yes, it is possible,” Schiff said. “But it is also possible, may be more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated. . . . We simply don’t know, not yet, and we owe it to the country to find out.”

At the White House, press secretary Sean Spicer stressed that an investigation into possible collusion between Russian officials and Trump associates doesn’t mean that there was any.

“Investigating it and having proof of it are two different things,” Spicer said. “I think it’s fine to look into it, but at the end of the day they’re going to come to the same conclusion that everybody else has had.” Said Spicer: “There’s no evidence of a Trump-Russian collusion.”

The committee Republicans, meanwhile, seemed most exercised by leaks to the media. Information shared with the press has resulted in stories since the election on the intelligence community’s conclusion about Moscow’s desire to see Trump win, and on contacts Trump administration officials or close associates had with Russian officials.

One story in particular that apparently upset the Republicans was a Feb. 9 piece by The Washington Post reporting that Trump’s then-national security adviser, Michael Flynn, discussed the subject of sanctions with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, in the month before Trump took office. The Post reported that the discussions were observed under routine, court-approved monitoring of Kislyak’s calls. Flynn, who had denied to Vice President Pence that he had spoken about sanctions, was forced to resign.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) suggested that the leaks were political. He asked Comey whether the intelligence community had shared such information with Obama or his attorney general, Loretta E. Lynch.

Comey — who had acknowledged that in general, senior officials, including Lynch, would have access to such information — said he would not comment on his conversations with Obama or Trump.

As the hearing was going on, Trump’s presidential Twitter account — in an apparent dig at Comey and carrying the suggestion that Obama administration officials were behind the leaks — posted the tweet: 

“FBI Director Comey refuses to deny he briefed President Obama on calls made by Michael Flynn to Russia.”

[Comey: Please don’t draw conclusions from my no-comments. Trump: Nah, I’m good.]

At another point, the account tweeted out, “The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process.”

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), noting that the tweet had gone out to 16.1 million Americans, asked Comey, “Is that accurate?”

“We’ve offered no opinion . . . on potential impact because it’s not something we looked at,” Comey said.

Nunes sought an admission from the officials that the leaks were illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law that governs foreign intelligence-gathering on U.S. soil or U.S. persons overseas.

“Yes,” Comey answered. “In addition to being a breach of our trust with the FISA court.”

Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.) pressed Rogers to clarify under what circumstances it would be legitimate for Americans caught on tape speaking with people under surveillance to have their identities disclosed publicly.

Rogers stressed that the identities of U.S. persons picked up through “incidental collection” — in which investigating agents hear the words of people conversing with the targets of a wiretap — are disclosed only on a “valid, need-to-know” basis, and usually only when there is criminal activity or a potential threat to the United States at play.

Comey confirmed that individuals within the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department and others — including personnel in the White House, in some situations — could have requested the unmasking of the names of U.S. persons. But he stressed that only the collecting agency, whether it’s the FBI, the NSA or the CIA, can unmask the identities of people.

British banks handled vast sums of laundered Russian money

Exclusive: Billions of dollars were moved out of Russia in ‘Global Laundromat’ operation, with anonymously owned UK companies playing major role

The Global Laundromat: where the money went

Luke Harding, Nick Hopkins and Caelainn Barr-Monday 20 March 2017

Britain’s high street banks processed nearly $740m from a vast money-laundering operation run by Russian criminals with links to the Russian government and the KGB, the Guardian can reveal.

HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds, Barclays and Coutts are among 17 banks based in the UK, or with branches here, that are facing questions over what they knew about the international scheme and why they did not turn away suspicious money transfers.

Documents seen by the Guardian show that at least $20bn appears to have been moved out of Russia during a four-year period between 2010 and 2014. The true figure could be $80bn, detectives believe.

One senior figure involved in the inquiry said the money from Russia was “obviously either stolen or with criminal origin”.

Investigators are still trying to identify some of the wealthy and politically influential Russians behind the operation, known as “the Global Laundromat”.

They estimate a group of about 500 people were involved. These include oligarchs, Moscow bankers, and figures working for or connected to the FSB, the successor spy agency to the KGB.

Igor Putin, the cousin of Russia’s president, Vladimir, sat on the board of a Moscow bank which held accounts involved in the fraud.

British-registered companies played a prominent role in this extensive money-laundering network. The real owners of most of the firms used in the scheme remain secret, however, because of the anonymity provided by controversial offshore laws.

The Global Laundromat banking records were obtained by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and Novaya Gazeta from sources who wish to remain anonymous. OCCRP shared the data with the Guardian and media partners in 32 countries.

The documents include details of about 70,000 banking transactions, including 1,920 that went through UK banks and 373 via US banks.


 HSBC’s building in Canary Wharf, London. Photograph: Anthony Devlin/PA Archive/Press Association Ima

The data is understood to be part of the evidence gathered in a three-year money-laundering investigation led by police in Latvia and Moldova.

Detectives have unravelled a conspiracy that involved billions of dollars being sent from suspected criminals in Russia via accounts in Latvia and Moldova held at banks notorious for their exposure to money-laundering scams.

The trail led investigators to 96 countries and to a network of anonymously owned firms, most of them registered at Companies House in London. Most of the 21 core companies under scrutiny have been dissolved.

The scale of the operation has staggered law enforcement officials. The records show British banks and foreign banks with offices in London processed $738.1m in transactions apparently involving criminal money from Moscow.

Banks say they have sophisticated units dedicated to rooting out financial crime. But they say the volume of payments – billions a year – makes such work difficult.

“If you are on the back end you are kind of playing whack-a-mole, trying to pick this up,” one source said.

HSBC processed $545.3m in Laundromat cash, mostly routed through its Hong Kong branch. The troubled Royal Bank of Scotland – which is 71% owned by the UK government – handled $113.1m. Coutts – used by the Queen and owned by RBS – accepted $32.8m worth of payments via its office in Zurich, Switzerland. Coutts is winding down its Swiss operation and was last month fined by regulators for money laundering in a different case.

Other high street banks that appear in the Laundromat data include Barclays, NatWest and Lloyds. NatWest – also owned by RBS – allowed through $1.1m.

In the US, big banks processed more than $63.7m. They include Citibank ($37m) and Bank of America ($14m).

The Guardian contacted all these banks. None of them challenged the authenticity of the data, but they all insisted they had strict anti-money-laundering policies.

The response from RBS was typical. The bank said: “We are committed to combatting financial crime and money laundering in line with our regulations and have controls and safeguards in place to identify, assess, monitor and mitigate these risks.” The statement covered Coutts and NatWest.

HSBC said: “This case highlights the need for greater information sharing between the public and private sectors, each of whom holds important information the other does not.”

However, the Guardian’s disclosures raise awkward questions for UK banks. The Financial Conduct Authority demands that banks “consider the money-laundering risk presented by customers, taking into account country risk; the customer’s reputation and the source of their wealth and funds”.

In many of the cases looked at by the Guardian, money vanished into offshore shell firms, whose “beneficial owners” remain anonymous, and whose source of wealth is a mystery. The OCCRP discovered that the official owners of many of the firms were fake or “nominee” directors based in Ukraine.

The Guardian showed details of the transfers to L Burke Files, an international financial investigator. He said compliance checks at many western banks were desultory, and often little more than “box ticking”.

“Typically the compliance and investigations department is treated like an unwanted step-child. The directors of a bank see compliance as an expense without any return. The compliance professionals are underpaid, underskilled and receive little or no effective training in spotting criminal patterns.”

Files added: “Most of the transactions I’m seeing here would have required substantial enhanced due diligence. It isn’t just individual transactions. It’s the repeated pattern.”

Police in eastern Europe have focused on a number of British shell companies, including Seabon Limited, which was run by a company management firm in Tooley Street, London, just around the corner from the mayor of London’s office and City Hall.

In 2013, Seabon filed accounts to Companies House saying its income was just £1. The firm was wound up in February 2016. According to an analysis of the records, Seabon was involved in transactions worth $9bn. Another firm – Ronida Invest LLP, registered in Newhall Street, Birmingham – processed $6.4bn.

Prosecutors in eastern Europe claim both firms were set up for the purposes of fraud.

The records also give an insight into Russian shopping habits, although the customers in many cases are unknown. They bought diamonds from a jewellers in Bond Street, furs from brokers in north London, and chandeliers from a Chelsea boutique.

The scheme was also used for a wealthy Russian to pay for his son’s boarding fees at Millfield, a prestigious school in Somerset.

Often, the information in the notes section of wire transfers was misleading. One bank payment of $500,000 was marked down in records as “notebooks”. Actually, it was spent on fur.

The scheme that allowed the transfer of money from east to west was unravelled by police following the launch of the inquiry in 2014. The OCCRP – which first reported the story – originally called it “the Russian Laundromat”.

Typically, two firms would pretend to lend money to one another, with the sums underwritten by Russian businesses. One company would then “default” on the loan. Judges would certify the “debt” as authentic, allowing the Russian businesses to send cash to an account in Moldova. From there it went to Latvia, inside the EU.

Accounts held at 19 Russian banks were involved in the scheme. In 2014, it was reported that one financial institution was the Russian Land Bank (RZB). A bank board member at the time was Igor Putin.

Detectives say accounts at RZB transferred about $9.7bn to accounts at Moldova’s Moldindconbank. The cash was then moved to Trasta Komercbanka in Riga.


 A view of Riga. Photograph: Alamy

RZB’s director Alexander Grigoriev was arrested in Moscow in 2015, a year after his bank was shut down for money-laundering offences.

Sources told the OCCRP that Grigoriev had links to the FSB, Russia’s main spy agency.

He has denied wrongdoing and says he is a respectable citizen. He remains in custody, accused of stealing assets in a different case.

Igor Putin declined to comment. In a letter written in 2014, he said: “My personal experience, gained in recent years, proves the truth of the thesis that the Russian banking system should be radically rehabilitated and cleaned of troubled banks headed by people with doubtful reputations.”

Trasta, the Latvian bank at the centre of the scandal, was closed in 2016. Maija Treija, deputy director of Latvia’s finance ministry, said it lost its licence due to money laundering. Of the billions sent from Russia, she said: “Obviously it was money either stolen or with criminal origin.” The fight against money laundering was a “never-ending story”, she told the Finnish broadcaster YLE.

The involvement of Moldova’s banks in the scandal led to a political crisis that has seen five prime ministers come and go in the last two years.

Former and current officials working at Moldova’s central bank were detained by prosecutors last August suspected of turning a blind eye to information on money laundering carried out through Moldindconbank.

The fraud has also sparked a row with Moscow. This month, Moldova’s parliament said Russia’s FSB had “abusively treated” Moldovan officials arriving in the Russian Federation. It linked their harassment to Moldova’s Laundromat investigation and said some of the money had been used to try to bribe Moldovan MPs.

The FSB – run by Vladimir Putin before he became prime minister and president – had used part of the Laundromat money to further Russian state interests, Moldovan officials said.