Martin McGuinness: Secret to the Success Rebellion

Martin McGuinness: the IRA commander who walked down a political path

by Peter John McLoughlin

( March 22, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, some Ulster unionists blamed the Catholic education system for promoting an Irish nationalist identity among the minority population. This, they argued, helped fuel a republican insurgency from the early 1970s. As a leading figure in the insurgency, Martin McGuinness was unequivocal when asked about his own experience of being taught in the Catholic system: “They didn’t make me a republican; the Brits made me a republican.” 

It was not Irish history that politicised McGuinness and led him to join the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Rather events in Northern Ireland from the late 1960s drove him – specifically the state’s violent response to a civil rights movement calling for an end to Catholic discrimination, and in particular seeing the killing of a neighbour by the British army in July 1971.

Henceforth, McGuinness became a committed IRA member. He gained a particular reputation as a deadly sniper. Young Catholic women in his home town of Derry would even goad the British soldiers who supervised their every movement on the streets: “McGuinness will be out tonight. 

McGuinness will be out tonight …” McGuinness was also feared within republicanism as a strict disciplinarian, foreswearing alcohol and other vices, and appearing cold and unemotional towards the movement’s brutal response to “touts” – those suspected of collaborating with the security forces.

However, McGuinness’ abilities early marked him out as more than just a military man. Aged just 22, he was airlifted to London as part of an IRA delegation to engage in talks with the British government. Though these talks failed, when the British reopened a channel of communication with republicans in the late 1980s, McGuinness was now lead negotiator for Sinn Féin, the political wing of the IRA.

It was a role he maintained through the crucial talks leading to the IRA ceasefire of 1994, and then the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s chief of staff, vividly recalls the time during these negotiations when the Sinn Féin leader first visited Downing Street. Entering the Cabinet Room, McGuinness paused to comment: “So this is where all the damage was done.” Powell was taken aback by such a frank apparent reference to the IRA’s audacious near assassination of John Major via a mortar attack on Number 10 in 1991. “Yes”, Powell responded: “The windows came in but no one was injured.” “No”, replied McGuinness, “I meant this is where Michael Collins signed the treaty in 1921.”

Powell’s anecdote illustrates the very different positions from which the British government and Sinn Féin approached the Northern Ireland problem. For the former the focus was republican violence, and how to end it. For the latter the focus was on the historical injustices that motivated republican violence, and how to redress them. McGuinness had of course been referring to the treaty which partitioned Ireland and so created Northern Ireland.

A key partnership

When Sinn Féin and Ian Paisley’s DUP became the largest parties in their respective communities in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, the terms of that deal meant that they had to agree on how to share power in Northern Ireland. Thus, a former IRA commander and a former firebrand preacher now jointly led the Northern Ireland government. The media had a field day, dubbing the pairing the Chuckle Brothers, as a distinct camaraderie was displayed by Paisley and McGuinness.

Arguably, this showed the leadership skills of the two men. A deal between two sulking adversaries would have been harder to sell to their respective constituencies, and it was far better to have the media mock them than to pull at the loose threads of the political accord they had made. Meanwhile, the personal accord between Paisley and McGuinness seemed to grow into something genuine. Their past actions had, understandably, seen them portrayed as wholly serious individuals, but this masked the streak of humour which McGuinness and the man he called “Big Ian” clearly shared. Their bond was most evident when Paisley retired. To mark the occasion, McGuinness presented him with a self-penned poem inspired by the author’s passion for fly-fishing. To describe McGuinness as a multi-layered man would seem a gross understatement.

Taking a risk

McGuinness’ handshake with the Queen in 2012 was seen as another crucial milestone in the peace process – the Queen’s cousin, Lord Mountbatten, was killed by the IRA in 1979. Again, leadership was evident on both sides.

But perhaps more powerful than McGuinness’ meeting with the Queen was the moment in 2009 when he branded republican dissidents as “traitors to Ireland” after they killed a police officer. Shaking hands with the Queen was a potent symbol of peace-making; McGuinness’s condemnation of dissident violence had much greater practical effect. His unambiguous, impassioned statement helped protect the lives of all police officers, but particularly Catholics, whom dissidents cynically targeted as a way of undermining the transformation of policing achieved as part of the Good Friday Agreement. If dissidents could discourage young Catholics from joining the reformed service, they could hope for a return to the status quo ante – a partisan, Protestant police force, from which many Catholics had turned to the IRA for protection.

McGuinness spoke for the overwhelming majority of nationalists by making clear that the police were now a service for all the people of Northern Ireland. Dissident attacks on the police were thus an attack on the people they served. Everyone must therefore stand in defence of the police. It was arguably his greatest contribution to the peace process. He faced numerous death threats afterwards, so it may also have been his bravest.

The settlement

It is because of such developments that the British media recently tried to draw a line between McGuinness and the other leading republican of the modern era, Gerry Adams. Republicans, of course, are well-used to British tactics of divide and rule, and for Adams and McGuinness, the secret of their political success was actually their unity of purpose. That, in turn, maximised the unity of the republican movement through its various compromises over recent decades. Together they achieved what no single leader in the long history of Irish republicanism ever did – embracing politics without a major split in the movement. Dissident factions splintering away are manageable, but history shows that a more significant divide will mean a continuation of conflict.

The media might also recall that it previously depicted McGuinness as the real hardliner. He was “the soldier” keeping faith with the republican rank and file, and keeping a lid on the ambitions of Adams, “the politician”. Certainly, the two men brought different qualities to the table at different times, but together they combined to provide an exceptional mode of leadership which jointly steered an essentially unified republican movement away from armed struggle towards peaceful politics.

Others, however, choose to focus only on the earlier part of McGuinness’s career. Like his other political partner, Ian Paisley, who many nationalists feel instigated the Troubles by orchestrating opposition to the civil rights movement, McGuinness will never be forgiven by some people.

For victims of violence on either side of the conflict, the focus on the past is wholly understandable. There were, after all, voices on both sides of the divide who, from the very outset, consistently argued for a more peaceful way towards change in Northern Ireland. However, ultimately, figures such as Paisley and McGuinness both helped lead more intransigent minds down that political path.

As long as future generations are prepared to continue with the same endeavour, the most enduring legacy of the former firebrand preacher and the former IRA commander will be a peaceful, just, and democratic settlement in Ireland.

Peter John McLoughlin, Lecturer in Politics, Queen’s University Belfast

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Bitter gourd seeds can cure cancer

Mar 21, 2017

Research by a team from Peradeniya University has revealed the anti-cancer qualities of bitter-gourd seeds. Prof. Jayantha Rajapakse of its veterinary science faculty says bitter gourd seeds are capable of destroying and halting the spreading of cancerous cells.

The substance with this quality in bitter gourd seeds has been identified as stearic fatty acid which is anti-cancerous, he announced following around one year of research.

“The research was started using fresh seeds of bitter-gourd cultivated without the use of agrochemicals. The treatment was given to various kinds of animals and it was established the alpha stearic fatty acid has the capability of destroying cancer cells. Bitter-gourd is popular among the people as a treatment for diabetes. But, most do not consume its seeds. The entire bitter-gourd is full of medicinal qualities. Its kernel has the ability to bring down the blood sugar level.”

“Fresh bitter gourd seeds were used in this research. The price of a kilo of seeds of bitter-gourd cultivated without using agrochemicals is between Rs. 6,000 – Rs. 8,000. Around eights seeds are needed to produce one capsule. This does not have any side effects.”

He says patients at the cancer treatment unit of Kandy General Hospital are being given this treatment and it has shown successful results. The Peradeniya University’s medical faulty will be given the task of introducing this treatment, he said.

Patients are given this bitter-gourd seed capsule twice a week under the supervision of oncologist Dr. Mohamed Hilmy, said Prof. Rajapakse, adding that this was given free of charge. Long-term use of this treatment will cause no side effects, he assured.

Nadeeka Daya Bandara - Kandy

Risky operation removes parasitic twin from baby

Surgeons explain the challenges of the complex operation to separate Dominique from her parasitic twin

21 March 2017

A baby girl whose twin failed to develop properly and fused to her growing body in the womb is recovering after a successful operation in the US.

A team of five surgeons at Advocate Children's Hospital in Chicago removed baby Dominique's parasitic twin.

In this extremely rare case, her parasitic twin was attached to her back and shoulder. This made her look like she had two extra legs and feet.

Dominique travelled from Ivory Coast for the operation and will return soon.

Image copyright

Dr John Ruge, who led the surgery, said one of the biggest challenges had been to ensure Dominique was not left paralysed.

He said: "There was a lot of challenges to her skeletal system... we could destabilise her spine and cause her impairment."

Another of the surgeons, Frank Vicari, said: "We had an enormous amount of imaging, specialised imaging that would allow us to identify her own native anatomy, the anatomy of the parasitic twin and anticipate the problems we might see... so that we could pre-plan what we intended to do and minimise any opportunity for a surprise during surgery."
Surgeons used specialised imaging before the operation

Image copyrighImage captio

Dr Ruge said the operation had been vital because of the strain on Dominique's heart and lungs of having to "provide nourishment to another almost individual".

Also, the parasitic twin had been attached at a very important junction between the neck and the thoracic spine and "that amount of mass and disturbance in that area would cause her significant spinal problems as she grew".

Dominique's foster carer in Chicago Nancy Swabb said: "She has touched our hearts. She is a member of our family.

"We know that she will go back to her loving family, and we'll keep in touch - but this has changed our lives. She is pretty amazing."

Sri Lankan Government Fails on Promises – Oakland Institute

The following press communique issued by the Oakland Institute

(March 21, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) As the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) meets to discuss transitional justice and human rights in post-war Sri Lanka, a new report from the Oakland Institute, Justice Denied, exposes the many issues that continue to plague land release and resettlement in the country, and the failure of the Sri Lankan government to fulfill its international commitments to transitional justice. The Sri Lankan military continues to occupy large quantities of land; land released by the government is often of poor quality, hindering the ability of many to rebuild their livelihoods; there is a vast and unmet need for housing and infrastructure for those displaced during the civil war; and ever-changing timelines for resettlement have bred mistrust in the government.

Although the war ended in 2009, the country’s military budget has more than doubled since then, raising serious doubt about the government’s intent to demilitarize the North and East. “It has been nearly eight years since the end of the civil war, but tens of thousands remain displaced in the country and there are still over 100,000 Tamil refugees in India,” commented Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.

“In these conditions, it is appalling that the military continues to occupy land for army camps and to run business ventures and luxury tourist resorts in the North and East.” Justice Denied also examines the actions of the Sri Lankan government over the past 16 months to fulfill its commitments to transitional justice made under UNHRC Resolution 30/1.

The Resolution was an attempt to initiate a process that would bring justice for war crimes – including numerous alleged cases of rape, torture, kidnapping, and the mass killing of civilians, prisoners, and relief workers – that have gone unpunished and unaddressed by the justice system. It also addressed the issue of the tens of thousands of civilians who remain unaccounted for or missing years after the end of the war. “This examination paints a dismal picture of justice denied and highlights the culture of impunity in the country. The government has back-tracked on its promise to include international legal experts in a war crimes court, and even threatened with legal action anyone alleging war crimes by the military. Meanwhile, the Prevention of Terrorism Act is still in force,” continued Mittal. “This is not progress towards transitional justice. The attitude of the Sirisena administration makes a mockery of its international commitments. It is imperative that the international community hold the Sri Lankan government accountable to ensure that justice is delivered.”

Justice Denied is the Oakland Institute’s fourth report examining land issues and human rights abuses in post-war Sri Lanka.

Full report reproduced below;

justice-denied_oakland_report.pdf by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

We demand justice mechanism with international judges - Tamils protest across North-East

21 Mar  2017 Protests were held in various locations across the North-East last Thursday demanding a justice mechanism with international judges. Organised by North-East Coordinating Committee, Tamils, including victims and the families of the disappeared, called for international involvement in accountability as well as calling on Sri Lanka to move on pressing issues such as demilitarisation and the issue of the disappeared. Protestors in Jaffna, Batticaloa, Mullaitivu and Mannar handed over an open appeal to the High Commissioner for Human Rights and to participants of the 34th Human Rights Council Session. Read More

Yet another imaginative proposal to privilege the police

Sunday, March 19, 2017

The tortuous dance of some in Government to ensure that a suspect in police custody is not allowed legal counsel at the earliest opportunity is indeed painful to observe. The latest amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure Act suggested by the Ministry of Justice reflects this reluctance exceedingly well. Now, instead of the earlier harebrained proposal that the access to legal counsel can be given to a suspect only after police interrogations are concluded, we have another equally imaginative proposal.

Better to retain the status quo

This amendment issued earlier this month in the form of a Bill, states in one of its sub-clausesthat an attorney-at-law shall, if he so, requests, be allowed to have access to the person in custody, ‘unless such access is prejudicial to the investigation being conducted.’ I can only marvel at the sheer disingenuousness of this proposal. Even in the context of reforms of laws pertaining to civil liberties traditionally being reduced to a game to give rights with one hand and take away with the other, this particular clause is manifestly beyond the pale.

For the question that arises is immediate and glaring. Who determines the fact of legal counsel being ‘prejudicial to the investigation being conducted’ in order to decide whether to afford this basic right or not? The simple answer to that would be, the police itself, of course. So what flows from the right to counsel being subject to such a preposterous condition?

Effectively the suspect would be in no better condition that if he or she did not have that right available under the law.Indeed, if there is any serious possibility of this passing through the House, it is far better not to have this amendment at all and to retain the status quo as it is.

Discarding of that judicious balancing of interests

This is quite as bad as that other wonderful idea urged by a former police spokesman taking great pride in his badge of honour as an attorney-at-law who suggested blandly in a recent television interview that if legal counsel is afforded to suspects at the point of arrest, then confessions made by suspects to police officers must also be admissible.

The fact that the entire weight of Sri Lanka’s criminal procedure jurisprudence since independence had stood stoutly against the very notion, in general circumstances, of confessions being admissible not only to police officers but also to any person standing in a position of authority was airily relegated to the background. It was of no consequence that these principles had been developed by judges of stern mettle who judiciously balanced the interests of law enforcement with civil liberties and made sure that neither suffered in the result.

But waving these aside with a quick brush of the hand, our garrulous representative of the police force could only proclaim pompously that ‘well, they want counsel and if so, we should have our confessions since lawyers are representing them.’ These are the absurd depths of discussions on national television with the news anchors gaping foolishly.

Entrenched in the same State power mindset

In fact, the displacing of liberty protections in the ordinary law by anti-terrorism statutes institutionalising the use of torture is unquestionably the greatest tragedy to visit Sri Lanka’s legal system. From a difficult weighing of the scales even in the face of civil conflict soon after independence, we toppled down the authoritarian precipice.

State officers were given free rein to do whatever they wished with terrified suspects for whom the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty meant nothing in effect.That mindset has been reinforced by certain prosecutors who, despite whatever government in power, firmly believe in the ideology of State power and State ability to brutalise human beings and not be accountable.

This is in line with the cynical thinking that the ‘greater good’ is served even if innocents are killed by the State. And this is precisely why, despite the ending of active conflict and a new Government coming into power, we remain firmly entrenched in that same old mindset.

The ‘soft soap’ of the amendment Bill

Other sub-clauses of the March Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill state that lawyers shallbe entitled to have access to the police station in which the suspect is being held to meet the officer incharge (OIC). Problematically here also the right is stipulated as not allowed to affect theinvestigations that may be conducted.

The Amendment Bill also replicates practices already in place on intervention by the Supreme Court. Thus, a lawyer is to be permitted entry into the police station, to be treated ‘cordially and courteously’(is there a difference pray, between the two?) and ‘be given a fair and patient hearing’ by police officers. Further, such lawyer may ascertain from the officer in charge, relevant details regarding the offence in issue and ancillary information, provided that this does not ‘adversely affectthe conduct of further investigationsand the interests of justice.’

But that is all ‘soft soap’ as that pithy idiom puts it. If that clause of this Criminal Procedure Code amendment giving authority to the OIC of the police stations to decide if legal counsel should be allowed or not is retained, the rest of the amendment will be reduced to mere rhetoric. For that regression will veritably eat away at everything else.

A relentless rolling back of civil liberties

And the point is that we are not talking of rights in the abstract here. Let us be quite clear on that. Sri Lanka has an endemic problem of torture, used as the commonest law enforcement method of interrogation. Those practices are inflicted on hapless victims from the North to the South at the very earliest point of arrest as countless studies have shown.

This has been heightened by the lack of effective magisterial intervention, the inadequacy of proper medical examinations and the collusion of prisons officials who, in the traditional meaning of the term, was supposed to ensure that ’fiscal custody’ would provide a safe haven for suspects. Longer arrest periods have changed all that. Relentlessly, all our normal civil liberties protections have been rolled back.

That is the core problem which has to be tackled, not through trainings for police officers (again, more of the ‘soft soap’) but through firm legal safeguards that exist as a matter of right in every developed jurisdiction.

It is quite a simple issue really.

 

Reflections On Governance, Politics Of The Bourgeoisie & The Role Of Progressives In 2007

By Siri Gamage –March 21, 2017

Dr. Siri Gamage

Kumar David’s article (Colombo Telegraph, 01.01.2017) reflecting on events in 2016 points to some of the global challenges facing us in 2017 and the need for the left to unite if we are to avoid returning to the ghosts of the past. This is a message – though not unfamiliar in the annals of Sri Lanka’s political history – which we need to take seriously in 2017. Constitutional discussions and any moves made by the government to devolve further powers to the provinces (justifying the claims of nationalist political forces) have the potential to derail the whole process and even the very existence of the SLFP-UNP national government unless handled very carefully. The lack of a vibrant popular discourse and a popularly understood vision and justification about the need for constitutional reform can haunt those leading the process if it hits a snag without being able to muster the necessary votes in the nation’s parliament.

Given the manner that the joint opposition has evolved to be a significant political force within and outside the parliament, reducing public confidence in the government due to factors including the manner it has handled corruption cases, big government and expensive lifestyles of the ruling class in a context of severe foreign debt, cost of living pressures, planned alienation of large tracts of land to a Chinese company in Hambantota – it is highly likely that there can be defections from the governing coalition to the joint opposition in 2017. This may happen before, during, or after the local government elections. Nonetheless, it will take another year or so for such defections to make a real impact on the ability for Sirisena- Wickremesinghe government to govern effectively. It is also possible for defections to occur the other way at a smaller scale. i.e. from joint opposition to the government.

What is important to notice is that the joint opposition is building its political platform again as the protectors of the nation, its territorial boundaries, Buddhism, and Sinhala people’s rights. This is a platform that resonates with rural masses and middle to lower class urban Sinhalese in the South Western belt, Central and North-Central provinces, Sabaragamuwa etc. Irrespective of corruption charges against his family, as they have not been proven via a credible legal process thus far, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa is actively rebuilding his profile and popular persona travelling around the country and abroad. His constituency in the Sinhalese heartland is likely to accept symbolism couched in nationalist language plus raw emotions and pardon him for any past mistakes when the time comes.

In the meantime, ruling politicians from both major parties seem to have settled into their ministerial and other roles comfortably oblivious to this evolving trend in the mistaken belief that the public at large is still with them, and they can hold legitimate power until the next elections. Until then their main focus seems to be to govern the country’s affairs with the help of local and foreign technocrats and bureaucrats. This is visible largely in the economic arena.

It appears that no leader in the present government seems to be able to generate a national following in the majority Sinhala constituency or the minority Tamil- Muslim constituencies either in terms of a single issue of national significance or a set of such issues. They seem to govern almost by default. If they wanted to organise a national discourse that has resonance among Sinhala Buddhists and others, they would have used the language, critique, issues, and constructive suggestions, espoused by the late Maduluwave Sobhita Thera. But those associated with the organisation Rev. Sobhita led are leveling charges against the government for abandoning the principles that he espoused.

How do we understand this conundrum? How do we understand the need for the left and/or progressives to unite? Whatever the claims and justifications pronounced by the nation’s leaders, the current alliance between the SLFP and the UNP is to be understood as ‘a marriage of convenience’ of the bourgeoisie elements of the ruling class. Beyond that there is no overarching vision, discourse, language, symbols, or images that bind those with loyalty to the present government or even unify them. Some from the educated literati seem to understand the importance of maintaining loyalty to the present government due to the manner it came to power two years ago and by comparison to the threats people faced in their civic life at the time including in human rights arena. But they seem to be a minority. A government formed by a bourgeoisie consensus engineered by Chandrika-Sirisena-Wickremesinghe troika with the technocratic layers and other petty bourgeoisie elements from the capital city and provinces devoid of a powerful and easily understood discourse and vision for the future of the country with a potential to generate a mass following – is destined to unscramble by its own actions or inactions giving the political and moral advantage to the joint opposition in coming years. When or if it happens, it will be too late to address the consequences or indeed the causes of such an event.

The main political, economic, and social forces behind the government that I describe as bourgeoisie (capitalist) can be understood by the terminology of a ruling class. Political leaders are joined by mega capitalists to achieve economic returns from their activities that require government sanctioning. In the absence of a true Yahapalanaya, curtailment of privileges afforded to the ruling class, prosecution and punishment to those who embezzled public money in the previous government, what the average citizen sees is only the replacement of one set of politicians in place of another. In the eyes of the average citizen, the government and the ruling class seem to have lost their legitimacy already – though they may enjoy ‘formal power’ for another few years. It is no surprise that the bourgeoisie come together to achieve economic and other benefits under any government. What is surprising is the inability of the left or progressives to come together for a common cause, vision, and a political platform as Kumar David has alluded to. David has followed up with further articles on this subject in Colombo Telegraph (e.g. CT March 19, 2017).

Common Platform for the left and progressives

What should be the defining features of their political platform? Around which issues should they come together? Here I identify several of these issues that can form the basis for a common political platform.

Read More

REBOOTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM PROCESS: A CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT

Image: Members of a Sri Lankan civil society organisation participate in a candlelight in memory of the slain editor of the Sunday Leader newspaper Lasantha Wickrematunga, in Colombo on January 15, 2009. The editor of Sri Lanka’s Sunday Leader newspaper, Lasantha Wickrematunga, was gunned down just outside the capital on January 8, 2009. AFP PHOTO/Lakruwan WANNIARACHCHI.

21/03/2017

It is now over two months since the constitutional reform process effectively went into abeyance, with the indefinite postponement in January of the submission of the Steering Committee’s Interim Report to the Constitutional Assembly for debate. Substantial work was undertaken during 2015, including the work of the Public Representations Committee, the Subcommittees of the Constitutional Assembly, and the Steering Committee. But the fact that there has been no progress at all on constitutional reform during the first quarter of 2017 is now cause for increasing anxiety.

Constitutional reform was the central rationale for both the change of government and the formation of a government of national unity in 2015. The current distribution of parliamentary representation is also one of the most propitious for building the political consensus necessary for long-needed constitutional reforms. For both these reasons, dissipating – the still available but fast diminishing – window of opportunity for constitutional reform would be a mistake of historic proportions. If it is missed, then it is unlikely we would get another for at least a generation: to reduce executive dominance and centralisation, to enhance the role of parliament, to strengthen constitutional rights and freedoms, and to ensure both devolution to the periphery and power-sharing at the centre.

These reforms are badly needed to ensure democracy, constitutional government, and reconciliation, and to re-lay the foundations for a strong, stable, united, and peaceful Sri Lanka. It is clear that these basic reforms require a new constitution. Piecemeal reforms would be wholly inadequate. A new constitution requires a referendum – which must be won by the government for its own survival –  and this in turn underscores the scale of the project.

We do not assume constitutional reform is an easy task. Even with the cooperation of all and the best will in the world, constitution-making involves the negotiation of difficult questions and disagreements. It would seem therefore that efforts must be redoubled towards restarting the deliberations in the Constitutional Assembly process. The President and Prime Minister must give decisive leadership to this process. As the first step, they must ensure completion of the Interim Report, which should set out the general principles that would guide the drafting of the new constitution. Once this is debated and approved by the Constitutional Assembly, the painstaking task of drafting a Constitution Bill can begin.

Alongside the recommencement of the official process, there are a number of matters to which the government must urgently address itself. The most important task is to develop and implement a strategy of political communication on constitutional reforms. It is abundantly clear that a vast section of the Sri Lankan public has no awareness of what is transpiring in respect of constitutional reform. It is unclear to what extent even elected politicians beyond those directly involved are aware of what is going on. This generates public apathy and allows anti-reform forces to control the political narrative. It is alarmingly clear that these forces are re-grouping, and if they are allowed to succeed, they would hold back the social, political, economic, and constitutional progress of our country for decades. The government must act fast to regain the initiative in this regard and ensure conducive conditions for the constitutional referendum to come.

The President and Prime Minister must work together to ensure that their respective parties are fully behind the government’s programme, and that all members of the government speak with one voice on constitutional reform. They must act as a government of national unity at least until the historic purpose of delivering a new constitution is achieved. Civil society supported the electoral changes of 2015 on the premise that a government of national unity would ensure the constitutional reforms outlined above. We remain committed to supporting a process for a new constitution. However, it is now time for the President and the Prime Minister to infuse a sense of purpose, direction, and urgency to this task.

Download this release, with full list of signatories, in English, Sinhala and Tamil.

Civil-Society-Statement-on-Constitutional-Reform-English.pdf by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

அரசியலமைப்பு சீர்த்திருத்த செயன்முமைமய மீளத்சதொடர்தல் - சிவில் ெமூக அறிக்மக.pdf by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Malaysia’s censorship of Sri Lankan civil war documentary

- Mar 21, 2017

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (JDS) condemn human rights defender Lena Hendry’s conviction on appeal of violating Malaysia’s censorship legislation by organizing a public screening in Kuala Lumpur in 2013 of a film about the Sri Lankan civil war.

She is due to be sentenced tomorrow following a hearing last month at which she was convicted under article 6 (1) (b) of the 2002 Film Censorship Act of screening British journalist Callum Macrae’s documentary “No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka” without the Malaysian Censorship Board’s approval.

The law provides for a possible three-year jail sentence and a fine of 30,000 ringgits (4,000 euros).

The public screening that Hendry organized on 3 July 2013 was interrupted by police, who arrested her and two other activists. Unlike Hendry, the other two activists were released without being charged.

Hendry was acquitted at the original trial before a Kuala Lumpur magistrate’s court on 10 March 2016 but the prosecution appealed. During the hearing, the defence submitted several documents indicating that the Sri Lankan government put political pressure on the Malaysian authorities to prosecute Hendry.

“As the lawyers for the defence showed, Lena Hendry’s conviction was a political reprisal,” said Benjamin Ismaïl, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.“Instead of encouraging the screening of a key documentary about the civil war in Sri Lanka, in which thousands of civilians lost their lives, the Malaysian authorities let themselves be pressured by the Sri Lankan government into censoring a subject of public interest and punishing those who made it available to the public.”

Ismaïl added: “We urge the judicial authorities to quash Hendry’s conviction, which constitutes a grave violating of her fundamental rights – the right to inform and the right to free speech.”

Since its release in 2013, “No Fire Zone” has been screened in Europe, the Americas and other parts of the Asia-Pacific region without any form of censorship. It was even screened subsequently in Kuala Lumpur during an International Anti-Corruption Conference in 2015 and a special screening was organized for Malaysian parliamentarians and civil society members.

“Citizens throughout the world who seek the truth must support Lena Hendry and call on the Malaysian authorities to put an end to this political witch-hunt,” JDS coordinator Bashana Abeywardane said.

“By convicting Hendry, the Malaysian authorities are dealing a severe blow to freedom of expression and the right of access to information, as well as covering up the truth about the major atrocities by the Sri Lankan security forces against Tamils during the civil war.”

RSF and JDS also call for the repeal of Malaysia’s Film Censorship Act, which ­criminalizes the right to inform and thereby promotes self-censorship and grants inordinate powers to the Censorship Board, a regulatory body created by the act that is under the government’s full control.

Malaysia is ranked 147th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

https://rsf.org

Name Dropping Argument

by Laksiri Fernando- Mar 21, 2017

( March 21, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) From the very first sentence of his confused response to my article “A Ray of Hope from Australia: Lessons for Sri Lanka,” Vinod Munesinghe today (The Island, 21 March 2017) has revealed his ideological orientation of ‘servitude to political regimes’ and ‘xenophobic nationalism’ which are regrettably unhealthy, in my opinion, for a democratic political culture in Sri Lanka.

He says, “Perhaps symptomatic of the extent to which the Yahapalanaya regime has failed to fulfil its promises is that its supporters [Laksiri Fernando] among the intelligentsia are now distancing themselves from it.”

Servile Orientation

He is at least surprised in his ‘servile orientation’ to political regimes that I am critical of the present regime although supported political change in January 2015! He should know that my first critical article of the present regime came in May 2015 on the bond issue (“Cabral is no excuse for Mahendran,” Colombo Telegraph, 23 May 2015).

Let me raise another similar point. It is well known that I did support Mahinda Rajapaksa at the 2010 elections. Does that mean that I should have continuously supported MR or his regime? That is what he implies. This is what I mean by ‘servile thinking’ inimical to democracy. People should be able to take independent positions, at times taking unequivocal political decisions.

He repeats six times an unfounded accusation against me that “One of the principal reasons why intellectuals such as Fernando, who were associated with the international non-governmental organisation (INGO) sector, threw themselves so heartily into the Yahapalana camp.” These are cheap propaganda with political motives. It is a common tactic to call NGO names to discredit people. Didn’t Mahinda Rajapaksa once accused Dayan Jayatilleka also working on a NGO agenda?

As a matter of fact, I have never been associated with NGOs in Sri Lanka or INGOs, although I have worked as a professional (Secretary for Asia-Pacific) for the World University Service (WUS) in Geneva during 1984-1991. WUS was an international association of academics all over the world, although sometimes called a NGO. There were so many different Sri Lankan academics who were associated with WUS and I don’t want to mention their names unnecessarily.

Moreover, I don’t see anything wrong in anyone associating with NGOs or INGOs as far as they represent the national or the international civil society. One can be supportive or critical of them, depending on the issues and their activities. Therefore, I do consider the point-blank opposition to NGOs or INGOs as an anti-democratic trend and part of ‘insular/extremist nationalist policies’ whether it is from the Joint Opposition or others.

Our Bunyips!  

Drawing of a Bunyip in 1890

I was amused to hear about Moonesinghe’s interpretation of ‘Bunyip’ Aristocracy in Australia! He says “Far from being nationalist, the right wing of the Australian political spectrum is the remnant of the Bunyip Aristocracy, which fought tooth and nail against separation from Britain – only achieved in 1986.”

There is/was no such a real Aristocracy in Australia. It was a term coined in 1853 by Daniel Deniehy to ridicule those who pretended that they were of aristocratic ancestry. It is an indigenous name for a mythical creature. There can be similar pretence in Sri Lanka. I really don’t know whether Moonesighe likes to consider some of the people in the Joint Opposition (at the top) as Bunyips, because they are also pretending. Only difference being that the Australian Bunyips pretended to be linked to the British aristocracy and our Bunyips pretend to be linked to ancient royals or ‘radalayas.’ Take for example, the bizarre song “Ayubowewa Maha Rajaneni” by Saheli Gamage, otherwise sung in a sweet voice. This is axiomatic of our Bunyips.

The right wing in Australia, when we refer to them in political terms, is based mainly on ideology and policies. The National Party is such a party traditionally representing the regional interests and conservative politics. Their policies on migration (particularly Asian), ethnic minorities and multiculturalism are both right wing and nationalist. However, when compared to the ‘Australia First’ or ‘One Nation’ of Pauline Hansen, they appear to be quite ‘soft.’ To Moonesighe, the right wing is not nationalist; just aristocrats. Is it the same in Sri Lanka? According to him, even Paulin Hansen is not an extremist nationalist, but a Bunyip aristocrat. The main political banner of Hansen today is against Muslims and Islam.

Extremist Views    

Let me set aside his slight that “Fernando… is not quite au fait with the politics of his chosen domicile.” But his attempt to say, apart from Bunyian business, that Australia achieved independence or separation only in 1986 is spurious. Yes, there were past links (still are) and technically there were possibilities for the UK to legislate for Australia or an appeal from Australia to go to a British Court. But those were not in operation. They were formally terminated through the Australia Act 1986.

However, to argue that Australia didn’t have independence until 1986 is quite an extreme point of view. It is like arguing that Sri Lanka only achieved independence in November 1971, after the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, or in 1972 with the New Republican Constitution. I am sure Moonesighe’s line of argument is in that direction which I call ‘insular/extremist nationalism.’ At the next turn, he might even suggest to readjust Sri Lanka’s independence-day. These are unnecessary political arguments to confuse people and arouse nationalist emotions. Any drive for independence of any country takes different steps and stages.

Name Dropping

What a load of name dropping that Moonesinghe has unleashed to painfully argue that I have equated ‘anti-colonial struggles’ with ‘far-right racism.’ That is his own imagination and not mine. I am not sure whether he was even born when I wrote “Jathika Viyaparaya, Viyavastha Vardenaya and Vamansika Viyaparaye Upatha” (Nationalist Movement, Constitutional Development and Origins of the Left Movement) in 1974. But to me, anti-colonial struggle is not an ethno-nationalist struggle, Sinhala or Tamil, in the case of Sri Lanka.

To come back to his name dropping, he talks about Louis Farrakhan, Frantz Fanon, George Padmore, Steve Biko, Marshal Tito and then comes to Sirimavo Bandaranaike and to Anagarika Dharmapala. He goes around countries like America, South Africa, Kenya, Vietnam, Palestine, Czechoslovakia, Uganda, Serbia, and India in a confused virtual sojourn in responding to simple and direct article. When he comes to Sri Lanka, the following is what he says.

Dangerous Pronouncements

To quote him: “The British Empire used Sri Lanka as something of a test-tube in this [sic]: before settling on the Burghers, North-East Tamils and the Muslims, they experimented, with little success, with introducing classes of Chinese and Thanjavur Christian landholders into the mix.”

What a nonsense of historical garbage? It is well accepted that the British used ‘divided and rule’ strategies to keep the colonial people under subjugation. This is accepted by their own historians. But the claim that the ‘Burghers, North-East Tamils and the Muslims’ were settled in this country by the British is not only nonsense, but also dangerous in terms of politics. He has not quoted any historical source.

I would like to ask whether the Joint Opposition subscribes to these views.

This kind of a theory could lead to xenophobic nationalism, ethnic cleansing and already has clear traits of racism.