Sri Lanka: Murderers are not war heroes!

It is very evident that a group connected to the Sri Lanka Navy was behind the abduction. It has been revealed that former Lieutenant Commander Sampath Hettiarchchi, who was engaged in special activities related to Sri Lanka Naval ship Parakrama and former Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda’s personal guard Wasantha Munasighe, had used the officers under him to kidnap them. Around 11 individuals from Colombo, Wattala, Kotahena, Dehiwala and Katunayake areas, have been kidnapped.

by Chamara Lakshan Kumara
Views expressed in this article are author’s own

( July 25, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) With the arrest of former Navy Media spokesperson Commodore D.K.P. Dassanayake, the usual media spectacle accompanied by the drumming up of rhetoric seems to have commenced. Many sing praises of the Commodore and relate tales of his bravery while in service and allege that the Government was and continues to be on the hunt for war heroes.

Uniforms don’t make heroes

How such connection is made is lost to both, the observant reader and the average citizen. Dassanayake was not arrested for his actions committed during the war against terrorism. He was arrested as a suspect for the kidnapping and disappearance of 11 individuals with the aim of collecting ransom through them. A person does not become a war hero just because he wears a uniform. On the other hand, he is not given the authority or licence to commit any lowly act just because he is a member of the defence establishment. The argument is a simple one; if a person acts in violation of the law, he should be punished. It is clear that those who want to sell the ‘war hero’ label in Dassanayaka’s case are only doing that to achieve their own petty political ends. In 2000, the army was losing all its major camps; camps such as Elephant Pass were falling like dominoes into the hands of the terrorists and as the Army lay under siege at Jaffna Fort, it was Major General Janaka Perera who gave the necessary leadership to rescue the soldiers trapped in Jaffna. But during the Rajapaksa regime, he was under severe mental and physical pressure and all those who speak on the rights of war heroes today, did not utter a word in support of Major General Perera then. A similar silence was adopted by these so-called patriots when former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka who led the final fight against the terrorists was continuously persecuted. Society was suppressed to that extent during the Rajapaksa regime.

This is not the first or second time that a member of the Police or Army has been arrested for murders or abductions. On August 6, 1996, Krishanti Kumaraswamy was found raped and murdered; her mother; Rasamma’s 16-year-old brother; Pranavan and a family friend, Kirubarakaran, were strangled and their bodies cut into pieces, were found buried in an army camp. Five suspects from the Army and Police were convicted for these acts. A senior official of the Army was convicted, along with a few other members, for the disappearances of 30 school students from August to November, 1989. In the incident of October, 2000, in Bindunuwewa and in the rape and murder of 16-year-old Premawathi Manamperi on April 16, 1971, the law was enforced on the members of the security forces who committed the crimes, with no special privileges awarded to any of them. Thus, when you compare this incident to our history, this is not an unusual occurrence.

Commodore Dassanayake

The arrest of Commodore Dassanayake was set in motion when former Navy Commander Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda lodged a complaint with the CID in Colombo on May 28, 2009. His complaint was against his personal security officer, Lieutenant Commander Sampath Munasinghe, who had been tasked with investigating links directly or indirectly with the LTTE. The same complaint was investigated by the Navy Provost Marshal Captain Senaka Hanwella, who, when he conducted on-the-spot investigations at a house used by Sampath Munasinghe, found in room number 8 of that house; NICs, passports, credit cards, mobile phones and other personal items of people who had been kidnapped over a long period of time. Among them was a cheque for Rs. 760,000 from the Bank of Ceylon bank in Mt. Lavinia from the account number 049568, a green promissory note bearing no A 3323 for the sum of Rs. 500,000, a pink promissory note bearing number A 5656 for Rs. 400,000; a Commercial Bank pass book holding account number 8020019831, a Bank of Ceylon passbook holding the account number 7960595 and a HNB passbook holding the account number 002020330398, for a person under the name of Sampath; another HNB passbook for the account number 002093553, a passport bearing the number N1431844 under the name of Stanley Leon, a NIC with the number 601772809V under the name K.A. Anton, a NIC with the number 790683021V under the name of Thiyagaraja Jegan, a NIC with the number 584201179V under the name of N.S. Leon, the NICs of Amalan Leon and Roshan Leon; their passports and the mobile phone of a foreigner called Mike Ogan who was living at Ramanadan Flats, was found in the room. Captain Hanwella took all items found into his custody and handed them over to the CID on May 30 for further investigation. It is to be noted here that by this time, Sampath Munasinghe no longer engaged in official naval duties and had got accustomed to a life undercover.

‘Navy Sampath’

Sampath Munasinghe had come to be known increasingly as ‘Navy Sampath’ and when Admiral Karannagoda was the Commander of the Eastern Naval Forces, he worked as an officer in the Trincomalee Naval Intelligence Unit. He came to be known as a talented officer who had uncovered many important information on the LTTE and its operations in the area. When Admiral Karannagoda took over as Navy Commander, he appointed Sampath as his personal security officer. The relationship between the two were close and Karannagoda often treated Sampath as he would his own child. Sampath’s influence in the Navy thus was quite significant and many officers came to him if they wanted their transfers adjusted. It is not clear as to what brought about the breakdown of trust between Karannagoda and Sampath but the rumours over the breakup are many.

In the meantime, Karannagoda came to know many suspicious activities surrounding Munasinghe. Among such complaints was the kidnapping of five students for ransom worth millions. As soon as information on the kidnapping came to light, the Navy Commander had ordered the Navy Intelligence Unit Investigator, Ananda Guruge to conduct an internal investigation into the incidents. The disappearances had been made known to the Commander by Captain Jagath Jayantha Ranasinghe. The youth who were kidnapped were Pradeep Vishwanathan, Thilakeshwaran Ramalingam, Rajiv Naganathan, Mohamed Jilal Jamaldeen and Mohamed Saajith. Ranasinghe had revealed all details through a text message to Commodore Udayakeerthi Vijaya Bandara.

Abductions in play

Having kidnapped the youth, they had called Rajiv Naganathan’s parents and asked that they pay a sum of Rs. 10 million to release their child, but had later reduced the sum to Rs. 1 million and had informed the parents that the money be paid to Sampath, an officer close to the Navy Commander.

The CID, in their investigations, were also able to uncover that out of the NICs and passports handed over to the Department, four of the individuals were reported to be missing since 2008.

Of those missing since 2008, was Stanley Leon, a resident of No. 47/1 Aarippuwala East, Aarippuwala. He had come to Colombo with his son Amalan Leon and the foreigner Mike Ogan to apply for a visa to the United Kingdom. They were staying at the Ramanadan Flats in Kotahena. On August 25, 2008, Amalan and Stanley were kidnapped by an unidentified armed group. The NICs found at Sampath’s official residence was that of Thiyagaraja Jegan from Trincomalee. Jegan, who was working at a jewellery shop in Colombo 13, went missing in 2008.The CID was able to get many useful information regarding the abduction when communicators attached to the Sri Lankan Navy Signal Corps; Aluthgedara Upul Bandara and Lakshman Udaya Kumara, who were working under Sampath Munasinghe, were questioned. Upul Bandara, a resident of Raththota, Matale, had mentioned that in 2008, they were informed by Munasinghe that five suspicious individuals would pass Badowita Road, Dehiwala, around 10 pm and that they needed to be arrested. Lieutenant Commander Hettiarachchi and a group had gone in a van at the time to arrest them. They also brought their 5559 black motor car along with them. The tip-off on the economic situation of Naganathan’s family was given to Munasinghe by Anwer Ali, alias ‘Haajiyar,’ who was in the intelligence service at the time. Anwar Ali is a resident of Dehiwala.

Rajiv Naganathan was a student from a Colombo International School and he was abducted a day before he was to leave to the UK for his higher studies. He had shown great interest in cricket as well and his Advance Level report card states that he had received 2A’s and one B. He was to be a doctor. His parents had also decided to gift him a BMW vehicle for having passed his tests. His birthday parties were held in famous hotels and all these factors came into consideration when he was chosen as a likely candidate to be held for ransom.

On the day before he left, Naganathan had gone out for dinner with his friends to Mount Lavinia near St. Thomas’ College and his plan was to get a haircut in a famous salon and then meet Anwar Ali afterwards.

Based on the information that has been uncovered thus far, Rajiv was kidnapped and brought to the Colombo Navy Camp in Chaithiya Road. He was next sent to the Navy Camp situated near the Navy Jetty in Trincomalee; this is considered to be one of the biggest naval camps in the country.

Call for ransoms

The camp was initially under the British and it was officially taken over by the Sri Lankan Navy in 1957. Several artilleries used during World War II can still be seen here. There are tunnels and warehouses in the camp which they used to store bullets and gun powder. Rajiv and the group were taken to the camp were kept inside one of the underground prisons called the “Gun Side.” They later kidnapped Anwer Ali as well over issues related to ransom.

He was kidnapped when he was returning from Katunayake to Colombo. The CID has found enough evidence to prove that all who were kidnapped were kept in the Trincomalee Navy Camp. Rajiv had also phoned his house from the Navy Camp.A person called Annachchi had called Rajiv’s father Govindar Swamy, demanding Rs. 10 Million as ransom to release his son. After negotiations, the ransom was reduced to Rs. 5 million. The ransom taker had asked him to come to Naarammala and when Swamy asked whether he could come to Welisara, the ransom taker had said he would let him know after talking to ‘big annachchi.’ Meanwhile, on January 15, Rajiv had phoned his father. Govinda Swamy wanted to know whether it was truly his son who was talking to him on the phone; therefore, he had asked a few personal questions also from Rajiv and after that, he had confirmed that it was his son. Rajiv had told everything that had been going on. In April, 2009, Swamy had got another call from a person called Heshan and he had said that his son would be released if he pays the ransom. Heshan, meanwhile, had let Rajiv talk to his parents over the phone several times.

Rajiv had informed his father that he had been brought to Trincomalee from Colombo. Having confirmed his suspicions that his son along with others had been kidnapped by the Navy and were in their custody, Govinda Swamy had approached his friend, Minister Felix Perera for his assistance in their release. Minister Perera had verbally as well as through written request contacted the Navy Commander about it but no action was taken. Further evidence of the fact that the kidnapped were in Trincomalee was found in Anwer Ali’s cousin, Siraj’s phone on 23 March 2009.

“Sampath has caught me. Please inform DIG Kamaldeen and save me,” was the message sent by Ali to his cousin’s phone. On 26 July 2009, Siraj received a phone call from Ali.

“This is the last day they are going to keep me here. Please save me”, said Ali to Siraj at the time. That was the last time he contacted him.

It has now become very clear that all of them were kidnapped for ransom and the person named Annachchi had also contacted Thiyagaraja Jegan’s mother and asked a ransom of Rs. 1 million from her too. In negotiations, thereafter, the amount had been reduced to Rs. 500,000 and she was asked to bring the money to an area in Thambalagamuwa. When she had done so, the person who showed up had tried to run away with the money.

It is very evident that a group connected to the Sri Lanka Navy was behind the abduction. It has been revealed that former Lieutenant Commander Sampath Hettiarchchi, who was engaged in special activities related to Sri Lanka Naval ship Parakrama and former Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda’s personal guard Wasantha Munasighe, had used the officers under him to kidnap them. Around 11 individuals from Colombo, Wattala, Kotahena, Dehiwala and Katunayake areas, have been kidnapped. Having made to held in captivity in secret in Tricomalee Navy Camp, they were made to disappear. The present Commodore Sumith Ranasinghe was the then officer in charge of Sri Lanka Navy Jetty when they were held in captivity.

The writer works for the Daily News, Colombo, where this piece first appeared) 

Killing family: Tamil widow blames RUC for training STF

2017-07-24

A Tamil widow, who has said 10 of her relatives were massacred by Sri Lanka’s police in 1986, has lodged a complaint with Northern Ireland’s Police Ombudsman after Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) links to Sri Lanka’s security forces emerged, the Irish Times reported today.

It said senior Sri Lankan police officers had visited Belfast in 1983 to “see at first hand the roles of the police and army in counter-terrorist operations”, according to secret British government files.

The visit happened months after the Special Support Unit, an elite RUC police commando team, shot dead six men in Co Armagh in one of the most controversial episodes of the Troubles.

Sri Lankan police set up an almost identical commando unit shortly afterwards, called the Special Task Force. The complainant, who cannot be named for safety reasons, says “the Special Task Force was responsible for the murder of my family” in 1986.

Both the RUC and Sri Lankan units consisted of heavily armed police officers who underwent Special Forces training, the article said.

The complainant’s lawyer, Darragh Mackin said “the Special Task Force would not have acquired the paramilitary characteristics of the Special Support Unit without the engagement between the RUC and the Sri Lankan Police”.

Vairamuttu Varadakumar, director of the Tamil Information Centre, welcomed the development. “We support the complainant’s efforts to seek accountability for the brutal violence against their family,” he said.

He said his organisation, which has documented violence against Tamil people for 35 years, was “painfully aware of the murders, rape, disappearances and torture of the Tamil people” at the hands of the Special Task Force.

Declassified files found at the UK National Archives show that civil servants privately harboured fears about these police units before the shootings even took place.

The article further said a CIA report, written around the time that the complainant’s family members were killed, was highly critical of Sri Lanka’s Special Task Force.

US intelligence staff were concerned that “a common STF tactic when fired upon while on patrol is to enter the nearest village and burn it to the ground”.

Mr Mackin has told the Police Ombudsman that the level of indiscriminate killing perpetrated by the unit against Tamils amounted to genocide.

A spokesperson from the ombudsman has said they have received a complaint relating to the actions of police officers in the 1980s and it is now being considered.

SAMPANTHAN URGES SIRISENA TO RELEASE 613 ACRES BELONGS CIVILIANS IN KEPAPPULAVU, MULLAITHEEVU.

24/07/2017

Writing a letter to president Sirisena TNA leader R. Sampanthan has reminded him of his promise to release the land  belongs to  people of  Keppapulavu. The letter says that “I discussed this matter with you and requested Your Excellency to ask the Army to release at the earliest, all Land at Keppapulavu including the block of 70 acres 2 roods, Your Excellency assured me that this would be done.”

The full text of the letter follows:

Image: People of Keppapulavu has been protesting for 150 days now.( Tamil Guardian photo)
20^th July 2017
His Excellency President Maithripala Sirisena
President Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
Colombo.
Your Excellency,

LAND AT KEPPAPULAVU MULLAITIVU, DISTRICT BELONGING TO DISPLACED TAMIL CIVILIANS

The Land at Keppapulavu in Mullaitivu District,now occupied by the Army, belonging to Tamil Civilians comprises of 4 blocks of Land – (01) 243 acres (02) 189 acres (03) 111 acres (04) 70 acres 02 Roods .The total extent of Land is 613 Acres 2 Roods.

I with Hon. Mavai Senathirajah, MP went to this land by 18^th May, and discussed the release of this Land with the Local Army Commander in charge of this area. He informed us that;

1. the 1^st block of Land in extent 243 Acres could be released immediately, that ;
2. the 2^nd block of Land in extent 189 Acres could be released within one month, that;
3. the 3^rd block of Land in extent 111 Acres could be released in around 6 months, and that;
4. in regard to the 4^th block of Land in extent 70 Acres 2 Roods, he faced some difficulties.

On my return to Colombo, I discussed the issue of the release of the 4^th block of Land in extent 70 Acres, 2 Roods, with General Krishantha De Silva the then Army Commander, who informed me that the 04^th block in extent 70 acres and 2 roods could also be released. He also informed me that he was taking steps to have all the Land at Keppapulavu, Mullaitheevu released by about the end of July.

When I met Your Excellency on 23^rd June, I discussed this matter with you and requested Your Excellency to ask the Army to release at the earliest, all Land at Keppapulavu including the block of 70 acres 2 roods, Your Excellency assured me that this would be done.

As Your Excellency is aware the displaced Tamil civilians have been demonstrating for over 141 days at the entrance to their army occupied territory, that their Lands be released so as to enable them to recommence residence, and resume their livelihood activities. Whatever activities have been carried out on the Land after the displacement of the Civilian population has been done without the Land being legally acquired.

These people have suffered for very long, both before and after the end of the War.

I would very strongly urge that urgent action be taken to release all the land at Kepappulavu, Mullaitheevu District to the people entitled to same.

I would respectfully urge that urgent action be taken to release all Lands at Kepappulavu, Mullaitheevu by the end of the month.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

R Sampanthan

Member of Parliament

Leader of the Opposition

Copies to: (i) Hon Ranil Wickramsinghe,Prime Minister

(ii) Defence Secretary-Ministry of Defense

(iii) Gen.Krishantha De Silva

Former Army Commander, Presently Chief of Staff, Sri Lanka Armed Forces.

(iv) Gen.Mahesh Senanayake, Army Commander,

Only Class Action Can Bring Justice To Uma Oya Project Victims

By Ameer Ali –JULY 25, 2017

Dr. Ameer Ali

I was in Sri Lanka a couple of weeks ago and had the opportunity to travel through Bandarawela, a unique destination for eco-tourists. Even during the colonial period Bandarawela with its semi-temperate climate was the main holiday destination for the foreign masters. Its reputation as a relaxing holiday resort in beautiful Sri Lanka still remains undiminished. What a paradise?

However, I was shocked to see the irreparable damage caused to the town’s water supply by the so called Uma Oya project – a project politically motivated, dubiously designed and hastily executed by the former regime. Although the economic motive was to divert water from the Uma Oya and Kirindi Oya rivers to the dry lands in Hambantota, the birth place of the former president, a lack of proper assessment of the project’s side effects has proved disastrous to Bandarawela. There is nothing wrong in irrigating lands in the dry zone with excess water available in other parts of the country. In the medieval times Sri Lanka was a shining example of a hydraulic civilization.

But mega irrigation projects should be designed in the light of a strict cost-benefit analysis. The cost should include not only the financial cost but also, and more importantly, the environmental cost. Just because a foreign country, and in this case Iran, has agreed to fund the project it should not be undertaken without proper feasibility study. The callous indifference shown towards the environment by the Uma Oya project has not only deprived Bandarawela of its natural water supply but also has caused structural damage to thousands of residential and commercial buildings. Substandard engineering work is definitely to be blamed. But ultimately the buck stops with the government in power. 

I was visiting a house in the town, which is more than one hundred years old and occupied by an acting judge. It was actually more than a house and resembled a magnificent repository for some rare legal records systematically arranged and displayed. The building and its contents are of immense historical value. Shockingly, the floor of the house, its walls and ceilings are all cracked and even the bed room of the occupants is massively damaged. They were not just hair line cracks which could be patched up but massive cleavages threatening total collapse at any time. This seems to be the fate of hundreds of other houses and buildings, new and old.

The current government, although is not directly responsible to this disaster, is nevertheless answerable to the Bandarawela citizens. One should not forget that President Maithripala Sirisenawas also a senior member of the Rajapaksa cabinet. Environmental neglect, when designing and executing megaprojects in the name of development, and the consequent damage caused by such projects to individuals, families and buildings cannot be ignored simply by throwing a few million rupees as compensation to the victims. Restoring Bandarawela’s water supply and rebuilding the damaged structures will certainly involve substantial outlays. Will the authorities provide proper justice to the victims of this town?

Read More

The saga of Sri Lanka’s new Constitution

Meera Srinivasan

-UPDATED: JULY 23, 2017 

Speaking at a book launch last week, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the draft of Sri Lanka’s new Constitution would be ready by January 2018, yet again shifting the deadline for the challenging task his government took up after coming to power in 2015. As per earlier assurances, the government should have already debated the draft Constitution in Parliament by now, and prepared for a referendum after a likely two-thirds majority. But even as the government tried fast-tracking the process, a section of the country’s influential Buddhist clergy said there was no need for a new Constitution.

The government was quick to counter that. Senior Minister and Cabinet spokesman Rajitha Senaratne said they would go ahead with drafting the new Constitution as per the mandate they got in the 2015 elections. President Maithripala Sirisena, meanwhile, assured the chief prelates that the government would keep them posted on the draft. Going by the public statements made by the President and the Prime Minister, it appears that the leaders are committed to their promise – a new Constitution that brings an end to the executive Presidency and, among other reforms, enables a comprehensive political solution to the Tamil question through enduring power devolution. However, the pace of the ongoing efforts and the recurring political pressure from within the government raise some difficult questions for the leaders.

The pressure is partly to do with the complex arrangement of a “national unity” government, with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the rival United National Party (UNP) cohabiting it. With a section of SLFP MPs reportedly threatening to join former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who now sits in the opposition, the insecurities within both the party and the government appear to be growing. The UNP, on the other hand, is apparently focussing on its version of economic development, with PM Wickremesinghe even announcing a new round of liberalisation.
Two-year extension

There seems to be a widely-shared understanding that this government should look ahead faster than it needs to look behind. That is what the March UN resolution in Geneva, co-sponsored by the U.S., Sri Lanka and other countries, seemed to indicate when it gave the country a two-year extension to fulfil its commitments on accountability. The Tamil leadership, too, willingly emphasised Constitutional reform over accountability, drawing high praise from the international community for its constructive cooperation with the government. As the formal exercise of Constitution making, through six sub-committees, a steering committee and a Constitutional Assembly, saw a lull, President Sirisena sought to break the deadlock by initiating tripartite talks, led by him, with the Prime Minister and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the main Opposition party. As far as the people are concerned, there is little information in the public domain as to where these initiatives currently stand.


At the same time, the Tamil leaders’ patience is evidently waning. Amid severe criticism from sections of its support base in the north, the TNA has begun articulating its frustration with the government loud and clear. During a meeting with Singapore’s Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, who was in Colombo recently, TNA leader R. Sampanthan said: “The UNP and the SLFP must put their petty political agendas aside and come together to lead the Constitution-making process to a success.” Whether the national leaders and their parties share his concern should be rather clear in the next few months.

Our right to new Constitution

V Thirunavukkarasu (Former Member-Monday, July 24, 2017

The Venerable Mahanayake Theras of the Buddhist Chapters suddenly met in Kandy on July 4 under the leadership of the Asgiriya Chapter Mahanayaka Most Venerable Warakagoda Gnanaratna Thera. The purpose is to stall the ongoing Constitution-making process which is already more or less halfway through. First of all, the million dollar question is as to why such a concern on their part arose after nearly one and a half years, and not at the beginning of the process.

As is well known, the National Unity Government, with the two traditional arch rivals happily joining hands for the first time in the country’s long term interest, secured the people’s mandate to form the National Unity Government, inter alia, to enact and operate a new Constitution. Hence, it is irrevocably incumbent on the Government to carry out the sovereign people’s mandate, and there shouldn’t be any hindrance from any quarter in this respect. Of course, all sections of the people of all races and religions have had the opportunity to present their views and ideas from the time the Public Representations Committee headed by a political leader and Attorney-at-law Lal Wijenaike started functioning at the inception. What has to be borne in mind by one and all is that the people’s mandate cannot be jettisoned.

Executive Presidency

Now, it is common knowledge that the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who had pledged in 2005 to abolish the Executive Presidency, reneged on that pledge. On the contrary, having gone halfway through his second term, he got the infamous 18th Amendment passed in Parliament to remove the mandatory two-term limit to seek election to the Presidency, insatiably aspiring to become the first third term President, but of course it misfired thanks to the will of the people which is the most paramount factor.

Presently, of course, he is a Member of Parliament as well as the foremost leader of the Joint Opposition (JO) representing the dissident wing of the UPFA, including the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP), the National Freedom Front (NFF) and the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) led by Parliamentarians Dinesh Gunawardena, Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila respectively. The notorious propaganda of the JO is that (a) Federalism has all but been conceded, putting paid to the Unitary State system, and (b) that the foremost place given to Buddhism is being compromised. Such a bizarre misleading propaganda is nothing but an insult to their own intelligence, besides taking the sovereign people for fools.

National Unity Government

Well, the National Unity Government appeared somewhat taken aback by the sudden moves of the Buddhist Chapters which might well erode the Government’s 2015 mandate to take the country along the path of peace and reconciliation, to fast-track economic development for democracy to thrive, so that people of all races and religions could live in peace and amity.

In the meantime, President Maithripala Sirisena has met with the Mahanayake Theras in Kandy and assured them that there will be due consultations with them once the final draft of the Constitution is ready. Of course, the Mahanayake Theras can have their say even at this stage of the Constitution-making processes, but at the end of the day, the National Unity Government should boldly act in accordance with the people’s mandate handed down at the two elections in 2015. What is of most paramount importance is that there should be no question of pandering to the whims and fancies of any segment, apparently driven by a hidden hand.

Bandaranaike- Chelvanayakam pact

It is quite appropriate in this connection quote a journalist of yore of no mean repute, Tarzie Vitachchi, from his book titled ‘Emergency ’58’. Here is what he said on the question of the price paid for pandering:

“When a Government, however popular, begins to pander to racial or religious emotionalism, merely because it is the loudest of the raucous demands made on it, and then meddles in the administration and enforcement of law and order for the benefits of its favourites, or win the plaudits of a crowd, however hysterical it may be, catastrophe is certain.”

What is historically relevant to remember in this connection is the situation that led to Bandaranaike’s unilateral abrogation of the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact in 1958, that is well-nigh six decades ago. Chelvanayakam had consciously accepted the pact, knowing well that it was a halfway house, even though some of his confidants had their own reservations.

The fact that Bandaranaike found himself meekly abrogating the B-C pact due to extraneous pressure especially from the Buddhist clergy, is history, and a real tragedy; for had the BC pact been fully implemented sans any obstructions, the chequered problem could well have been well and truly finally resolved as the years went by, and there would certainly have been no war and the colossal destruction of life, limb and property.

Let lessons be learnt. Let wisdom prevail. Better late than never. 

Is the Govt. playing ‘good cop, bad cop?’

  Visiting UN officials and 2015 HRC resolution:  
 

It seems to have become customary for the yahapalana government to make significant gestures towards compliance with the demands of the 2015 US-led Human Rights Council resolution, to coincide with visits by foreign officials. 

UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman with President Maithripala Sirisena

It’s notable that President Sirisena gazetted the controversial Office of Missing Persons (OMP) Act during the visit to Sri Lanka of Jeffrey Feltman (19-21 July), UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs. Similarly it appears that high profile arrests of officials associated with the government’s political rivals from the previous regime, also tend to take place during these visits – as if to prove a point to external observers. The unprecedented arrest of Commodore D. P. K. Dassanayake took place while Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on counter terrorism was in the country (10-14 July), leading Emmerson to (inappropriately) remark on it at the press briefing.  

The government has good reason to be worried about the intentions of these visiting officials in UN garb, ostensibly to promote peace and reconciliation. Jeffrey Feltman’s visit came within five days of Emmerson’s departure, but little is known as to what transpired during his interactions with government and the TNA and in the Eastern Province, apart from his vague pledge that “UN would continue to extend fullest support to Sri Lanka’s development process and reconciliation.”

One should not forget that Feltman is the second highest official in the UN system after the Secretary General, and advises the UNSG on peace and security issues globally. What was his real mission?  

The background of Feltman might suggest some answers. Feltman is an American who was appointed to the position of UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs in July 2012 after having worked for 30 years in the US foreign service, including in the office of Deputy Secretary of State. His last position was as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. He was preceded in the UN post by Lynn Pascoe, also a former US diplomat. “The US essentially owns this UN position” wrote Daya Gamage, political correspondent for the ‘Asian Tribune.’ In a comment on Feltman’s first visit to Sri Lanka in February 2015, to prove this point Gamage described how:   “At the meeting of the International Support Group for Lebanon last year, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Jeffrey D. Feltman, filled in for US Secretary of State, John Kerry, when the latter had to leave to attend to the Ukraine crisis. This shows that Feltman is not an international civil servant, but a U.S. official attached to the United Nations. He retains his prerogatives as former Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East Affairs and combines them with his new international functions.”  

• Govt. has reason to worry over these visiting officials’ intentions

• Feltman’s visit came within five days after Emmerson’s departure 

• Jeffrey Feltman worked for 30 years in the US Foreign Service

• His name cropped up in relation to US backed coup in Ukraine

• Ben Emmerson’s pompous behaviour widely seen as overstepping his mandate

UN Special Rapporteur on counter terrorism Ben Emmerson

Gamage’s profile of Feltman came with the warning that “Sri Lanka is on a ‘constitution-making’, and most importantly, ‘national government making’ when Feltman arrives in Colombo” (‘Divisive and Manoeuvring UN (or US ?) top official - Jeffrey Feltman - in Sri Lanka’ - 26.02.15)  

It may be also relevant to recall that Feltman’s name cropped up in relation to the US backed coup in Ukraine that ousted democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich in 2014. This came to light in the infamous leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland, then Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, and Geoff Pyat, then US ambassador to Ukraine, where Nuland unabashedly referred to the need to get UN officials into the picture during the US manoeuvring (which sought to exclude the EU) in order to give a vestige of credibility to the coup, or, ‘to glue this thing,’ as she put it. Her remarks suggest that Feltman, the UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, was used, to serve the US agenda:   

Nuland: … “when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy …Robert Serry – he’s now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday… so that would be great I think to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and you know f*** the EU.” (Counterpunch 05.03.14)  

UN Special Rapporteur on counter terrorism Ben Emmerson visited Sri Lanka just ahead of Feltman. His pompous behaviour was widely seen as overstepping his mandate, by bullying, threatening and ‘taking sides’ in the host country’s politics. In a scathing critique, two former UN Permanent Representatives (in Geneva and New York respectively) Tamara Kunanayakam and Dr. Palitha Kohona said in a newspaper article published on Saturday, that Emmerson’s report and remarks were “arbitrary, judgemental, arrogant, accusatory, threatening, interventionist, and insulting.” They further said:  

“His integrity, independence and impartiality, as well as his professionalism were brought into question by the threat he was reported to have made at the media briefing in Colombo that “a range of consequences” will “befall Sri Lanka” if it failed to meet “the United Nations Human Rights Council commitments.”  

"Jeffrey Feltman’s visit came within five days of Emmerson’s departure, but little is known as to what transpired during his interactions with Govt. and TNA"

The two former ambassadors said Emmerson’s professionalism was called into question by his listing, among possible measures, “unilateral coercive measures that were contrary to international law and others that were the sole prerogative of the Council”: “ (a) the revocation of Sri Lanka’s “newly regained GSP+ facility” by the European Union; (b) “potentially increasing the various measures by the Human Rights Council or indeed a reference to the Security Council” – decisions that are the prerogative of the Human Rights Council; and (c) “a range of measures increasing in severity that are potentially available” to an “international community,” that he does not define. “  

They asked: “If Emmerson was not acting within the scope of his mandate and in the interest of the UN, then the legitimate question is for whom was he acting, in whose interest?”   

A clue to the answer, they said, was to be found in Emmerson’s identification, at the Colombo media briefing, with the party likely to initiate a follow-up resolution in March 2019, when the HRC discusses implementation of the 2015 resolution: “Emmerson said “all of that, we [our emphasis] will have to look at, at the end of the current extension” Emmerson’s ‘alignment’ is clear, as the two diplomats show.
After Emmerson left the country the government expressed dismay to the media saying it was ‘unhappy with his report.’ President Sirisena is reported to have queried who gave permission for Emmerson to meet LTTE detainees. These reactions are surprising considering that it was the Government of Sri Lanka that invited Emmerson and allowed him to go wherever he wanted and meet whoever he chose. Is the government trying to play ‘good cop, bad cop’ - in a bid to pander to the western architects of the HRC resolution on the one hand, and placate outraged public opinion and avoid disaffection within its ranks, on the other? For how long will people be fooled?  

"After Emmerson left SL, the govt. expressed dismay to media saying it was ‘unhappy with his report.’  The President is reported to have queried who gave permission for Emmerson to meet LTTE detainees"

The bill on enforced disappearances

By Neville Ladduwahetty-July 24, 2017, 8:22 pm 

The Bill states that it seeks "to give effect to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances." The Convention that was ratified by Sri Lanka on May 3, 2016 came into force on June 24, 2016. The Bill neither specifies the context in which it is intended to operate nor defines "Enforced Disappearances". Under these circumstances both context and definition have to follow what is stated in the International Convention.

THE CONTEXT: As stated in Article 1 Clause 2 of the Convention:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearances".

THE DEFINITION: As stated in Article 2 of the Convention:

"For the purposes of this Convention, "enforced disappearance" is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law".

It follows, therefore, that under no circumstances, not even during an emergency which threatens the life of the nation such as happened during the Armed Conflict in Sri Lanka, could Enforced Disappearances as defined be justified. According to the definition, "enforced disappearance" means "depriving a person’s liberty" and refusing to disclose his/her whereabouts etc. etc"…with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State". Thisprovision violates the Constitution of Sri Lanka relating to "personal liberty" statedin Articles 13(1) and 13(2) during an emergency.

It should be noted that Article 15 (7)subtitled "Restrictions on Fundamental Rights",states that Articles 13(1), 13(2) "shall be subject to such RESTRICTIONS (emphasis added) as may be prescribed by law in the interests of national security, public order and the protection of public health or morality…". Therefore, the provision in Article 13(2) that a "…person held in custody, detained or otherwise deprived of personal liberty…"could be subjected to restriction during an emergency that threatens the life of a nation is recognized in the Constitution of Sri Lanka. The Bill on the other hand does NOT recognize any restrictions during an emergency. Thus the provisions in the Bill violate the Constitution.

Notwithstanding such contradictions Article 13(6) states:

"No person shall be held guilty of an offence on account of any act or omission which did not, at the time of such act or omission, constitute such an offence and no penalty shall be imposed for any offence more severe than the penalty in force at the time such offence was committed".

"Nothing in this Article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations". Thus, a provision in the Constitution could become subordinate to a provision accepted by the "community of nations".

The Convention was adopted by the UN on December 20, 2006 and was opened for signature on February 6, 2007. As of July 23, 2017, ONLY 57 nations have signed and ratified the Convention. While several countries have only signed, but NOT ratified the Convention, others such as the U.S.; U.K.; Australia; Canada; China; Russia and Pakistan and other countries have not signed. Therefore, since it is reasonable to conclude that the Convention is NOT recognized as law by the "community of nations", its provisions should not be retroactive. Thus, Article 13 (2) does not apply to offences prior to 2007 and Article 13(6) is not applicable to provisions in the Bill,because the Bill is subordinate to the Constitution.

A fact that is clearly evident is that while underemergency situations that"threaten the life of a nation", as happened during and after the Armed Conflict in Sri Lanka,the Constitution recognizes the principle that certain Fundamental Rights could be derogated for the survival of the nation, the Bill does not. Thus, the Bill is in violation of the Constitution.

Consequently, the options are that either the Bill is revised to accommodate existing provisions in the Constitution or for the Constitution to be amended to accommodate provisions in the Bill. If it is to be the latter route since some of the amendments relate to fundamental rights included as part of the sovereignty of the People per Article 3, any amendments to provisions in the Constitution relating to Fundamental Rights will need a two-thirds majority in Parliament and approval by people at a referendum.

THE ISSUE of EXTRADITION

Article 8 of the Bill states:

"Where a request is made to the Government of Sri Lanka, by or on behalf of the Government of a Convention State for the extradition of any person accused or convicted of an offence under sections 3 or 4, the Minister shall, on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka, forthwith notify the government of the requesting State of the measures which the government of Sri Lanka has taken, for the prosecution or the extradition of that person for that offence".

According to this provision, the possibility exists that any personcould be extradited to a Convention State on a mere accusation. Such accusations could originate in Sri Lanka or in a Convention State. Either way, the Bill has no provision for any procedures that should be followed within Sri Lanka or outside; not even a preliminary investigation, other than what the Minister proposes. The lack of any formalised procedures to establish the credibility of the accusation prior to extradition presents ample opportunities for arbitrariness, selectivity, abuse and victimization.

Notwithstanding the provision in Article 8, Article 6 of the Bill states that the High Court of Sri Lanka "…shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try offences relating to Enforced Disappearances". It also states that IF an offence is committed outside Sri Lanka, the High Court "shall have the jurisdiction to try such offences as if they were committed within Sri Lanka"whether the person is or is not a citizen of Sri Lanka, a habitual resident of Sri Lanka, or a national of a Convention State. Therefore, the need for extradition if requested by a Convention State does not arise as long as the High Court has jurisdiction to try offences both within and without Sri Lanka. Thus, it is starkly evident that Articles 6 and 8 in the Bill contradict each other, and furthermore, that Article 8 is redundant.

CONCLUSION

The Bill is intended to give effect to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. In the absence of the context in which the Bill is expected to operate, as well as a definition of "Enforced Disappearances", it is necessary to rely on the wording in the International Convention upon which this Bill is being based. According to the Convention, the context is that NO exceptional circumstances, even emergencies, "may be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearances". However, the Constitution of Sri Lanka recognizes that certain circumstances,such as emergencies exist, where the principle of derogation of certain Fundamental Rights is acknowledged. This being the case, the Bill contradicts the Constitution of Sri Lanka. Therefore, either the Bill has to be revised, or the Constitution has to be amended, and since Fundamental Rights are included as a component of the sovereignty of the People in Article 3 of the Constitution, any amendment relating toFundamental Rights would amount to amending an entrenched Clause in the Constitution, which would thus require a 2/3 majority of Parliament and approval by the people ata referendum. Furthermore, since provisions in the Convention also violate provisions in the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the Government should be held accountable for signing and ratifying the Convention.

The Bill states that the High Court has the jurisdiction to try offences relating to Enforced Disappearances whether committed within Sri Lanka or outside it, if committed by any person, whether a Sri Lankancitizen or not, by a habitual resident in Sri Lanka,or a national of a Convention State. Since members of the security forces would be Sri Lankan citizens, and since offences relating to Enforced Disappearances would be tried by the High Court, there are no grounds whatsoever for extradition. Under these circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for the existence of Article 8 along with Article 6 in the Bill.

It is evident from the foregoing that this Bill not only violates the Constitution but also contains Articles that contradict each other. In view of these multiple flaws, the Bill should be withdrawn. Furthermore, as long as existing provisions in the Constitution remain, the provisions in the Convention cannot be accommodated. Sri Lanka should therefore withdraw from being a Convention State.

Pronunciation: Charlie Choplin

By Jagath Asoka –JULY 25, 2017

Dr. Jagath Asoka

Recently, I have read several articles—on Colombo Telegraph—related to mispronunciation. I have something to say about this subject. Here is a small dose of my opinion, even though I know that you are not eager to have me opine about this stentorian topic; even though I am not qualified to make pronouncements about pronunciation, I believe that self-deprecation is an admirable quality, and I am not embarrassed to share my experience; I invite you to share your own experience with us. 

Every day, I struggle with my accent and pronunciation: a double whammy. My son Rocco is the only person who can clearly understand me; with others, now and then, I have to repeat or paraphrase, especially over the phone. Probably that is why I prefer writing instead of talking to people, because if you chose to read what I have written, I do not have to pronounce, repeat, or paraphrase. There is another side to this double whammy; once I was a consultant for an American company that did business with a Chinese company: My job was to paraphrase and translate Chinese English into American English without making it obvious to our Chinese partners; this is the only time I ever felt proud of my oral language skills; I felt like I was the mediator, facilitating a conversation between a blind and a deaf person.

When it comes to pronunciation, there are people who do not give the subject a second thought. Their attitude is: Say it the way you want it; no one cares about your pronunciation; it is inarticulateness, not pronunciation that matters. Would you say to your own children, “There are no mistakes; don’t worry about diction, syntax, grammar, spelling, and pronunciation because they are useless and boring.” Here is my question to you: Do you easily swallow this nonsense, an invitation to disaster?

You can become a millionaire or President of the United States, even with your beastly mispronunciation, but still you may be ridiculed.

I do not know about you, but when I do not know how to pronounce a word, I usually consult a dictionary; however, here is the problem:  Most of the time, I think—but I am wrong most of the time—my pronunciation is not that beastly. Then there is another inherent problem: consult various leading American dictionaries to find out how to pronounce W, the only letter in the English alphabet that commands more than one syllable; you will find four variants, but it deserves only one pronunciation— clear and dignified: DUHB-ul-YOO (like double you). Now, you know how to pronounce “George W. Bush.”

When I was a kid—growing up in Sri Lanka—most people in my neighborhood spoke English. So, I was a listener, not a talker. In my neighborhood, if you were to mispronounce a word, that mispronunciation would become your first name, and you would be known by that name for the rest of your life in that circle. One of my friends inherited the sobriquet Charlie Choplin because he mispronounced Charlie Chaplin. Afterwards, facetiously, we used the pronunciation Charlie Choplin so often that when someone said “Charlie Chaplin,” we would laugh at them. Now, here is the rest of the story: It has been almost forty years since I initially left Sri Lanka. Those who ridiculed others were unaware of their own beastly mispronunciations; I learned some of these beastly mispronunciations from the Sri Lankan elite, and I am still struggling to unlearn them; here are some simple examples:

Even though Sri Lankans do not say “lice” instead of “rice,” yegg instead of egg, or pee instead of be, they say flim instead of film. Before we talk about pronunciation, let me ask you a simple question: how do you pronounce the word “pronunciation?” Is it pro-noun-ciation or pro-nun-ciation? Listen to the people around you: some say pro-noun-ciation instead of pro-nun-ciation. There is no pronoun in pronunciation.

Most Sri Lankans pronounce zoo in zoology, zoologist, and zoological. There is no zoo in zoology (Zoh-AHL-uh-jee), zoologist (Zoh-AHL-uh-jist), and zoological (ZOH-uh-LAHJ-i-kul).    

I can list so many other words where I am still trying to unlearn my Sri Lankan pronunciations, but I do not think that is apposite.

If you do not care about your diction and pronunciation, read the following two stories about mumpsimus and malapropism.

According to an apocryphal story, a poorly educated Catholic priest during a Latin mass wanted to say, “Quod ore sumpsimus, Domine (What we have received orally, Lord),” instead of sumpsimus (we have received), he said the non-word mumpsimus. He kept repeating his erroneous usage even after being made aware of.  Now, both sumpsimus and mumpsimus are real English words: mumpsimus, adherence to or persistence in an erroneous use of language, out of habit or obstinacy (opposed to sumpsimus, adherence to or persistence in using a strictly correct term).

Read More