Monday, August 14, 2017

‘The stigma is more in my own mind’: men on using Viagra

‘I think a lot of men still feel inadequate if they suffer from erectile dysfunction.’ Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images

Viagra use among men has tripled, with doctors saying there is less stigma around it. We asked readers whether they agreed

Sarah Marsh and Guardian readers-Monday 14 August 2017

Prescriptions for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs have nearly tripled in the past decade, according to NHS data. The rise is partly due to the fact the cost of Viagra fell by 85.9% in 2013.
Doctors say there is also increased awareness among men of the use of Viagra as medication for a serious illness and less stigma around erectile dysfunction.

We asked readers to share their thoughts and experiences of taking Viagra.

‘Talk about it and don’t bottle things up’ – Philip, 67, living in France

A lot of men still feel inadequate if they suffer from erectile dysfunction, so won’t discuss the subject with a doctor even though this should be their first port of call.

I switched from Cialis to sildenafil [Viagra] because the former gave me a headache, but the latter doesn’t. Also, sildenafil costs less. Living in France, this medication is not cheap, so I have an account with a UK-based online medical consultancy, which is regulated and reliable.

If erectile dysfunction is a problem then talk about it with your partner and then your GP. In my case, it was age-related. Second, Viagra is not an aphrodisiac. You need good stimulation from your partner to achieve an erection. Third, Viagra is not for younger men who don’t have erectile dysfunction. Fourth, take it with water not with grapefruit juice as it can lead to a big drop in blood pressure. Last, talk about it and don’t bottle things up.

There are thousands of dodgy website selling erectile dysfunction medication which men will use to avoid talking about the problem. Don’t use these websites. There are reputable services in the UK. But, if you can go via your GP to the NHS, all the better.

‘Viagra has been a real life-changer for me’ – Mark, 55, from Berkshire

I suffer from multiple sclerosis which is why I am prescribed Viagra. I never felt a stigma about taking it but guess that some men without a specific medical reason may still feel some.

My GP can only prescribe four pills per month on NHS so I need to buy additional from the internet. I have probably bought from a dozen suppliers on the web before and have always received a legitimate product at a fraction of the private price. As with everything you need to take note of vendor reviews and feedback. Maybe I’ve just been lucky.

When I started taking Viagra, many years ago now, it made an enormous difference to my quality of life and the quality and stability of my relationship. It was a real life-changer.

‘My GP said he was prescribing it more and more’ – Ian, 67, from Dorset

Since I was prescribed Viagra I mentioned it to several friends and found that most (80% of a statistically useless sample) either had used it or were taking it. This is men of all ages, from their mid-50s to over 70. I also know of one younger guy who takes it, an acquaintance in the gym.

My GP said that he was prescribing it more and more and one of my friends didn’t bother with the doctor but went straight to an internet site to obtain it. He used the same site for extra supplies as the NHS limits you to four tablets every 28 days.
Is the NHS limit that reasonable?

‘Taking Viagra has greatly benefited my marriage’ – David, 69, from Wales

I have never discussed taking Viagra with anyone except my doctor and wife, so I don’t know whether there is less stigma. I take a low 25mg dose when hoping to have sex. It does not always produce an erection, you need to have strong and continuing desire for it to work.

Minor side-effects for me sometimes include headaches, flushing and loose bowels. It’s not a problem. Taking the drug has greatly benefited my marriage. A stronger erection means better sex.

‘There is less stigma perhaps, but it’s still there’ – Lee, 80, from Buckingham

Perhaps the stigma – if it exists – is not so much with Viagra as it is erectile dysfunction. It’s difficult to admit you’ve “lost” your manhood.

Erectile dysfunction crept slowly up on me during my 60s and 70s but the desire is still strong. I tried Viagra and Cialis for many years but in the end the side-effects – flu-like symptoms, red eyes, hot flushes – proved the game not worth it. I also suffered a thrombosis in the retinal vein. I’m told there is some history for this with Viagra and though it has not been scientifically investigated, it should be. I now use a topical cream called Vitaros: tumescence without the side-effects.

‘For me, it has always been about making sex last longer’ – Charles, 64, from London

I have been using Viagra to enhance the sexual experience for the last 15 years. It has never been about not getting an erection. It has always been about making sex last longer. Erectile dysfunction is a complete misnomer.

It is now very cheap, around £1.50 for a 100mg tablet which does at least two sessions. There are no real side-effects except a bit of a flush. It works like magic within half an hour.

‘I suspect the stigma will stop some men from getting it and lead to depression’ – Ben, 47, from London

‘My GP said he was prescribing it more and more’ – Ian, 67, from Dorset

‘Taking Viagra has greatly benefited my marriage’ – David, 69, from Wales

‘There is less stigma perhaps, but it’s still there’ – Lee, 80, from Buckingham

‘For me, it has always been about making sex last longer’ – Charles, 64, from London

‘I suspect the stigma will stop some men from getting it and lead to depression’ – Ben, 47, from London

I told my partner and she was very supportive, but she thinks I take it now and then. I would be too embarrassed to tell her how often I take it – basically every time we have sex. It is embarrassing. There is stigma. I use an online pharmacy and pay more than I should. My NHS GP was supportive but totally impractical. They gave me a prescription for four tablets at a time and this meant I was constantly going to the local GP for appointments to collect repeat prescriptions.

It should be cheaper and easier to get it in the NHS. I buy sildenafil and one side-effect has been I no longer take antidepressants. My sex life is great and it’s helped me feel better about myself. I would much rather take Viagra or an equivalent than an antidepressant. I suspect the stigma will stop other men doing this and lead to depression.

‘The stigma is more in my own mind than in reality’ – Ken, 64, from Nottingham

I think stigma is probably getting less but it’s not something that comes into general conversation. I imagine that people like myself have no second thoughts about using Viagra because there is a need to maintain relationships, or in my case make new ones following a divorce. It is a godsend.

I got erectile dysfunction as a result of a mixture of medical and psychological causes. I was reluctant to tell my partner at first but when it came to light I was chastised only for thinking that I needed to hide it at all. So there is a degree of stigma more in my own mind than in reality.

Some names have been changed.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

RELEASE THE LAND OCCUPIED BY MILITARY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CIVILIANS, TNA TELLS SIRISENA

Image courtesy of Ceylon Today.

13/08/2017

In a letter to President Sirisena leader of the TNA, R. Sampanthan requested to release the land at Keppapulavu, Mullaitivu District belonging to displaced Tamil Civilian without delay. The letter further says that “It is more than a decade since the civilians were compelled to vacate the Land; it is more than eight years since the Armed Conflict came to an end; these civilians have been demonstrating at the entrance to this land for 165 days up to now ,and the demonstration continues in the sun and the rain ,amidst immense suffering.

“The Land was taken over, without the consent of Civilians, and despite their strong protests, and has been occupied without the Land being legally acquired.”
The letter follows:

1th August 2017

Mr.Kapila Waidyarathne PC

Secretary

Ministry of Defence

No-15/5,Baladaksha Mawatha

Colombo-03

Dear Sir,

Land at Keppapulavu,Mullaitivu District belonging to displaced Tamil Civilians

I thank you for your letter No: MOD/PAC/01/L/938/AY of 09.08.2017 in regard to the above received by me yesterday.

This matter has been under consideration at different levels for some time, the last discussion was under the Chairmanship of Hon D M Swaminathan,Minister of Rehabilitation on 26th July 2017,at the Ministry of Rehabilitation.

I confirm all that I have stated in my Letter of 20th July 2017, to His Excellency the President with Copy to you and others. Secretary to the President has responded to my aforesaid letter by his letter No: SP/4/1 of July 28, 2017.

A decision was reached at the meeting held on 26th July 2017,at the Ministry of Rehabilitation to release the Land in extent 111 Acres at the earliest and the Hon Minister of Rehabilitation agreed to provide the required funds, within a few days to enable the Sri Lankan Army to commence the process of vacating the said Land.

As per the agreement reached, the vacation of this land should now be in progress. The only issue that remains is the land in extent 70 Acres 2 Roods, which I believe is the same block of Land,reffered to your letter of 09.08.2017 as being in extent 73.11 Acres .In regard to this block I confirm what I have stated in my letter of 20th July 2017 to His Excellency the President.

Confirmation of this position is also contained in the response of the Secretary to the President in his letter dated July 28, 2017

In the circumstances, it would appear that the only outstanding matter is the time frame for the vacation of the Land in extent 70 Acres 2 Roods/73.11Acres.

It is more than a decade since the civilians were compelled to vacate the Land; it is more than eight years since the Armed Conflict came to an end; these civilians have been demonstrating at the entrance to this land for 165 days up to now ,and the demonstration continues in the sun and the rain ,amidst immense suffering.

The Land was taken over, without the consent of Civilians, and despite their strong protests, and has been occupied without the Land being legally acquired.

Such action is clearly not within the frame work of the Law of the Land.

Moreover there is enough State Land available in the Area to meet the needs of the Sri Lankan Army. The extents of 111 Acres and 70 Acres 2 Roods/ 73.11 Acres were primarily the Lands largely used by the Civilians, for residence and other social and economic needs and which they have owned and occupied for generations and centuries. They have an attachment to the Land on which they were born and bred.

I do not think that these civilians should be deprived of these Lands any longer. It would be unjust to do so, and would be immensely harmful to the promotion of good will and reconciliation.
I have to strongly urge that the lands of the Civilians including the extents of 111 Acres and 70 Acres 2 Roods/73.11 Acres be released and handed over to the civilians without any further delay.
I shall be grateful if this matter receives your earliest attention.

Yours faithfully,

R Sampanthan
Member of Parliament
Leader of the Opposition
Copies to: (1) Hon Ranil Wickremesinghe
Prime Minister
(2) Hon D M Swaminathan
Minister of Rehabilitation
(3) Secretary to H E the President
(4) General A W J C Silva, Chief of Defence Staff
(5) Lt. General Mahesh Senanayake
Commander of the Sri Lankan Army

Is Time Running Out For Constitutional Reform?

By Javid Yusuf –AUGUST 13, 2017

Javid Yusuf

One of the most compelling items on the National Agenda currently is the question of Constitutional Reform. And the most critical aspect of the Constitutional Reform process must necessarily be the issue of the Executive Presidency.

After a near 40 year experience with this all powerful institution there is general consensus that the institution must be reformed and the Executive Presidency abolished. Yet there are some who argue to retain this institution. While there are some who genuinely believe, albeit in the face of evidence to the contrary, that a centralised form of governance is beneficial to the country, the more vocal of the proponents of the Executive Presidency do so with vested interests.

The central premise of the call for the abolishing of the Executive Presidency is based on the need to democratize the structure of the State. Sovereignity in the Sri Lankan Constitution resides in the people and the concept of an all powerful Executive is at complete variance with the people’s sovereignity as it isolates itself from the sovereign people.

The founder of the 1978 Constitution J.R. Jayewerdene justified the Executive Presidency on the basis that “it would not be subject to the whims and fancies of Parliament.” Given that Parliament comprises the representatives of the people what this means is that the Institution of the Executive Presidency is insulated from the will of the people which is therefore the antithesis of democracy.

The dangers of a Presidential form of Government were highlighted by far sighted leaders of this country well before it was enacted in the 1978 Constitution. Dudley Senanayake opposed it when it was first suggested. Dr. N.M. Perera and Dr. Colvin R. de Silva vehemently argued against it and pointed out the negative impact it would have on the country when the 1978 Constitution was being drafted.

When the 1972 Constitution was being formulated by Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s Government, J.R. Jayewerdene proposed that the Executive Presidency be included in the new Constitution but the SLFP Leader vetoed the idea stating that such an institution did not suit Sri Lanka. This despite the fact that she would have been the first beneficiary of the Executive Presidency which would have clothed her with virtually unlimited powers.

Over three decades after Sri Lanka’s unhappy experience with the Executive Presidency the Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera launched the National Movement for Social Justice and relentlessly campaigned for the abolition of the Executive Presidency. His tireless effort culminated in the victory of President Maithripala Sirisena at the Presidential Elections of January 8, 2015 whose campaign was primarily based on the platform of aboliishing the Executive Presidency.

Two and a half years after the change of Government the Constitution Reform process is in danger of being derailed with still no end in sight. According to the resolution setting up the Constitutional Assembly the next step in the process is for the report of the Steering Committee to be presented to the Constitutional Assembly for debate and discussion. Although it was scheduled to be placed before the Constitutional Assembly in January this year it has been delayed reportedly due to the SLFP segment in the Government dragging its feet in submitting its proposals.

SRI LANKA: TNA’S DIASPORA ‘PARTNER’ GLOBAL TAMIL FORUM DISMAYED OVER TJ PROCESS

Image:Suren Surendiran, Spokesperson – Global Tamil Forum.

12/08/2017

Global Tamil Forum which has been an unofficial diaspora partner of the Tamil National Alliance says that it is dismayed that more than eight years after the end of war, Sri Lanka has yet to demonstrate that it is genuinely committed to addressing the accountability issues occurred during the brutal armed conflict.

Despite twice co-sponsoring UNHRC resolutions calling for comprehensive transitional justice measures, the present coalition government has not lived up to its commitments and yet to take any meaningful steps in this respect, says GTF in its latest press release.
it further says that:

The lack of progress to-date in many ways is eerily reminiscent of the past when commitments made on political and governance issues concerning to the Tamil people (such as Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam or Dudley-Chelvanayakam pacts) were reneged at the slightest of political opposition. While GTF acknowledges that some progress has been made it is far from adequate.

A careful comparison of the commitments made and the actions carried out unambiguously shows a glaring disparity. No efforts have been made by the top Sri Lankan leaders to integrate credible international participation in the local judicial processes as stipulated in the UNHRC resolutions. The report from the government’s own Consultation Task Force (CTF) – set up to recommend transitional justice measures based on country-wide consultations – has remained ignored for more than six months after its official release, reinforcing the impression most Tamils have that setting up Commissions and then discarding their reports is a continuation of delaying strategy practiced by many previous governments.

The Office of Missing Persons (OMP), the only transitional justice mechanism Sri Lankan Parliament enacted exactly a year ago, was signed into law by the President only recently and yet to be operationalised. Mothers of disappeared have been protesting for over five months crying for attention living with the agony of not knowing the fate of their children for so many years. A month has passed since President Sirisena met with the relatives of the missing, but his promise to release any existing lists of surrendered and detained within 48 hours remains unfulfilled. We fail to understand the obstacles in bringing justice to these mothers, four of whom have died since the vigils started, and the unwillingness on the part of the government to bring closure to this highly emotive issue.

The parliamentary process to ratify Enforced Disappearances as illegal has been indefinitely postponed and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) is yet to be repealed, while continuing use of torture to extract confessions is widely reported. Complete elimination of this dreadful practice from Sri Lanka needs leadership from the government which is solely lacking.

The government has utterly failed to engage the majority Sinhala community about the need for true reconciliation and the indispensability of transitional justice to achieve that. In fact, a consistent narrative articulating the above and the need for ending the culture of impunity is absent in the political discourse of the country. If Sri Lanka is to enter a new era of respect for rule-of-law and good governance, resolute and consistent efforts are imperative.

Though the GTF commends Sri Lankan Government for allowing external scrutiny of the human rights situation by facilitating visits by various UNHRC Special Rapporteurs, their assessments and reports are unsurprisingly scathing. The latest (July 14, 2017) is from Ben Emmerson, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, who told reporters at the conclusion of a four-day visit: “There is little evidence that perpetrators of war crimes committed by members of the Sri Lankan armed forces are being brought to justice,”… … “None of the measures so far adopted to fulfil Sri Lanka’s transitional justice commitments are adequate to ensure real progress” … … and progress on meeting commitments made under a 2015 U.N. Resolution have ground “to a virtual halt.”

A report tabled at the 35th session of the UNHRC (May 2017) by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Diego García-Sayán, was again highly critical of the Sri Lankan justice system. The report identified ‘continuation of a normative framework based on PTA’, ‘persisting impunity for any abuses committed by the police or the security forces’ and ‘the lack of effective victim and witness protection’ as key areas where urgent action was needed. Both Special Rapporteurs concluded that it was the Tamil community that was at the receiving end, disproportionately.

Various statements released by International Crisis Group (ICG), Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Truth and Justice Project during the last six months also concur with the findings and sentiments expressed by the UN Special Rapporteurs. Clearly stating that Sri Lanka is faltering on its commitments made to its own people as well as to the international community, these institutions have called for re-energising the process of addressing the war’s legacy.
The latest report from the ICG (July 28) highlighted the plight of the Tamil speaking women in the North and East, stating that these women “have been marginalised during the transitional justice process” and called on the government to act “promptly by establishing the offices on missing persons and reparations” to prevent the emergence of “renewed grievance that damage already slim hopes of reconciliation among communities, and between the state and its Tamil citizens.”
GTF calls upon the International Community and the Government of Sri Lanka to take serious note of the impartial assessments made by such eminent organisations and mandate holders, and to recognise that Sri Lanka is truly in danger of losing the momentum in addressing the accountability issues that are critically important at this juncture. The Tamils are seeing the same old political dynamics that has plagued Sri Lanka since Independence and are understandably becoming cynical of the Government. For our part, the GTF would like to reaffirm its commitment to assist in any meaningful initiatives to arrest this dangerous trend.

It is essential that Sri Lanka take urgent concrete measures that will assure confidence to all its people, and most importantly to the victims, that achieving justice that has been denied for so long is possible.

In Pursuit of a Futuristic FR Chapter

Dr. Prathiba Mahanamahewa-2017-08-14

ne of the key proposals in the current Constitution Reform process is to strengthen the Fundamental Rights (FR) chapter in the Constitution. Fundamental rights are judicially enforceable. However activists point out that the Chapter is too restrictive, and that it does not serve the purpose intended of a fundamental rights chapter. Only a limited number of rights are guaranteed. The restrictions posed in the exercise of these rights are too broad, that it has prevented people from receiving redress. Former Human Rights

In Pursuit of a Futuristic FR Chapter.docx by Thavam on Scribd

What is wrongwith nationalism?

By Laksiri Fernando-August 13, 2017, 8:42 pm

There is nothing wrong with nationalism if it is moderate, balanced, civic, and realistic enough to incorporate global trends. Nationalism at a personal level might manifest as ‘patriotism,’ to mean love for one’s country of origin or even adopted country. There can be people who could balance between the two without much antagonism.

What is wrongwith nationalism.docx by Thavam on Scribd

The Protesting Student & What He May Have To Say

By Migara Doss –AUGUST 14, 2017

Migara Doss

It was just last week that 05 university students including the Convener of the Inter University Students Federation (IUSF)- Lahiru Weerasekara were bailed out by the High Court of Colombo under strict bail conditions. The said order delivered by the High Court released the above students after having been in remand custody for nearly 50 days since their arrest after their purported forcible entry into the Ministry of Health and causing damage to public property thereof. The incident concerning the students is regarding their protest movement against the SAITM university and its medical faculty which allegedly paves way for the admittance of students into the medical profession upon the payment of money, which is argued as resulting in the commodification of education.

As it could be observed the SAITM phenomena has made waves in the local news for quite some time now and has aroused varied reactions from the general public, academics, professionals, students etc. In general there are mixed reactions amongst the public regarding the subject matter and people appear to be perplexed about the whole topic of SAITM and the larger issue of privatizing education. And on a different level some even begin to wonder the irony of prompt action by authorities to arrest and remand student activist who in a sense cause damage and inconvenience to the public under the public property act; whereas elected representatives of the people that have allegations of swindling public money and soliciting expensive bribes which amount to graver offences on public property are permitted to walk scot free after simple commission hearings and resignations. Accordingly this article attempts to discuss some of the popular social views regarding the protesting student, with a view to explain the causes and reasons for student protests in the wake of privatization of education.

With regard to the issue concerning SAITM it is mainly regarding the establishment of the South Asian Institute of Medicine (originally Management) and Technology which began to award a medical degree that enables the obtainment of the M.B.B.S qualification and subsequent entry into the medical profession. The unique feature of SAITM is of that being a private business entity which charges an exuberant amount for its medical qualification. This feature has attracted much criticism and protests by student activist and political parties who cry foul against the same on the basis that such an arrangement of awarding the medical qualification for money paves way for commodification of education and results in inequality and injustice.

Needless to say there are also various social opinions that safeguard and promote SAITM and any other future private educational entities; the reasoning behind such defense guarding SAITM are varied in nature but in a nutshell it is an argument on the freedom of education and broadening of educational provision. This social clash between Anti SAITM activist and SAITM guardians is indeed a thought provoking debate and leads to an advanced social discourse regarding the subject of education and the market economy. Hence it is important to draw some insights into this debate and discuss some of the main arguments leveled against the student/political activists who spearhead the public protest against SAITM. Such a discussion would also serve the purpose of dwelling into the mind of the ruggedly dressed university student that one would often find on the News and sometimes on the public road blocking your way, and would allow you to finally understand his chants that you barely understand on the news on in a heavily congested traffic jam.

Applaud only when the law holds corruptors responsible

Sunday, August 13, 2017

For those who laboured long and hard to bring fresh cleansing winds to Sri Lanka’s degenerate political culture in 2015, these are times of mortified reflection. The collective angst of the United National Party (UNP) amidst a dismaying disarray and loss of public confidence beggars the imagination. Its parliamentarians are filing no-confidence motions against its own ministers as well as those from the other half of the (dis) unity alliance. And the very air is rendered hideous with their loud lamentations that Justice is not being done.

Satire of the most devilish kind

We are battered by complaints that the focus is only on current corruption rather than gross violators of the previous regime. This is vis a vis the resignation of the UNP’s Foreign Affairs (formerly Finance) Minister in the wake of testimony before the popularly styled ‘Bond Scam Commission’ relating to an egregious conflict of interest. The public is told that it must rejoice since ‘a Minister resigned.’ Alas, this is satire of the most devilish kind.

So after whitewashing the Central Bank bond fiasco for well upon two years, is applause the fit reaction when ‘a Minister resigns’ and that too grudgingly due to a public outcry? Lest we forget, the whitewash of this incident by the UNP included appointing a committee of largely unknown party lawyers to skim over the responsibility of former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran.

It also included the UNP parliamentarians in the parliamentary committee on public enterprises (COPE) insisting on adding ‘footnotes’ to the COPE report to preempt questions of legal wrong doing on the part of the former Governor. In truth, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa must be engaging in fiendish chuckles in his Medamulana lair at the predicament that the Government, (his bête noir as well as a protector of sorts) finds itself.

Less than propitious performance of ministers

Regardless, let us see where the truth lies. Since the inception of this coalition Government, portfolios of the most important ministries relating to law enforcement and justice have been held by the UNP. However, the performances of the respective ministers were less than propitious. Not only were principles of conflict of interest disregarded but this unconcern was blithely paraded in public.

In the first year, the minister holding the portfolio of Law and Order, himself a senior lawyer who should have abided to more fastidious standards than his plebian colleagues, resigned in the wake of a conflict-of-interest uproar. This was over his defence of the controversial maritime security firm Avant Garde on the floor of Parliament, referring to the said firm as his (one-time) client and protesting that the controversy had no factual basis.

To be plain, the issue here was the propriety of the Minister of Law and Order holding forth in regard to a matter that was under investigation and adjudication. Whether the allegations against Avant Garde were justifiable or not, whether they will be ultimately proved in a court of law or whether the ordinary foot-dragging that takes place will result in a stalemate outcome was therefore not the question.

Who should the UNP blame but itself?

Besieged by an angry public, the Minister resigned. Then too, the public was asked to clap its hands at the ‘rare’ spectacle of ‘a Minister resigning.’ He was brought back a few months ago to be gifted the portfolio of development assignments. At the time of his resignation, his Cabinet colleague, the UNP’s Minister of Justice managed to adroitly wriggle out of an outcry when he reportedly made statements partial to the Rajapaksas in relation to ongoing investigations.

Now, to add spice to the mixture, his party colleagues are waving a no-confidence motion before the Justice Minister for preventing speedy resolution of an enormous amount of corruption investigations against Rajapaksa politicians and for not supporting the establishing of a special Corruption Court.

So, I am bewildered. Who should the UNP blame for these unnerving dilemmas other than itself? When the Department of the Attorney General allegedly delays in proceeding against corruptors or when the ordinary law collapses under the strain, (or so we are told rather unconvincingly), should not the responsibility rest on the Justice Minister? And when the Inspector General of Police (IGP) is captured on television cameras abjectly promising the current Law and Order Minister that a ‘person’ (later exposed as a favorite of the previous regime) would not be arrested, in whose direction should fingers be pointed?

Understanding a simple logic

In the political tug-of-war that these dramas reflect, promises by the President and the Prime Minister that the law would be respected are pure balderdash. Only one credit is due. Up to now, this Government has not directly interfered with the judiciary aside from certain flippant statements made by some who should know better.

But it is quite clear now that President Maithripala Sirisena failed to take decisive action before the rot became pervasive and engaged in political compromises within the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) itself which undermined the legitimacy of the pro-governance platform which gave him the mandate two and a half years ago.

On its part, the UNP must surely refresh the knowledge of its top tier leadership as to the precise meaning of the law in relation to conflict of interest. There is no point in querulous queries as to why the UNP is being held to this standard when these lofty principles never bothered the Rajapaksa regime. If the people wanted the Rajapaksas and their degradations to continue, they would have voted them back. They did not. Is this simple logic so difficult to understand that it must be repeated at each and every turn as if to an imbecile?

Rightful public applause must wait its turn

That said, it must be acknowledged that as dismal and as disheartening as it is, these fiascos signal one fact. Public pressure works at least in some instances though not in all. This week’s withdrawal of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, another ill-begotten effort of the Justice Minister is a further indication of this.

Notwithstanding such apparent ‘victories, the spectacle of a ‘Minister resigning’, tears and all does not suffice. The law must take its due and proper course into corruption allegations, sophisticated or crude as it may be. Perpetrators must be punished.

The cycle of impunity must be broken. It is the same rationale as in regard to transitional justice really.
It is at this point that applause will be rightfully fitting. Not before.

Chinese money in Hambantota: Small change in the juggernaut of Belt and Road

The controversial Hambanthota port

2017-08-14

The government’s manner of communicating details of the Hambantota port deal to the public has been less than forthright, and lacking in transparency, considering public apprehensions over the fallout of the project. In an attempt to get around the opposition to a big time give-away of control over a national asset – a strategically located deep water port – there seem to have been attempts to pull the wool over people’s eyes.

The impression conveyed and widely reported as to the ratio of shares held by the Sri Lankan side and the Chinese side, was misleading. Of the two companies to be newly set up under the

unprecedented 99-year agreement, the Hambantota International Port Services (HIPS) company - which was granted with the exclusive right to develop, operate and manage the Common User Facilities of Hambantota port including security – 50.7% of shares were said to be held by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) and the balance 49.3% by HIPG (Hambantota International Port Group) in which the China Merchants Port Holdings Co. Ltd. (CMPort) holds a 85% stake.
However a disclosure made by CMPort on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange categorically said “SLPA will hold (i) 15% of the shares of HIPG and (ii) 42% of the shares of HIPS on the Concession Agreement Effective Date.” Sri Lanka is clearly a minority share holder in this deal, which translates into a loss of control of a national asset of strategic value, which in turn has implications for sovereignty.

"Hambantota International Port Services (HIPS) company - which was granted with the exclusive right to develop, operate and manage the Common User Facilities of Hambantota port including security – 50.7% of shares were said to be held by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) and the balance 49.3% by HIPG (Hambantota International Port Group) in which the China Merchants Port Holdings Co. Ltd. (CMPort) holds a 85% stake"

The agreement was signed in the teeth of opposition and protests which included a strike by Ceylon Petroleum Corporation trade unions which hobbled fuel distribution in the country till the government took drastic measures to end it. After that there were reports of the TUs having talks with President Sirisena and being assured that ‘there would be amendments.’ This seems to have been an exercise of ‘humouring the lads,’ because it turns out that amendments can only be made by agreement between both parties, which is not saying much. The impression was also given that the CPC’s protest was narrowly defined over the right to provide bunkering services. But CPC’s statements on the issue from some time ago would show that their actions are carried out in the context of a broader protest against the sale of state assets.
The re-drafting of the original Concession Agreement to reduce the Chinese stake from 80% to 70% etc. was parleyed by the government to sound like a move made with a view to protecting independence and sovereignty. However, had the government been honest it would have admitted to formidable behind-the-scenes pressure exercised by India to bring about these changes. This would particularly relate to the amendments ensuring that security aspects could be handled by Sri Lanka, including the granting of permission for port visits by military vessels.
The loud hints by a cabinet spokesman at a recent media briefing, that the Joint Opposition’s disruption of the parliamentary debate on Hambantota was the result of Indian interference, is laughable against this backdrop. (Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera told reporters “There was a call from a diplomatic mission in Colombo to the JO during the proceedings..,” and said “you know who it is.”) Was this a diversionary tactic to project the government in a defiant light, when in fact it had capitulated to pressure?

"The government earlier engaged in similar obfuscation in relation to the re-drafting of the Chinese funded Port City project, when it did away with the clause that allowed freehold sale of a part of the land to the Chinese. The government sought to project it as a move to protect sovereignty, but later cabinet spokesman Rajitha Senaratne inadvertently let it slip that this was done under Indian pressure"

The government earlier engaged in similar obfuscation in relation to the re-drafting of the Chinese funded Port City project, when it did away with the clause that allowed freehold sale of a part of the land to the Chinese. The government sought to project it as a move to protect sovereignty, but later cabinet spokesman Rajitha Senaratne inadvertently let it slip that this was done under Indian pressure.
The reality of Indian ‘concerns’ in relation to activities in the Indian Ocean Region which it considers as its backyard is nothing new. We may recall that the Letters exchanged between former president JR Jayewardena and former Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi with the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987 had a clause that said “Trincomalee or any other ports in Sri Lanka will not be made available for military use by any country in a manner prejudicial to India’s interests.”
India’s concern at the time was the cosy relationship between the JR government and the US. Today while it has become more closely aligned with the US and Japan, India’s bogey is China. With the unstoppable juggernaut of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) creating road, rail and trade connectivity across Asia, Africa and Europe in order to secure Chinese energy supply lines and trade routes, India’s worries extend far beyond Sri Lanka and Hambantota. The investment in Hambantota, at $US 1.12 billion, and Colombo Port City at $US 1.4 billion, would seem like small change in comparison to China’s infrastructure investments in other parts of South Asia.
According to a recent report in India Today China has pledged US$60 billion since 2013 to Pakistan (including $US 46 billion in the China-Pakistan-Economic Corridor, or CPEC, as part of the BRI), $US 8.3 billion to Nepal (at an investment summit held this year), $US 7.3 bn to Myanmar for the development of Kyauk Pyu Port, and a soft loan of $US 25 billion to Bangladesh for a variety of projects.

"With the unstoppable juggernaut of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) creating road, rail and trade connectivity across Asia, Africa and Europe in order to secure Chinese energy supply lines and trade routes, India’s worries extend far beyond Sri Lanka and Hambantota"

Given the current scramble among big powers to secure their energy sources, sea lanes of communication and access to markets, these states will continue to engage in power games with each other in Asia. It’s up to the political leadership of smaller sates like Sri Lanka to avoid getting caught in the crossfire and act in the interests of their own people. In Sri Lanka, the US wants to change the Constitution. India wants to maintain hegemonic status. China wants to extend its footprint. But the people of Sri Lanka do not want to sell out to any foreign power. The political leaderships of successive regimes seem to have underestimated this expectation.
In recent times Sri Lanka’s responses to pressures from foreign powers have taken the form of ad-hoc reactions and attempts to ‘play one against the other,’ often ending in capitulation, rather than the adoption of positions based on high quality research, analysis and guidance designed to serve the national interest.
The independent thinking required for this type of policy input relating to geopolitics, which could very well come out of the country’s existing international relations think tanks, seems to be hamstrung by the government’s expectation that these institutions act as its echo-chamber for policies already arrived at, based on political considerations. This is hardly a comforting situation, given the gravity of possible repercussions of such decision making, in
the long term.

Why fuss about giving teeth to the Auditor General?

Auditor General H.M. Gamini Wijesinghe
Whither Audit Bill?

Monday, 14 August 2017

We are informed by the media that Cabinet has deferred the new Audit Bill for the 24th time. Apparently, the bone of contention is the proposed powers to disallowance and surcharge.

All Westminster-style jurisdictions do give firm independent powers to the Auditor General (AG) leaving the latter to perform effectively as the nation’s financial watchdog as far as disbursements out of the public treasury (Consolidated Fund) are concerned. The AG is legally invested with the power to disallow and surcharge in all such cases.

When, as youngsters, we joined the Sri Lanka Administrative Service (1963), we were scared of the AG and were kept on our toes. Our supervising ministers, in turn, were aware that we could be surcharged for any losses to public property or funds, which were our direct responsibility to look after. This, made it hard for ministers to order us to do wrong. It was Yahapalanaya then.

Since the mid-sixties and after 1972 (when the PSC was debilitated) in particular, the old discipline gradually withered; accelerated its decline over the last 10 years; and is now virtually dead. We have seen public servants rob the public treasury along with ministers and other political executives.

Typically, when a minister gets office he first looks around and surveys his officially-given privileges and the potential for making money on the bend. He attempts to create a nexus among his ministry secretary and the private staff. The bad ministry secretary will give in and the honest one will have trouble from day one.

Power of surcharge and a case from Ghana

With a needed cynicism one can discern why MPs of both the UNP and SLFP have protested about the “inordinate power of surcharge” to be granted to the AG. This will, like during our time, restrict politicians’ theft. Public servants will, more likely, refuse to accede to the political demands because they would get into hot water.

Disbursement of Government vehicles was a big sore point during the end of my career. One minister was very concerned about ensuring that his family members were permitted to use Government vehicles at will. It was an uphill task for me to ward off the minister’s advances! Things have gotten worse ever since that and by that relative comparison mine was minor.

There was an inspiring incident from Ghana recently where citizens, who were dismayed by the politicisation of the AG’s office, banded together in an ‘Occupy AG’ campaign. The campaigners filed action in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted all the relief sought by the pressure group, Occupy Ghana, in respect of the Auditor-General’s powers of disallowance and surcharges. The Court declared that AG must issue disallowance and surcharges in respect of all State monies found to have been expended contrary to law.

The second relief granted by the Court is that the Auditor General must take steps to recover all amounts lost to the State, and this covers private persons. The Attorney General has also been ordered to ensure enforcement of the orders, including criminal prosecution where necessary.

This is a classic case of the success of civil organisation pressure and I quote this as a model for my fellow-countrymen to follow.
Revved-up AG

It was no secret that under the previous regime the AG had virtually come under the President. Our Government then went low by even Ghana’s standards. On the contrary, with the Ravi Karunanayake episode, one happily observes a revved-up AG.

There isn’t any doubt that the new Government’s official acceptance of checks and balances and good governance have already brought outcomes. I enjoyed reading the cross-examination and grilling of Minster Ravi Karunanayake, when he came before the Commission, by De Livera of the AG’s Department. That is a new classic. It looked almost surreal and one could observe how the Minister felt a sense of having being pricked on the self-pride injected to politicians in a UPFA culture. Dear reader, please observe and enjoy yourself the penetrative and invasive nature of the questioning:
Q: Did your wife visit the premises before you rented it?

A: I was told that she did

Q: She went there alone?
A: I don’t know.
Q: Did she tell you that she met Arjun Aloysius in the premises?

A: No
Q: She did not tell you that Mr. Aloysius came in and discussed matters with Miss (Anika) Wijesuriya in the presence of your wife?

A: No. All I know is that Miss Wijesuriya was the former girlfriend of Arjun Aloysius.
Q: Miss Wijesuriya said that when your wife visited, she called Mr. Aloysius and he visited the place?

A: I don’t know that. I am only privy to what my family has told me.
Q: Are you aware of the existence of the company Walt & Row?

A: No
Q: Do you know that Arjun Aloysius and his father are Directors of this company?

A: They are directors of many companies. That’s all I know. I do not know who is owning what.
Q: You did not know that this apartment was leased by Walt & Row from Miss Wijesuriya?

A: No. I need not know.
I also enjoyed reading ASG Yasantha Kodagoda’s rebuttal of Minister Ravi, when the latter inadvisably accused the AG’s Department of a ‘conspiracy’. “How could the AG get information off 8,000-odd pages in so short a time?” Ravi queried. The ASG reminded Ravi of the use of search engines and suggestively marked the latter as being ‘illiterate’. That was another masterpiece of the Yahapalanaya revolution.

New spirit not enough

On the other hand, the new and more congenial spirit and soft environment won’t be adequate in the long run. The struggle between the greedy political executive and the law is perennial and irrepressible. If Yahapalanaya is to be re-established, it is crucial that we legally create a strong and independent AG with powers of disallowance and surcharge. Such AG must be accountable only to Parliament and dismissible only by a two-thirds majority of Parliament in a vote of impeachment. He should be protected by the invasion of executives.

One cannot make an effective watchdog of the AG unless he is legally endowed with real independence to investigate, to expose, and to recover losses. In order to make his independence real, the AG must, concurrently, be well remunerated above the public service norm and he should be disallowed from seeking public service appointments after retirement. His staff should be an elite one – also well paid, professional, and well remunerated.

(The writer can be reached via sjturaus@optusnet.com.au.)