Sri Lanka: War victims' families struggle for justice 10 years on

22 Oct 2017

The United Nations says a great deal of work remains to be done in order to bring stability to Sri Lanka, nearly a decade after its 26-year civil war. It is conducting a review to find out what is in the way of implementing vital reforms.

Many victims' families are frustrated with long delays in securing justice and are calling on the government to investigate what happened to their loved ones.

Al Jazeera's Minelle Fernandez reports from Colombo.

SRI LANKA: THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES IS A BIG LIE  (LOKU BORUWAK!)

By Basil Fernando-24/10/2017

This article is a response to an article titled “International Convention on Enforced Disappearances violates the Constitution” published in a reputed newspaper The Island of 22nd October 2017, written by Neville Ladduwahetty. The crux of the argument in that article is that the definition of enforced disappearances as contained in the International Convention on Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances is inconsistent with the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
A simple repudiation of that argument is that the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has held that the definition of enforced disappearances as found in the Disappearances Convention is consistent with the Constitution of Sri Lanka. The Supreme Court in its declaration after examining the Bill on the Office of the Missing Persons (Establishment, Administration, and Discharge of Functions) Act, No 14 of 2016 as consistent with the Constitution of Sri Lanka has settled the matter already.
Article 27(iii) of the act states as follows: An enforced disappearance as defined in the “International Covenant on protection of all persons from enforced disappearances; Article 27 of the Office of the Missing Persons Act is the section on the interpretation of some key words found in the Act. Thus, the term ‘enforced disappearances’ for the purpose of this Act is defined in the same way as it is defined in the Disappearances Convention. And that definition is “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 authorisation, 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.’
All the confusion that Neville Ladduwahetty has caused to himself and in turn has conveyed to the readers could have been avoided if he knew that the Supreme Court has already settled the matter for which he has taken a lot of labour to argue.
For all purposes, nothing more needs to be said in exposing the big error of this article.
What is said below is merely by way of explanation as to how the author has tried to misconstrue an argument against enforced disappearances being considered part of our law. This he has done by trying to compare Article 15(8) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka with the definition of enforced disappearances as defined in the relevant Convention. Article 15 of the Constitution is a very simple provision of law relating to ‘restrictions on fundamental rights’, which is found universally in all legal systems. In fact, Article 15 is based on Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states as follows’

ICCPR Article 4
1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 AND 18 MAY be made under this provision.
3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Simply explained, it means that there could be some restrictions on the rights to be free from arrest, from illegal detention and the like, under some special circumstances.

However, neither international law on human rights nor the Sri Lankan Constitution allows concealment of arrest, detention or any restrictions of rights under any circumstances.

It is the concealment that is not allowed under the pretext of any circumstances whatsoever. If the author of the Article was careful enough to note that the definition of enforced disappearances in the relevant Convention contains the following statement, – “…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.”, then he would have noted what is allowed and what is not allowed even under emergency or even during war or any other circumstances. The operative words are ‘concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person’.

Sri Lanka’s emergency laws and anti-terrorism laws have prescribed some restriction on civil liberties under certain exceptional circumstances. However, neither the Emergency Regulations nor the anti-terrorism law has allowed ‘… 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’s outside the protection of the law.’

It is not difficult to understand the difference between certain restrictions on civil liberties which may be lawfully invoked and those that cannot be so invoked.

To illustrate this point by way of an exaggeration, we may ask the author; does he think that under certain exceptional circumstances, cannibalism is allowed? Of course, any reasonable person would reply in the negative. But if we go by the view that under exceptional circumstances law enforcement agencies or armed forces may be allowed to do whatever they may want to do, then there is no basis to argue that cannibalism is an exception to that.

Simple issue involved, is that restrictions on civil liberties which may be necessary under certain circumstances are also restricted and limited. That is the only way to make a distinction between lawful restrictions and barbaric actions. When a lawful restriction dissents to a barbaric action no civilised society will tolerate such actions. Like cannibalism, enforced disappearances also fall within barbaric actions.

Law, rationality and sovereignty

The legislature derives its power of making law within a democracy from the principle of sovereignty of the people. The sovereign people transfer to their representatives the power to make laws – in peaceful times as during times of conflicts – in order to ensure peace and security for themselves. What follows from sovereignty is the assumption that all actions done on their behalf must be done within the framework of rationality. A sovereign people do not give their representatives power to act barbarously. Sovereign people always act as civilised persons. Therefore, law makers cannot make laws that offend the basic norms and standards of a civilisation and give to law enforcement and armed forces powers to act barbarously.

Concealment, accountability and obligation to maintain records

All persons acting on behalf of the State are accountable for every action that they may do or omit to do. Officers of the armed forces and the law enforcement agencies are no exceptions to this rule. They too are accountable before the law for all actions that they may take or omit to take in the course of carrying out their duties. Prevalence of a situation of emergency or even war is no exception to this rule. Under no circumstances are they allowed to conceal whatever they have done in the course of carrying out their duties. This means that if they are called before a court of law, they cannot claim that they will conceal from the court whatever they have done or omitted to do in carrying out their lawful duties. The duty to be accountable implies that there is no right to conceal whatever they have done or omitted to do.

The very essence of the offence of enforced disappearances is such concealment. When the fact of arrest or whereabouts of a person who is being arrested is considered a secret, the person so arrested is placed outside the protection of the law. Agencies of the State including the courts are required to take action for the protection of a person. They would need all the details about what has taken place relating to that person. When such information is required no one is allowed to state that ‘I am allowed by the law to conceal what I have done or what have I omitted to do’. Any person who makes such a claim obstructs the course of justice and therefore commits an offence. Thus, on matters relating to enforced disappearances, no officer of whatever the rank can claim the right to conceal what he or she knows.

The obligation to be accountable goes much further. All actions taken by officers acting on behalf of the State must be recorded. This is why a police officer engaged in arresting a person is supposed to take down in his pocket notebooks every action that has been taken in the course of an arrest. Later, these notes need to be transferred into official records that are maintained at a police station. Such measures are prescribed by law in order to ensure protection for all persons from unlawful actions. This implies that an officer acting on behalf of the State must all the time ensure that all actions that are taken are strictly within the law.

The experience of enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka shows of many instances where after arrest, torture and other illegal acts have taken place, persons have been killed and their bodies disposed of. What Neville Ladduwahetty is essentially arguing is that all such actions can be legalised under certain circumstances and that such actions can be concealed. As explained above such actions can never be legalised. In the same way that cannibalism cannot be legalised.

This article in fact lets out a well-entrenched ideological position that some political leaders and security agencies have firmly held over a long period – that, any and all kinds of restrictions could be imposed under some exceptional circumstances. This is a fundamental fallacy. Neither our constitution nor international law can be invoked to justify this fundamental fallacy. Our constitution is not a document that justifies barbarism. If it were to justify barbarism then it does not deserve the respect of any rational person. To claim that our constitution permits barbaric actions is in fact a grave insult, not only to the constitution but also to the sovereignty of the people who have authorised such a constitution.

Irrelevance of Sinharasa’s case

The author’s thesis based on the Sinharasa’s case is irrelevant, because as said before the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka had already decided on the matter of legality and the constitutionality of the definition of enforced disappearances as found in the relevant Convention to be part of our law when the Court approved the Bill of the Office on Mission Persons Act No. 14 of 2016.

Leaning Towards Confederalism

EU Reaching Cul-De-Sac Due Brexit – Revival Of Confederalism Necessary

By Faizer Shaheid (faizer@live.com)-2017-10-25

The unitary status of the country has been a source of pride for Sri Lankans. A three decade long war was fought to secure the nature of this unitary status never once conceding to the demand of a separate State. Yet, a compromise was made to devolve power through Provincial Councils in 1987, and now there are plans for optimum devolution within an undivided country.

It is primarily the demand of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to have a federal structure. Chief Minister of the Northern Province C.V. Wigneswaran had recently claimed that Sri Lankan politicians had made federalism sound like a dirty word. Thirty years ago, when Sri Lanka was coerced into signing the Indo-Sri Lanka Pact of 1987, it did sound like a dirty word to most people. However, over time Sri Lanka has become accustomed to the culture of Federalism.

Devolution to Federalism

Devolution of power is ingrained in many democratic systems worldwide. It is a conscious decision of a Government to devolve powers at subnational level to better administer a smaller constituency. This structure of Government empowers the Central Government to revoke powers as and when it pleases. Devolution of power has been a strong feature of Sri Lankan Government from the period of the kings. There had been Village Councils (Gam Sabha) set up in many parts of the country, and a similar system was continued during the British rule.

After the Donoughmore Constitution came to be, a more systematic form of devolution was established. The Urban Councils Ordinance came to be in 1939, which was followed by the Town Councils Ordinance in 1946 and the Municipal Councils Ordinance in 1947. This system of devolution is followed to this date. However, the structure transcended from mere devolution of power to Federalism in 1987 following the intervention of India.

A Federalist structure of Government means that the Central Government would collaborate with Provincial Governments in a single political structure. Power is thus shared proportionately between two Governments of the same country. The Sri Lankan Constitution contained three lists of powers, namely: the Provincial List, the Reserved List and the Concurrent List.

While the Provincial List contained powers purely controlled by the Province, the Reserved List contained powers solely under the purview of the Central Government. It was the Concurrent List that enabled the Central Government to share powers with the Provincial Council. This list included implementation of plans, education, agriculture, housing, health, irrigation, employment, tourism and environment among others.

Confederalism

Confederalism would be an extreme form of federalism.It would mean that a Provincial Government would be more powerful than the Central Government while being a part of the same country.
In such a structure, the Central Government would generally deal with national and international level matters. This includes defence, foreign affairs, internal trade and currency related matters. In all other intra-national matters, the Provincial Government will have more discretion than the Central Government. Some examples of confederalist countries are Belgium, Canada and Switzerland. United States of America also has quite the proclivity towards Confederalism. In fact, the modern USA was born after the Articles of Confederation were drawn up and signed in 1777.

An important feature of a federalist structure is the capability of the devolved powers to invoke its right of secession. Which means that should a State or a Province feel maligned within a country, it can declare secession.

New Constitution

The incumbent Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had stated in Parliament that the new Constitution would attempt to present optimum devolution within an undivided and indivisible country. This statement goes alongside that of President Maithripala Sirisena who said that while the people of the North were afraid of a unitary status, the people of the South were afraid of Federalism. Sirisena's statement tallies with that of Wigneswaran, except for the fact that their interpretation of 'Federalism' appears a little too mild.

Firstly, consider how the principle of subsidiarity would apply in a Sri Lankan context. It would mean that matters that are to be handled by a lower authority on the subject should be granted full authority to handle such tasks. The principle of subsidiarity has been successfully applied in other countries, but in Sri Lanka it raises a cause for concern considering the extent of power that is to be shared with the Provincial Councils.

Take for example, the application of framework legislation. The Steering Committee Report suggests that the Central Government should have authority to prescribe national standards in conducting elections and conducting other powers, but that it is purely at the discretion of the Provincial Councils whether or not to upgrade local authorities to that standard. National Policy cannot override Provincial Statutes.

There is also a proposal to abolish the Concurrent List, where the powers are shared between the Central Government and the Provincial Council. Which means, the powers will be segregated; the Central Government will have no authority to intervene on powers devolved to Provincial Councils. Meanwhile, the executive wing of the Provincial Councils is to be clipped.Which means that most powers of the Governor to monitor and maintain a check over Provincial Councils will be removed, and the Governor will only be a ceremonial figurehead thence forward.

There will be Provincial Public Service Commissions and the existing provision which was never implemented in relation to Police Commissions is expected to be carried through to the new Constitution. The Report of the Sub-Committee on National and Public Security, Public Order and Police and Law Enforcement recommends that a Provincial Police Force will be established.

Although it is prescribed that they shall all wear the same uniforms and insignia, their roles are vastly different.

State Lands are another topic of concern, as Provincial Councils now have powers of alienation and disposal of State Land. When the Central Government requires land for a purpose within its powers, they will have to consult the Provincial Council for permission. The Provincial Council is then required to comply, but if it does not comply, then the President must resolve the matter through arbitration.

Legislation is by far the biggest area of concern. The Central Government cannot legislate on Provincial powers, but if it had to legislate, the Provincial Councils would have to consent to the formation of such legislation. If a Statute of the Provincial Government appeared to be problematic under the present Constitution, the Governor has discretion not to grant assent to the legislation. The Governor at present has a check over the legislation of the Provincial Councils.

Nonetheless, the new Constitution states that any issue of Constitutionality can only be contested in a Constitutional Court. If the Governor refuses to grant assent, or recommends changes which the Provincial Council refuses to abide by, then the legislation shall pass after a reasonable period of time. Such is the validity of Provincial Legislation.

Steering Committee Report

The recent Report had addressed many things but also failed to address a few important areas. One such area is the extent of powers to be held by the Central Government and the Provincial Governments. Although all matters under the current Provincial List are expected to be retained, while the Concurrent List is expected to be split between the two tiers of Government, the matters have not been expressly specified nor even indicated in the reports.

The extent of Police powers, although extensively discussed in the Sub-Committee Reports, does not address the functions of the Provincial and National Police Commissions. However, it is expected that the powers and functions included in the Ninth Schedule of the present Constitution will be re-enacted with minor changes in the new Constitution. This would make a Provincial Police quite powerful.

Undivided and Indivisible

While the Government has addressed the concerns of Wigneswaran in the new Constitution by replacing the word 'Unitary' with 'Undivided and Indivisible', it raises a few controversies. The main controversy has been raised by nationalists, particularly former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who claims that to replace the word would be to sacrifice the unitary status of the country.

Of course, the new Constitution proposes the inclusion of certain words which would prohibit any Provincial Council or other authority from declaring a separate State or advocating for secession. However, there are other concerns considering the extent of power given to the North and East.
Provincial Police Powers, Land Powers and Law Making Powers coupled with a much sought demand of the LTTE to unite the North and East as a single Province forms an imminent risk of secessions regardless of whether the Constitution claims otherwise. To secede under rules of self-determination would mean to do away with the Constitution anyway. This is the fear projected by nationalists, and to not have fear of this would be unwise. It is similar to standing in front a hungry lion and expecting it not to eat you.

Conclusion

This risk of secession, despite the express wordings in the Constitution, would make Sri Lanka have a penchant to lean on confederacy. In a confederation, the Central Government will have powers to rule on matters of defence, national economy related matters and foreign affairs mainly. While the roles of each Government, has not been expressly stated in the Steering Committee Report, the facts indicate a confederate attitude. Hence, Provincial Governments will have full authority to exercise their powers over other matters.

The most prominent aspect that is lacking in the Steering Committee Report is the right to secede. However, with the unification of the North and East, the Government appears to be toying with the idea of secession. Apart from the right to secede, the indicators are clearly pointing towards Confederalism.(Faizer@live.com)

(The writer is a Political Analyst and a researcher of laws. He holds a postgraduate degree in the field of human rights and democratization from the University of Colombo and an undergraduate degree in Law from the University of Northumbria, United Kingdom)

Constitutional Reform: A Review Of The Proposal On Public Security

By Mass L. Usuf –OCTOBER 24, 2017

Mass Usuf

Public security and its emergency law accompaniment are tools that can in many instances legalise executive action which would otherwise be considered illegal under the rule of law.  This two part article is aimed at critiquing the proposal of the Steering Committee for Constitutional reformsrelating to Public Security and the existing law on the subject.  The focus would be on abuse of authority and the protection of fundamental rights of the citizens.

The past, both locally and internationally, has provided several instances when the Pubic Security Act or Emergency Regulations has been invoked culminating in abuse of authority and depriving the citizens of their basic rights. This is a tool which has been legally made available to governments to be used for the benefit of the country and its citizens.  While many have used it for the purpose it was designed for, there are also those who have gone beyond.

Our neighbour, the world’s largest democracy, had a dark period during the Prime Ministership of Indira Gandhi which has been nicknamed, ‘The Emergency’ – from 1975 to 1977.  It all began with the President of India on the advice of the Prime Minister in the wee hours of June 26, 1975 declaring:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution, I, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, President of India, by this Proclamation declare that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India is threatened by internal disturbances.”

This facilitated Indira Gandhi to govern by decree. She supressed civil liberties, fundamental rights and imposed press censorship.  All norms of a democratic government were suspended as the days of the emergency rule progressed. The then prevalent condition captured succinctly reads:

“From the memoirs of Indira Gandhi’s closest advisors, we learn of a near absence of deliberations or democratic debate on the merits and advisability of the instrument of emergency. The emphasis before and during the emergency has always been on depoliticizing substantive issues, removing these from the domain of political negotiations and judicial review. Major policy decisions were implemented through executive fiat, skirting parliament.” (Shabnam Mallick and Rajarshi Sen, January 2006 – Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Singapore.)

The Sri Lankan Record

In Sri Lanka, during the debate at the bill stage of the Public Security Ordinance of 1947 (PSO), in the State Council, W. Dahanayake of the LSSP expressed himself in hyperbolical language:

“This Bill will go down to history as the meanest and dirtiest law…I describe it as the most dastardly, the most cruel, the most brutal law that has been inflicted upon the working classes of any country, not excepting Nazi Germany or Italy under Mussolini. Here, under the provisions of this Bill, there is complete and hundred per cent annihilation of civil liberties…I say that this Bill is something which no civilized society should consent to.” (Reflections on the Making and Content of the 1972 Constitution: An Insider’s Perspective, Nihal Jayawickrama).

Public Security Ordinance of 1947, Section 2 reads:

“(1) Where, in view of the existence or imminence of a state of public emergency, the President is of opinion that it is expedient so to do in the interests of public security and the preservation of public order or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community, the President may, by Proclamation published in the Gazette, declare that the provisions of Part II of this Ordinance shall, forthwith or on such date as may be specified in the Proclamation, come into operation throughout Sri Lanka or in such part or parts of Sri Lanka as may be so specified.” 

The vociferous Dahanayake who promised to repeal the PSO, in the wake of unprecedented communal violence in 1959 was subdued. He said in his address to the nation, inter alia:

“It is true that our Government party before the elections felt that the Public Security Ordinance may be safely repealed. But what has happened in recent times has convinced us…that any Government needs legislation of this type as a safeguard for the people.” (ibid)

Republican Constitution of 1972

The first Republican constitution of 1972 invoked the Public Security Ordinance via Section 134, ‘subject to the provisions of the Constitution and subsection (2) of this section’.  Sub section (2) to 134 stated:

“(2) Upon the Prime Minister advising the President of the existence or the imminence of a state of public emergency, the President shall declare a state of emergency. The President shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister in all matters legally required or authorised to be done by the President in relation to a state of emergency.”

The above clearly lays down the authority to declare a state of emergency with no mention about any regime to check abuse of authority or violation of fundamental rights.  The PSO on the other hand augmented such wide powers by ousting judicial review of ‘the fact of the existence or imminence’ of a state of emergency, by its Section 3. 

“Where the provisions of Part II of this Ordinance are or have been in operation during any period by virtue of a Proclamation under section 2, the fact of the existence or imminence, during that period, of a state of public emergency shall not be called in question in any court. (Public Security Ordinance 1947, Section 3).

The PSO further strengthened executive action clearly distancing the judiciary by Section 8.

“No emergency regulation, and no order, rule or direction made or given thereunder shall be called in question in any court.”  (Public Security Ordinance 1947, Section 8).

Public security is a mechanism devised to protect the nation and its people at a time of emergency.  It can be a threat to the life of the nation by external aggression or internal disturbance or even a natural disaster.  Such powers bestowed on the executive by-passing legislative oversight are exceptional circumstances.  They cannot be used to oppress and suppress the freedom and liberties of the very people for whose protection these powers have been granted.  However, experience bears testimony as to how powers have been used by the executive to the extent of near unaccountability and abuse of authority.  In relation to the 1972 constitution, Radhika Coomaraswamy notes:

Read More

Sri Lanka: Who need new constitution?

It Is Not You, Who Needs A New Constitution. But, The Country and The Future Generation

by Ayesh Ranawaka

( October 25, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Recently, the two Chief Prelates of the Malwatu and the Asgiri Chapters issued a special announcement saying Sri Lanka did not need a new constitution or amendments to the present Constitution of the country. Specifically, the Anunayake of the Malwatte Cahpter, Ven. Dimbulkumbure Wimaladharma Thera told the media that the proposed Constitution is detrimental as it will devolve such power, not even the parliament will have, to the Provincial Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas. He said the chief prelates of the other two Buddhist chapters, Ramangnna Nikaya and Amarapura Nikaya, as well as the entire Maha Sangha, will be enlightened on the reforms and their strong opposition to a new constitution will be expressed.

I must say I respectfully disagree with their statement.

We talk highly of our rich past of 2500 years. Sri Lanka is a country that boasts – very proudly – of a vast and rich culture spanning over 2500 years. Through this rich past, we Sri Lankans are hell-bent on recreating our identity and sticking to it, never moving forward, never aspiring to be more than what we are today. Thus, we have nothing left right now. We talk about a past that is gone with nothing in the present. All we do is speak of the history of our country without truly attempting to add to this history. We have gone stagnant and rooted. When we consider the state that some countries that go only as far as 400 to 500 years have developed, we are nowhere near that rate of development. We must develop with the rest of the world instead of hugging our past as a source of pride and living in the past. There is simply no point taking pride in all our historical artefacts and stupas if we do not also make use of them to develop as a nation.

As a devout Buddhist, I would like to mention that Lord Buddha never preached his ways for it to mix with policy and governing. He did not attempt to advice the country’s leaders on how to lead.

As time went on, Kings and Sultans made way for monks to be a part of governance, and today, we have mistaken this, and allowed religion to govern the lands. We are told to give priority to Buddhism, but how are we to do that when there are multiple chapters in this country alone? Lord Buddha preached equality and unity. How then, were these Chapters formed? What foundations are these chapters based on? It is indeed ironic that many of these Chapters are based on Caste basis, and Lord Buddha has always rejected the caste system. This issue is not just something we can avoid or ignore. It is a truly heartbreaking fact that we have held on to our 2500 year old past so much that it has now become cause for that very same pride inducing past to destroy a potential future for the country. It has annihilated the entire system of this country.

We need to create a generation that is willing to think new and to think out of the box. The path that this current government is taking is appropriate. This government has united and has agreed to bring in a new constitution. This is beneficial. Furthermore, it is still under discussion and nothing has been finalised yet. But some individuals who are possibly not even aware of what they are speaking have opposed this.

This country needs a new constitution if it is to go forward. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude and respect to the present government for taking a step forward towards this fearlessly. Wars are never a victory to either side.

Religion and politics must never mix, and the problem with Sri Lanka is that we have worked too closely with Buddhism. Buddhist monasticism is fundamentally a task taken by the humble. It is completely devoid of power and wealth. However, today, some have confused this, and in Sri Lanka there are monks in the parliament too! This in itself is a disgrace to Buddhism. The issue here is that most politicians are afraid to question this in public. However, this is where the media comes in. The media is very important when it comes to answering these questions. The media should not put in unwanted information and utter rubbish into the heads of the people. They achieve nothing, and we must move away from this. The media is notorious for ignoring the real issues if there is a juicy enough scandal they can focus on for several days.

Thus, it is up to the media to make the people understand what exactly the new constitution is before they give any other details.

Furthermore, there is no need to panic after just seeing a draft of the new constitution. It is mandatory that we realise the time has come for a proper change. It is time for a generation that has shed all fears for change and are ready to accept their brother be it Tamil, Muslim or Sinhala. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. We cannot claim to be a secular government if these aspects of a secular government are not present. Sri Lanka needs to become a secular government. Religion should be in a person’s mind and lifestyle, not the government. As I mentioned earlier, I am a devout Buddhist. However, I never forced my beliefs on to my son.

I taught him to think for himself and make his own decisions in a sensible manner, and I did not allow him to define himself by his religion. I have performed my duties for the future, and it is up to you to start. Do not be biased.

This country needs a new constitution if it is to go forward. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude and respect to the present government for taking a step forward towards this fearlessly. Wars are never a victory to either side. If there was a death on one side, if lives were lost – and plenty were – there is no victorious side. What we have to understand is at the end of the day, our caste or religion or race won’t matter. We are all made of flesh and blood. That will not change. Thus, we need a constitution that will allow us to live peacefully. It is a requirement; a mandatory requirement. Thus, I very humbly ask the media and the prelates to allow this country to go forward, through a new constitution.

(Ayesh Ranawaka, is an ex-naval official of Sri Lanka Navy )

A new economic strategy: Just let it roll

 Wednesday, 25 October 2017

Sri Lanka is a private sector economy. There is the big business sector, a raft of small and medium sized businesses, and the huge people’s private sector which encompasses agriculture, fisheries, a large array of small businesses, traders, and the retail sector. It is this vast private sector that creates growth.

A new economic strategy Just let it roll.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Militarization of Mullaithivu… true or not? Highest military to civilian ratio: 1: 2, new report finds

Tamil man killed in Ariyalai shooting

2017-10-25 

 Mullaithivu with a population of 130,000 has an estimated 60,000 security forces with 1:2 force to population ratio

It is time, the Sinhalese and Tamils realize that peaceful coexistence is infinitely preferable

Although the war has ceased, animosity and distrust between communities have not ended

Today’s TV channels are not interested in conveying the truth or factual state of affairs

“On either side of a potentially violent conflict, an opportunity exists to exercise compassion and diminish fear based on recognition of each other’s humanity. Without such recognition, fear fuelled by uninformed assumptions, cultural prejudice, desperation to meet basic human needs, or the panicked uncertainty of the moment explodes into violence.” 
 ~Aberjhani, American historian.

 The Executive Summary of a new report contests the government’s demilitarization process and reveals, ‘Mullaithivu district, with a population of 130,000 has an estimated 60,000 security forces, giving it an extremely steep (1:2) force to population ratio’. If the contents of the said report are true and accurate, the resultant socio-ethnic undercurrents would be unacceptable and an eruption of unwanted preconditions to another blow up inevitable. One uniformed soldier for every two civilians in the district is, in essence, a military cantonment. One couldn’t get a more effective purveyor of unfriendly news (which Donald Trump, US President, calls ‘fake news’).   

Ceylon used to be a land where the faith one believes in or the language spoken and the cultural traditions one followed did not matter when friendships were bonded, community mix was intended and common political ends were fought for. Yet when histories of each community are thrown into this mix, that common bond disappears; those who still hold on to that bond seem more and more reactionary in their minds and the community as a collective mindset fast approaches a breaking point; the devastating effect that this breakdown of communal harmony is widespread amongst all communities. There does not seem to be any long-term resolution to this breakdown of the friendly bonds that existed among these communities. However, there do exist friendships, personal bindings and harmonious acquaintances and relationships among individuals but such alliances are not accepted in the wider realm of community-reconciliation. The Sinhalese community simply cannot equate these individual relationships between Tamils and themselves as a wider reconciliation between the two communities and disregard the legitimate grievances the Tamils clamour about.   

It is in the context of the hallucinated triumphalism and false sense of Aryan-based superiority of the Sinhalese-Buddhist psyche, the real and imaginary Tamil grievances come to life. In the absence of a sincere and sturdy commitment from the political leadership of Sinhalese Buddhists, any utterances and declaration from atop platforms and other fora would look like empty rhetoric and an aimless journey into the wilderness of political anarchy and socio-ethnic doom. Although the war between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE) and Sri Lankan security forces has ceased, the animosity and distrust between the two communities have not ended. On the contrary, a deep-rooted anger has set in. One day it might again find a violent expression of ethnic hatred and racial enmity as it did in the recent past. Such socio-ethnic dynamics do not occur in a vacuum. The majority consisting of Sinhalese Buddhists and their political and religious leadership have to bear a great degree of responsibility for the agonies brought upon the minority Tamils. When such violent destruction was caused to ethnic groups, in terms of modern neo-liberal thinking, such actions are branded in the most dastardly lingo naming and shaming, quite unjustifiably so, as genocide, pogroms and ethnic cleansing, the situation is clearly out of control. The spirit of ethnic harmony, the spirit of racial parity and the fundamental sense of social fairness become mere words expressed by politicians whose very existence depends upon the flaming of violence and discord of different ethnic groups.  

The developing situation in Mullaithivu, as per the Executive Summary of the said report, may very well be a breeding ground for such social spite. Cruelty visited upon one ethnic group by another cannot be condoned, nor should it be encouraged for political advantage. As was stated in my earlier paragraph, such conditions do not manifest themselves in a vacuum and the context in which such conditions appear needs to be changed as the very context is a result of a state of mind created wilfully by vested interests whose parochial politics has dictated, that in politics, winning is not everything but it is the only thing. Politicians of today are beyond repair. 

Their ingrained interest in perpetuating themselves in power, not as a vehicle for service of man but solely as a means to a more wholesome and wealthier end has destroyed their souls and injured their legacy. Callous disregard and apathetic approach to the voters’ needs and demands are finding unkind expression on many a field. The private sector that is totally reliant upon the bones and residue that politicians throw at them are even worse than the government sector-executives and managers. The entire system is rotten and it is showing at every layer and level of each and every socio-economic structure that is in place.  

It is in the context of the hallucinated triumphalism and false sense of Aryan-based superiority of the Sinhalese-Buddhist psyche, the real and imaginary Tamil grievances come to life

This is the cruel truth that we are grappling with today. Today’s television channels are no more interested in conveying the truth or factual state of affairs. They are wilfully engrossed in making and breaking politicians. This warped mindset is dictating what is fit for screening and what is not. Against such a tortuous backdrop, when one reads the Executive Summary authored by Adayaalam Centre for Policy Research (ACPR) and People for Equality and Relief in Lanka (PEARL), the following part of the report stands out: ‘The consequences of such omnipresent militarization are widespread. Tamils must fear for themselves and their children as they encounter security forces on roads, in markets, and in schools while their community development is continuously obstructed. Trust within Tamil communities is inhibited by uncertainty over who may be reporting to the military. The military’s extensive presence inhibits freedom of speech and freedom of thought, since the military’s shadow hovers over all political activities, suppressing engagement in civic fora. It has become so engrained in Tamil society in the North-East that it no longer needs to be visibly seen for its presence to affect the community. The normalization of the military’s presence in various aspects of life in the North-East has led to Tamils internalizing this oppression’. It shows a sure way to another build-up of a terrorist force in the North. Such militarization leads to a physical response from the indigenous population and is prone to defining the issue as a moral contest fought between an overwhelming military force and an oppressed minority. Such easily palatable sloganeering would lead to prolonged clashes. The gates of the Temple of Fairness are being threatened to be broken. The Broken Palmyra is no more of rhetorical value.  

The Mullaithivu populace will have a very legitimate and valid case against such an imbalanced ratio of 1 is to one, military personnel are to civil population. As time passes by, the very physical presence of the army, when taken for granted, would be able to exercise enormous influence and pressure leading to a varied plethora of give-and-takes; such give-and-takes would be inevitably facilitated by bribery and other corrupt practices such as flesh for money etc. These inevitabilities are not able to be anticipated but when the situation demands, the very dynamic of these dishonest processes takes a stranglehold of the doers of the deeds. When the process reaches the plateau of a ‘comfort zone’, a chain of acts and deeds would be born out of sheer necessity. This is the same process that created the current course of culture that has engulfed our population in the rest of the country. A proud people who produced such civil servants, academics, engineers and doctors are being held hostage 21st-century-kind so to speak. Yet we see an emerging investor class, mostly in the hospitality field, all over Jaffna and its suburbs. The Chief Minister seems to be profoundly embedded in the classical Tamil culture, confidence that he asserts and the equally eloquent expression of his true feelings and lending an aura of assurance and arrogance bordering on being condescending at times.  

But the findings of the report that we are discussing will undoubtedly pivot this towards what the Army has to say in their defence. Phony patriots apart, there might be extremely valid reasons behind such a concentration of security personnel being present, if true, in Mullaitivu. The last thing the government and its security forces want would be random occurrences of violence, from whichever quarter they may erupt. Yet it’s incumbent upon the powers that be to explain to the curious public the real facts and question the veracity of the Report in discussion. Sri Lankans are very adept in procrastinating action when they are staring in your face. Despite that highly intolerable characteristic attributable to most of those who occupy higher echelons in the Administration, this Report surly must have been a subject that it discussed at its weekly Security Council Meetings.  

Mullaithivu is not another country. It is very much part and parcel of our motherland. Its population consists overwhelmingly of Tamils. The war is over. It is time, we, Sinhalese, as well as Tamils realized that peaceful coexistence is infinitely preferable to conflict-ridden living.  

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com      

Where Is Plan “B”?

By Lal Keerthie Fernando –OCTOBER 25, 2017

Lal Keerthie Fernando

Is Sri Lanka at the cross roads? Certainly not.

It doesn’t seem to be if one were to read the correct newspapers outlining government/state development activities. Majority do not have the time to read all the newspapers or click in relevant portals encompassing development. Development does not mean infrastructural projects alone. Social welfare projects and disbursements of funds for furtherance is enormous and untold, unknown. Last year, the Indian government published all its activities, investments and related parameter, enveloping their work in SL. This was done on their national day celebrations. Resorting to press releases alone is not enough but detailing out its work, challenges the minds of a nation with 94% literacy rates.

Multi-lateral and Bi-lateral aid programmes and any other if brought to the notice of people, we might find that work has been going on, except delays in pursuing justice for final indictments of culprits. Laws and its administration cannot be rushed; the delays in such cannot be related to delays in development as well. If we remember the famous Military coup in 60s: I was a schoolboy. It took five years; three good officers died in jail while two had serious impact on their marriages. People were patient, reading court proceedings in explicit detail, without comment or lament. Newspapers published what was recorded in courts. It was a time with hardly  any development.

If we are at the cross roads, then we are defunct of Plan “B”. With the newly acquired media freedom, digital and the web rolling out, SL’s exit to plan B is seriously showing path finders to anarchism, where admission of the old idealogy, a matter of the past. Guidance needed to proceed for plan B not forthcoming from the national media in particular, is frightening. This has been the scenario since 1948; our independence, an achievement we acquired to rob each other until such time media was not free. With new freedom, the politician and bureaucrats now begin to be shown and known for their talents: corruption, nepotism and unqualified, remains as a genuine statement. Media points a finger at them: Have others pointed a finger at the media for the same? Or is the kettle calling the pot black? Where is plan B ?

Being unable to show a lead in politics, permits one to accept that the national media too has burnt it`s fingers? Courts  and  pristine sovereignty of the “Bench” and  its judgements, has turned out be a debatable matter;  the “Sil Redi” case is an example; “kangaroo courts”, now a fact. Such practice reflects contempt of court, was never seen or read before, does indicate lack of plan B. These procedures, nevertheless  showing  sentiments for degrading  status of the Executive and Legislature is more open than before. If the Judiciary and legal fraternity were to remain as SL’s last resort to infinity in good governance, it cannot be seen what is taking place now  as remedy, to what SL had prior to 2015.

So…, what is plan “B”? Devolution. This an an alternative which is being fought out in print, digital, to the confusement of average reader. It does not come from the media but the media itself outsourcing to others.

Devolution will only be a success if the Provinces are given the legal statutes and backing for that media; provincial media in print form, until such time digital technology, Wifi & Broadband, becomes more accessible and a reality. Devolution and the role to  be played by the provincial University in guidance and knowledge via the local media will have to remain a factor which cannot be ignored. It can even promote the validity of learning relevant,  and confined to provincial needs.

Devolution will come to remain an impossibility in furtherance in upliftment of the individual in participatory democracy at the district/province level, if the media at the provincial level not being a fact; not there at all. If not, we will come to remain with Plan A only / at the cross roads and national media. That is disastrous.

Although, 13A have done its basics, since 1987, in fact, local government rule existed even during SL’s own Sinhala Royalty times. However, there has not been a mechanism to sustain a coherence in efforts for interacting and disseminating ideas of people; even collectively, in addressing issues as years went by and in particular, in modern times.

Read More

Sri Lanka’s global image dented to $ 77 

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

When the previous regime lost favour with the people on 8 January, the new Government was elected on the expectation of building a new Sri Lanka.

Based on the strategy of good governance and democratic freedom, the current Government’s key mandate initially was to win the world and thereby create a better Sri Lanka. This included making friends with the West that will lead to a new image towards Sri Lanka which can attract stronger FDI, higher quality tourists and more attractive export markets. However, when we look at the results, today we see a reverse trajectory taking form which is sad for Sri Lanka.
Brand image dented – $ 77 b

The latest report released globally reveals that Sri Lanka has dropped one place in its rankings from 58 to 59, with just a 4% increase in brand value to $ 77.0 billion in the backdrop of the past performance averaging 30-35% increase year-on-year for five years (2011-2014) but from 2015 the growth declining (11-4%). Sri Lanka’s brand rating is AA- with a score of 67.2 which is down from last year’s score of 67.5 and does not hold in good stead for a country that is focusing on building its image for deeper links with the world.

One of Sri Lanka’s top marketers and respected business personalities, Brand Finance Managing Director Ruchi Gunewardene stated: “Based on the last two years’ trend, we observe a stagnation of the country’s brand performance. Whilst we saw a jump in the indicators in 2015 following the change in government and the commitment to reforms and governance that was shown at that time, we have not seen this translate into a strong and compelling reason for investors to commit themselves to the country.”

This statement clearly spells out the way forward and it is sad for Sri Lanka given that the country expected so much when the new Government was voted in in January 2015.
What is nation brand building?
Nation brand building’s key architect Simon Anholt (who advises many governments on the nation brand building process) points out that respect is earned on the global stage with a series of actions over a long period of time rather than just orchestrated activity.

In this ethos if we Google Sri Lanka today we have a mixed bag from attacks on SAITM students who have been protesting for over three months without a decision to repeated financial irregularities that includes the coveted entity in a country, the Central Bank. Two ministers have resigned with one being the Finance Minister of the country which we rarely see globally.

Then we have reports of a Taiwan Bank hacking money linked to a chairman of a key Government entity which are news items that do not hold in good stead for a country trying to build a new image globally. In essence the brand value growth tapering down from 35% to 4% as at 2017 data means that drastic action has to be taken by the policymakers.
Six dimensions of national competence

The Anholt-Roper Nation Brands Index looks at a country’s image by examining six dimensions of national competence, all of which are treated equally with no weighting. This gives an overall sense of a country’s reputation as a whole. The six dimensions are:

1. Exports: Examines respondent’s image of products and services from each country and the extent to which consumers proactively seek or avoid products from each country of origin.

2. Governance: Considers public opinion regarding the level of national government competency and fairness and describes individuals’ beliefs about each country’s government, as well as its perceived commitment to global issues such as democracy, justice, poverty and the environment.

3. Culture: Reveals global perceptions of each nation’s heritage and appreciation for its contemporary culture, including film, music, art, sport and literature.

4. People: Explores the population’s reputation for competence, education, openness and friendliness and other qualities, as well as perceived levels of potential hostility and discrimination.

5. Tourism: Captures the level of interest in visiting a country and the draw of natural and man-made tourist attractions.

6. Immigration and Investment: Looks to attract people to live, work or study in each country and reveals how people perceive a country’s economic and social situation.

But a key point to remember is that nation brand building is not about painting a story globally with catchy advertising. It’s more about ‘implementing actions so that the people inside the country’ talk positive of the country and the world feels the vibes. This in turn attracts better FDI, higher spending tourists visiting the country and exports making a deeper penetration into markets.

CEO David Haigh made a strong statement post launching the 2017 edition: “A strong brand has become a defining feature of success in the current economic climate. Worldwide hyper competition for business, combined with an increasingly cluttered media environment, means that a clear message carried by a properly managed brand can provide the crucial leverage needed to thrive.”

Haigh went on to say that the role of tourism branding can impact nations brand image. Sadly, Sri Lanka has not seen any new creatives and strong multimedia campaign on tourism for the past five years. Haigh also voices: “Nations can adopt similar techniques to capitalise on the economic growth that comes with proper positioning of a nation brand that can add 1%-3% to GNP during a financial year.”

Hence it is very clear that a country like Sri Lanka must understand the importance of focusing on building the image of brand Sri Lanka as it has positive correlation to economic performance.
2017 – Competition performance +30% plus

If we take a look at the competitor benchmark countries and their performance we see Indonesia growing by 34% to $ 845 b. Malaysia has grown by 35% to $ 489 b, Thailand by 37% to $ 483 b. High poverty-driven Bangladesh has grown by 22% to $ 208 b. Even with sporadic militant attacks Pakistan has registered a growth of 34% to $ 171 b whilst Myanmar is growing by 25% to $ 55 b.

A country recovering from the earthquake like Nepal is growing by 31% to $ 15 b, which clearly indicates that Sri Lanka is lagging behind the world with a 4% weak performance. By the way the corrective action must be a private-public partnership approach rather than just a State drive.
Economic performance 

If one does a deep dive on the economy, the results today are also not encouraging. The GDP growth in the last three years are 7.4% in 2014, 4.8% in 2015, 4.4% in 2016 which means the overall economy is marginally explaining.

FDI performance is 2013 – $ 1.3 b, 2014 – $ 1.5 b, 2015 – $ 0.9 b, 2016 – $ 0.8 b, which means year on year the attractiveness of Sri Lanka as a country for the future is declining. On the export front 2014 – $ 11.3 b, 2015 – $ 10.5 b and in 2016 – $ 10.3 b means that overall appetite for Sri Lankan merchandise is also declining that does not warrant on a country on the development agenda.
Bond scam Rs. 20 b?

A key component of the Nation Brand computation being Governance, a key highlight in local and global media was the bond scam apart from the street protests and agitation that we see on a daily basis. The latest estimates on the value loss from the bond scam is estimated to be around Rs. 20 billion. The exact numbers will be revealed from the Commission in its report but the immediate loss to the Government by issuing bonds at a discount when the CB could have issued a part at par and the balance in a different mode instead of a 30-year bond has been estimated at Rs. 526 million.

The loss to the Government having to pay interest at 12.5% per annum over 30 years adds to another Rs .10 billion. The losses on account of subsequent issues have not been estimated so far. A CBSL team has estimated the loss to EPF on account of the bond issue on 29 March 2016 was at a staggering Rs. 9 billion whilst the losses to State banks have not been estimated by independent analysts due to lack of data.

Hence we see the ramifications of the bond issue from a strictly financial sense apart from the criminal angle that led to a senior official of the commission calling the private sector business entity a ‘criminal organisation’. Specialists state that these issues together with the low economic performance have contributed to the Sri Lankan brand imagery to hit a $ 77 billion in 2017 with a marginal growth of 4% as against last year.

Luxembourg Govt. – Resigned 

A noteworthy example to the world in the recent past when corruption and alleged malpractice hit a country was the Luxembourg Government. The Government resigned on the damage that the country had undergone due to the spying and corruption scandal that shook the tiny country better known for wealthy bankers.

Media reports that Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister since 1995 and the European Union’s longest-serving Government chief, tendered his resignation to Grand Duke Henri, the Royal Head of State, who himself has been implicated in media reports of espionage. The allegations levelled was that Luxembourg’s security agency had illegally bugged politicians and members of the public, purchased cars for private use and took payments and favours in exchange for access to influential officials.

These are the actions sometimes countries do to protect their nation brand value. As at today Luxembourg as a brand is valued at $ 97 billion growing at 14% as per the 2017 Nation Brand Finance Report. Let’s see if Sri Lanka takes a leaf from this example.
Conclusion – Do the right thing 

The recent revelation by Brand Finance clearly points out that policymakers need to re-look the overall strategy of running the country, especially since 2018 and 2019 will be tough years given the stiff debt payments we have to meet. The only way out is do the right thing.


(The writer is a practicing brand marketer and CEO/President of an international property organisation. The thoughts are strictly his personal views.)