Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Hindu shrines attacked in Mannar

21Nov 2017

Two Hindu shrines were attacked in Mannar last week by unknown persons, with the statues of Pillaiyar ripped from the shrine and thrown into shrubbery.

A further three Pillaiyar statues were reported to have been stolen from shrines across Mannar district.

Earlier this month a Hindu temple in Vavuniya was attacked with the statues of deities thrown across the ground.

Gintota Mayhem Political Parasites Inflamed Communal Disharmony

There are different versions of the tense situation that occurred in Gintota last week. The villagers criticize the media and social activist groups for spreading wrong versions regarding what happened in Gintota and being biased. Daily Mirror visited the affected families of both Sinhala and Muslim communities in the village.

A minor accident turned into an ethnic violence
Clashes intensified after certain politicians entered the area
Former PC member ‘Kiyaz’ fuelled the clashes
Security arrangement was ‘biased’
Several houses and property were damaged
People slept outside their houses

Turning a tiny personal dispute into a communal riot

2017-11-22

Gintota faced a heavily tense situation with impending riots between Sinhalese and Muslims. The root of the havoc was a very small incident. In an accident where a Muslim mother and child were knocked down by a motorcyclist identified as a Sinhalese was the cause of the violence. The accident issue had already been solved. However, according to villagers, two groups of youth, representing both the communities including the friends of the the accident victim, led to an argument.

This issue was personal until those so-called groups allegedly led by a former Provincial Council Member in the area had physically attacked those who earlier engaged in the argument, their houses and some houses of others’ who were not involved in this incident. Affected villagers said the attackers threw acid towards their houses and burnt down a few shops.

The day after the attack, the rival group conducted a meeting in the village with the participation of outsiders coming from Boossa and Rathgama. After the meeting, the group began their retaliation by damaging houses, set fire to shops and vehicles belonging to the rival group.

Gintota, a village boasts of rich harmony between communities

Muslims and Sinhalese have been living in Gintota without any ethnic issues for centuries. People from both communities described how they shared religious and cultural ceremonies and how they helped each other during the natural calamities. “During the last floods, our temple and mosque had joined hands in helping the affected villagers. None showed objection. Everyone gathered to help the displaced people regardless of their race. We buy clothes from the shops that belong to Muslims. Our favourite restaurants are owned by Muslim businessmen. There had never been a disparity between us and them,” 21-year-old Sandun said.

Riyaz, another youth from Gintota said, “We share Watalappan during Ramazan with all Sinhala families in our area, and they never forget to visit us with plates full of sweets during the Sinhala New Year festival.”

Political hand behind the riots

Villagers from both communities admitted the fact that former PC member Mohomed Kiyaz alias Kaif Hussain added fuel to the fire. He was later arrested and is now in remand custody on charges of provoking people.

The Gintota people said this was a planned political act targeting the upcoming Local Government Elections. “It was a political clash in the run up to the forthcoming Local Government Elections rather than a communal clash. We questioned the withdrawal of the STF from the area prior the incident on November 17. The sudden withdrawal of the STF led the attacks to worsen. We are quite sure that some politicians must have instructed to remove the STF”. Mohommed Yazir, from Ampitiya, Gintota said.

Ariyarathna Gamage, Justice of Peace and a resident of Gintota said the politician in question would have been so desperate to project himself as a hero among the Muslim voters. Therefore he would have created this vortex from a tiny incident.

Villagers are not happy with the security arrangement

Although the government has assured the situation in Gintota has returned to normalcy, it has not. The communal unrest has created panic among communities. Some villagers don’t even sleep in their houses at night. Despite the STF and policemen patrolling the area, people leave their houses by 6.00 pm and return on the
following morning.

Some villagers claimed that they had noticed an obvious favouritism in providing STF protection.
“If you visit the entire village, you could see STF personnel almost in every feet in some areas where the ‘other group’ members reside. But here we have no protection and no one knows until someone kills us. Even in temples, there is hardly any STF or Police security deployed in the aftermath of the riots,” Gamage said.

What happened in Gintota from voices of the affected people

They threw acid to our house - Shyama Sandamali

“We had no clue about such accident or brawl until our house was attacked by a group of Muslims led by a politician in the area who expects to contest in the coming Local Government Elections. Mobs led by Kiyaz who was also present in front of my house, were breaking window panes and causing havoc here. When I tried to stop them, they even harassed me.
They had thrown acid in to my house. Scars and marks on the floor would bear witness. Fortunately, my in-laws and nephews who were in house during the attack had left and were hiding somewhere safe.
I didn’t forget to present the video footage to the police, but so far none of the attackers has been arrested.”

My trishaw was set ablaze by petrol bomb - Mohommed Ali

“A group of around 200 Sinhala people came around 8.30 pm and started breaking our gates and damaging our properties on November 17. My three-wheeler was set ablaze by a petrol bomb. Our house was under attack for around two hours. We kept calling police, but to no avail.”

My son was sent to child probation centre - Shriyani Fernando

“My 17-year-old son was attending a funeral when he was taken into custody on charges of assaulting Muslims. He was an innocent and had no involvements whatsoever with the said brawl that took place between two groups.

Due to fabricated charges, he is now at the Child Probation Centre till November 30. I heard people say that was a good place. But, who knows how they would treat my son?

We don’t sleep in our houses at night due to fear - Nazardeen

“Around 60 people started attacking all the houses in this area. Some officers from Galle police were in the lane next to ours but didn’t do anything to stop the attack. Due to the fear, we don’t sleep in our houses at night. We leave the house by 6.00 pm and come back by 6.00 am. We have no assurance given that the attackers would not come back. This time our people were not physically beaten. Not sure whether they would spare us next time.”

They beat my son and threw him into the drain - M.W.Gunapala
“My elder son (25) was sitting on his motorcycle with two of his nephews when a group of Muslims wielding metal poles and bottles of acid attacked him severely. My younger son (21) ran out of the house looking for his brother, was also beaten by the group.

They hit my younger son and threw him into a drain. Both had somehow run into the house and the violators threw acid to the house. However none was injured by the acid attack.

Later, police took my sons into custody. I am asking them why did they arrest my sons who were subject to severe beating by the attackers. They should have arrested those who had come to our area and started attacking our people.”

They attacked innocents; not Kiyaz or his gangs - Mohammed Yazir

“Just after hearing the noises of attackers, I took my children and my wife and went to the half built upstairs of our house to hide. The attackers entered my house breaking the gate and the locked door. They did not only destroy my properties but also robbed my wife’s gold jewellery. We were watching the entire incident from upstairs without being noticed by them or uttering a single word. If we did, we thought that they would attack us.

A brawl had taken place between two rival groups consisting of Muslims and Sinhalese. Those who have been living in this area had never contributed to any kind of racist, religious or ethnic violence. All were living in unity and harmony for years. We don’t know why we were attacked in this manner.

It is reported that politician ‘Kiyaz’ fuelled the incident. However, the attackers attacked innocent people like us, not Kiyaz’s house or his gangs.”

Catholic shrine attacked in Jaffna

21Nov 2017

A Catholic shrine in Jaffna was attacked on November 14, with the statue of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus being removed from the shrine and destroyed.

The attack on the shrine is among a series of attacks on Hindu and Christian places of worship across the North-East in recent months.

Northern Edu Minister’s negative feelings understandable - Wigneswaran

Flag of Sri Lanka. Photo: Dhammika Heenpella via Flickr (CC).

November 21, 2017

Chief Minister of the Northern Province C.V. Wigneswaran responded to a question raised by a journalist on his view on the controversial actions of the Northern Province Education Minister who refused to raise the national flag at an event earlier this month.

The Northern Province Chief Minister stated that even though the National flag of a country cannot be disrespected, every citizen is entitled to their own individual opinion.

He further went on to state that the Sinhalese politicians cannot impose their will on the Tamil populace as the Tamil people of Sri Lanka are yet to fully enjoy the benefits of democracy and freedom.

The chief minister said that he does respect the feelings of the Education Minister, but he regrets that his resentment has taken a form which is derisive of the people. “Minister could have shown his disappointment to Sinhala hegemony in some other way.”

He said that without giving adequate recognition to the original inhabitants of this Island and their religion, the National flag gives undue importance to the Sinhalese and to Buddhism. “This is the reason for the resentment of the Education Minister.”

“After all that is true. The Tamil speaking are the majority community in the North and East and they existed from pre Buddhistic times. Thus the negative feelings of the Minister are understandable,” he added.

The statement made by C.V. Wigneswaran is provided below,

A National flag represents or symbolizes the people of a Country. Citizens may have their own differences inter se. Political parties may have their differences. But we must not use such differences of opinion to show disrespect to the people.

But I might say I have myself undergone the same political reservations or resentment as the Hon’ Education Minister himself has due to the hegemonic attitude of successive Sri Lankan Governments.

Since I participated as a Senior Cadet at Royal in late 1950s at the Independence Day’Parade at Galle Face I did not thereafter attend any Independence Day Celebrations up to date. Though invited every year while I was a Judge I did not participate.

My resentment centered around the fact that though the Country received its Independence from the British in 1948 we the Tamils have not received freedom from Sinhala hegemony which was set up post - Independence after the Britishers left.

In 2015 when Hon’ Sambandan preferred to show his good will to the Sinhalese by attending that year’s Independence Day celebrations I excused myself. Rightly Hon’ Mano Ganesan has asked what benefits has Hon’ Sambandan achieved due to his goodwill, from the Good Governance Government. I have thus shown my resentment to Sinhala hegemony in my own way.

Nevertheless as Chief Minister I have been hoisting the National Flag and showing my respect to the people. I have also stood at attention when the National Anthem is sung. I openly welcomed the singing of the National Anthem in my mother tongue some time ago.

Therefore one should realize that our resentment to Sinhala domination from 1948 has taken different forms. Hon’ Education Minister has shown his resentment in one way and I have been showing mine in another way.

I do respect the feelings of the Education Minister. But I regret that his resentment has taken a form which is derisive of the people. Hon’ Minister could have shown his disappointment to Sinhala hegemony in some other way.

Without giving adequate recognition to the original inhabitants of this Island and their religion our National flag givesundue importance to the Sinhalese and to Buddhism. This is the reason for the resentment of the Hon’ Education Minister. After all that is true.The Tamil speaking are the majority community in the North and East and they existed from pre Buddhistic times. Thus the negative feelings of the Hon’ Minister are understandable.

I am told in the USAthe burning of the National flag is considered as a democratic right of its citizens. They do not take into custody and punish those who indulge in such activities.

Hence I would appeal to Hon’ Dr.Sarveswaran to show his resentment to Sinhala majoritarian hegemony in some other way rather than by such refusal to unfurl the National flag. But I do not think his conduct needs any further action on our part.

This is an occasion, God sent, for our Sinhalese brethren to understand the hidden negative feelings among us Tamils embedded in our hearts for so long. We do not like to hurt our Sinhalese brethren. But our reservations are nevertheless true and are real.

A Minister in Parliament has asked how powers could be granted to the Northern Province when an Hon’ Minister has disregarded the National flag. The Hon’ Central Minister should try to understand the reasons for the reaction of an Hon’Minster of the Northern Province. Having committed wrongs which attracted appropriate reactions from those affected, the Sinhala politicians must realize their folly before making such silly statements. Let me explain myself.

Firstly it is ridiculousfor the Hon’Minister to believe that it is the Sinhala politicians who have the legal right to grant powers to the Minorities. Such a state of affairs have come to pass in this Island consequent to the Sinhalese politicians deceiving both the British as well as the Tamils during the time of Independence.

Having obtained control of the governmental machinery through Territorial Representation, consequent to deception committed on the Tamils the Sinhalese politicians have continuedto tighten their strangle hold on the administrative and the political processesto use such position to violently deal with the minorities. The Law does not expect a majority community to discriminate against minorities and help pass Laws congenial to the majority community.

It Switzerland they give concessions to minorities not given to the majority community. Here there is open discrimination in education, employment in Government Sector, economic development and in many other fields.

When Tamil Leaders showed their disapproval to the Sinhala Only Act they were thrown into the Beira Lake. Violence started there against minority protests. Keeping the Armed Forces continuously for eight years now in the Northern andEastern Province is violence. It is done much against our wishes.

So having indulged in violent acts against the Tamils Hon’ Minister is trying to pass the blame on to us.

Secondly the Hon’ Minister must realize that peaceful demonstration of any sort against something discriminatory is a democratic right. It is the wrongs perpetrated by the Sinhalese Politicians which have made us react to their discriminative actions. If the Hon’ Minister says “We shall not grant powers to you if you react against the wrongs perpetrated by us” that is again violence. The Hon’ Minister is trying to indulge in violence by making such statements.
Thirdly our Minister must realize that rights and powers are granted in terms of the Law not according to the whims and fancies of violently oriented politicians.

Fourthly the Hon’ Minister has the temerity to utter such threats, having been a party to keeping the Armed forces continually for eight years in the North and East since the end of the war.To continue to keep the Tamils of the North and East under bondage seems to be his real intention. That is why he says we will not give powers to the North and East if they protest.

Let the Hon’ Minister first try to empathise with our Education Minister; let him realize that the Hon’ Education Minister is reacting to what the Sinhalese politicians have earlier done, most of whom had been kinsmen or friends of the Hon’ Minister.

If the Hon’ Minister continues to utter such threats to us, he must realize he is perpetrating violence. Let not the Hon’ Minister pursue nor perpetrate violence.

The three puppeteers

SWRD, JRJ and Wijeweera: three leaders who fundamentally changed Sri Lanka

“Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing.”
~Albert Schweitzer

2017-11-22

The influence of Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandaranaike (SWRD), Junius Richard Jayewardene (JR) and Rohana Wijeweera (Wijeweera) on the local political theatre is unmatchable.

The great puppeteers of local political minds, they excelled in their chosen field and when they entered the arena, the aura that emanated from their physical statures, albeit SWRD and Wijeweera being slight and unimpressive, while JR was all persona and impeccable, the collective impression on the psyche of Sri Lanka’s politics and the altered course it instilled in the course of the country’s history, is undeniable.

In their presence, other political personalities withered; whether the effect is one of the positive results or negative consequence of a policy gone bad, the lasting quality of their policies, the assuredness of their unmitigated commitment to the cause they chose to serve made them stand apart from the rest amongst whom were some other brilliant personalities who strove so hard yet did not achieve the lasting and enduring results of political giants.

SWRD, JR and Wijeweera stood apart like three Generals, who had relegated the commanding presence of the likes of N. M. Perera, Colvin R. de Silva, Pieter Keuneman, Dudley Senanayake, R. Premadasa, Lalith Athulathmudali, Gamini Dissanayake, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, S. J. V. Chelvanayagam and Velupillai Prabhakaran to a not-so-great category.

Visionaries of a unique genre, the three giants stamped their impression for posterity not only for its own sake but for the country to follow and not so at the same time.

At this juncture of this column, let the reader be warned, especially in the context of Sri Lanka’s Post-Independence politics, how dare would Prabhakaran and Chelvanayagam enter the same arena, which had been sanctified by the Sinhalese Buddhist

‘Good Guys’?.

One may or may not agree with the policies, tactics and strategies of Chelvanayagam and Prabhakaran. But the influence they exercised over their own people was beyond dispute.

A thirty-year war could not have been sustained, had they been less influential and less consequential. But however much these second category of politicians gained a foothold on the Sri Lanka’s path to modernisation and economic salvation, none could do so with such lasting measure as it was demonstrated by SWRD, JR and Wijeweera, individually as well as collectively.

SWRD at the time he realised that there was no path for him within the ranks of the United National Party and its leader D. S. Senanayake, he made one of the most fundamentally sound decisions to leave it and go on his own.

Not only did he opt to break with the UNP and its heavy baggage of colonial subservience, he cleared a very savvy way for a novel brand of ‘identity politics’ of the time.

Political tribalism was in fact introduced by SWRD in 1956. His Swabhasha slogan, given leadership to by the Maha Sangha of the likes of Mapitigama Buddharakkhitha, Chief of the Kelaniya Vihara and eventual conspirator of his assassination, set apart the Sinhalese Buddhists from the rest of the country.

This was a fundamentally significant landmark in the country’s course of socio-political life.
Setting the common man apart from the rest, setting him as a victim of years-long suppression and negligence, rendering him a distinct personality and identifying him in terms of socio-economic values and then unleashing his thereto suppressed desires, class-enmities and parochial beliefs, if not checked at necessary intervals and junctions, could be devastating and destructive.

Let the reader be warned, especially in the context of Sri Lanka’s Post-Independence politics, how dare would Prabhakaran and Chelvanayagam enter the same arena, which had been sanctified by the Sinhalese Buddhist ‘Good Guys’?.

SWRD was a man who was assassinated by the very forces he willingly released. In mere three years, the heroic entry of the common man’s era became somewhat an unwelcome torrential rain of misplaced and misjudged values and measures.

Political power assuming all-powerful dimensions and becoming a dangerous tool in the hands of an uneducated and checkered individual had had consequential effects and cascading of these tendencies down generations have today produced a totally corrupt culture.

In the context of a nation’s march to progress and growth, provision of a ‘place in the sun’ for the common man is a highly creditworthy ideal and those who pursue such an ideal should be encouraged. Yet when such a pursuit is glaring at the defilement of values and measures that set Sri Lankan culture as one rich and wealthy in religious and ethnic harmony, the story becomes completely disfigured and warped. The common man has become his own enemy. The lofty ideals he had set for himself have been subordinated to avarice and pursuit of mundane pleasures.

While the common man’s social standing has risen way above his expectations, the Swabhasha policies of the Government of SWRD set the country’s most precious asset, youth, two or three generations behind his contemporaries in the Asian region. The 1956 revolution became a transformation of a nation from bad to worse instead of good to better.

JR, on the other hand, had a very difficult hand to deal with. On merit alone, J R should have become the country’s leader after the demise of D S Senanayake. Yet he had to wait another twenty-five years to ascend to the throne. From 1952 to 1977, the road that led JR to the pinnacle of power was visited with more cacti than roses.

Yet when he arrived there, in Benjamin Disraeli’s immortal words: “after having climbed to the top of the greasy pole”, JR, in the words of his own biographer, K M de Silva, was an old man in a hurry.

Disenfranchisement of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, though at the time of its execution looked draconian and self-serving, was the logical outcome of a legitimate findings of a Special Presidential Commission established for the purpose of finding the truths about gross abuse of political powers so exercised by the two Bandaranaikes, Sirimavo and Felix Dias.

Yet, JR’s greatest contribution to the country’s progress was the opening of the economy which was manacled by the shortsighted socialist policies of the Sirimavo Bandaranaike-led left-of-center Government of 1970 – 1977.

As much as SWRD’s Swabhasha policies turned the national consciousness of Sri Lanka, JR’s economic policies fundamentally changed its economic character. It’s never to return to the outdated left-wing socialism that was the fashion of the third-world countries of the fifties and sixties.

The socio-political currents unleashed by SWRD and JR respectively had plusses as well as minuses. It’s too early to judge their ultimate effect on the history of the country at large. As leaders of a developing nation, both SWRD and JR made a conscious effort to serve the country they called their motherland and there is no evidence whatsoever of malicious intent on their part.

Their commitment to the cause they chose to serve was total; their efforts untiring and while SWRD was lackadaisical in his execution, JR exhibited ruthless efficiency.

When JR got down to work, one could not have found a more disciplined leader.

Now we come to the third leader who contributed to a fundamental change in Sri Lanka’s political psyche- Rohana Wijeweera. Born on Bastille Day, July 14, 1943, Rohana Wijeweera hailed from a coastal fishing village situated in southern Sri Lanka and belonged to the Karava Caste hierarchy.
By way of five oversimplified classes, Wijeweera transformed the minds of the rural youth into Angry Young Men and Women bent on revolutionising the county’s political path for good.

Violent overthrow of a democratically elected Government did not occupy the mind of the average youth in Sri Lanka. Wijeweera simply managed to alter that dynamic and his pioneering efforts in the formative years of his creation, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) are legendary.

Long before Prabhakaran initiated his own Tamil militancy in the North, Wijeweera showed in no scarce terms that the mind of youth is very much prone to the vagaries of violent and exhibitionistic propensities. Within a matter of twenty-three years, from 1966 to 1989, Wijeweera launched two violent uprisings, killing hundreds of political opponents and instilling dread and fear into the minds of a docile community, whose most violent reaction to Government suppression up to that time was a failed Hartal and countless general strikes at workplaces.

An archetypical speaker in the vernacular, Wijeweera had no match in mob oratory; the flow of the language mesmerised thousands of activists and they literally sacrificed their lives for this man whose untiring dedication to the cause of the suppressed masses was never a subject of debate.

Wijeweera stirred the conscience of Sri Lanka’s youth. A sense of romanticism entered the realm of the nation’s politics and that romanticism captured not only the youth, it left an indelible legacy among the middle-aged, lower-middle-class men and women. His oratorical skills were equalled by none.

He pioneered a movement that led the country’s youth in a violent revolutionary fervor. His contribution to modern Sri Lanka’s history is undoubtedly unique and fundamental.

Of the three leaders we discussed here, two, SWRD and Wijeweera, were educated abroad; SWRD at Oxford and Wijeweera at the Patrice Lumumba University, Soviet Union. JR was a total local product, Royal College, University of Ceylon and Law College.

The two who were educated abroad advocated Left-wing political theories while the local-educated JR, promulgated Capitalism.

SWRD and Wijeweera were assassinated, one by a Buddhist Monk and the other by the Security Forces of the country. JR died in bed, at the ripe-old age of 90.

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com

P.M. before Bond Commission ; Maithri installs secret camera to watch his Comic-mission proceedings from home !

(Lanka-e-News - 20.Nov.2017, 10.40PM) President Maithripala Sirisena has installed a secret camera and microphone in his residence to watch the proceedings of the Bond Commission alias ‘Bond Comic-mission’ of his , as well as to enjoy the comedy drama that is being staged there , based on reports reaching Lanka e news inside information division .

Those lawyers cum liars of the Bond Comic-mission who are always seeking to shine like ‘stars’ and outshine others are therefore behaving in whatever grotesque manner to please the president , it is learnt.

In any event , this is the first time in SL’s history a prime minister (P.M.) appeared to give evidence before a Commission while holding office, and that P.M. is Ranil Wickremesinghe. It is to be noted the questionnaire sent to the P.M. was returned with the answers .

For the questioning of P.M. today , the Attorney General himself made his appearance before the Commission, reports say.

It is well to recall when Ranil Wickremesinghe was the leader of the opposition during the Chandrika era, he unhesitatingly gave evidence before the ‘Batalanda Commission’ .The final report of the Commission however exonerated Wickremesinghe of all charges while also pointing out there weren’t sufficient proof to find him guilty. Yet like now even then there was heavy mudslinging against him. That mudslinging was so much so that mud had now formed into mounds at several places.

Though the Bond Commission was established to probe into irregularities , if any when treasury bonds were issued , this Commission of the president began with the primary aim to be a muddy den to sling mud at political opponents. And by now it has transformed into a president’s Comic- mission having gone even beyond villainous mudslinging. There is enough testimony to prove this. Hereunder are some …

1. When Perpetual Treasuries Co. was purchasing the bonds , though it was imperative to probe whether any undue profit was appropriated under those transactions without any doubt , during the last government , that was deliberately neglected.

2. At that time , during the period of the last government the Central Bank Governor Cabraal got his sister appointed as a Director of Perpetual Treasuries Co. , and with Cabraal’s exit , his sister too left the Co. There couldn’t have been a more close relationship and a dubious move than that when the controversial bonds were issued. Yet despite the fact she should have been summoned before the Commission , the latter purposely ignored that.

3. In that transaction , Perpetual Treasuries Co. had purchased only 60 % of the shares , while the balance 40 % was purchased by other companies. If truly , it is to be determined Perpetual Co. made an undue profit , that must be ascertained vis a vis the other companies which purchased 40 % of the shares . Unbelievably ,those companies were not summoned deliberately.

4. What is the profit a private Co. should collect in a transaction involving the government ? What profit is it entitled to? What is the limit? These are still moot points. In any event a private Co. earning a profit is not a crime, and it is there to make profits.

If only the profit is earned causing a loss to the government that becomes a crime. The Commission instead of investigating that is wallowing in mud. This was well illustrated by the many calls that were revealed by the Commission as allegedly exchanged between the chief of the Co. and the politicians. But the fact of the matter is so far the world has still not discovered a methodology in economics to determine the profits made based on the number of phone calls exchanged. However since the Bond Comic- mission of the president has seemingly discovered such a method , perhaps it is why it is vying for the Nobel prize for 2018, in economics.

The Commission after purposely concealing the number of phone calls taken by Perpetual Co. chief to the opposition politicos , is highlighting only the calls taken to the UNP members of the COPE Committee . From this, the aim and objective of the Comic-mission is obvious.

For example , the time spent on the solitary call supposedly taken to Ajith P.Perera is zero min. The time consumed on the supposed phone call taken by Ajith Perera to the perpetual securities chief is also zero min. It is deducible from that Ajith Perera has only responded to a missed call. Yet highlighting that mud was slung at Ajith Perera .

Over 800 calls have been taken by the Perpetual security chief to Mahinda Rajapakse , but those have been suppressed . Even the 6 SMS messages sent by Maithripala Sirisena to Perpetual chief were hidden . Why ?

Going by the aforementioned stark facts , because Maithripala Sirisena transformed his Bond Commission into a mudslinging Comic-mission , hereafter , it will be impossible to avert the loss of faith of the public in such Commissions appointed by a future president of the country , for the credibility of the Commissions is already totally eroded.

---------------------------
by (2017-11-20 17:29:36)

ou Sir! No Sir, Not I Sir, Who Then Sir?

By SANJA DE

SILVA JAYATILLEKA-November 21, 2017

The nation waited with bated breath as the PM, in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Central Bank, was called before the Bond Commission.

The people of Sri Lanka had seen the ferocious efficiency with which the inquiry was conducted by the representatives of the Attorney General’s Department, turning Dappula de Livera and DSG Yasantha Kodagoda into popular heroes of a grateful public, seeing their skill and determination in their search through the complex transactional twists and turns of the Bond Scam.

This very determination seems to have eliminated them from being the persons who would question the PM. Citing protocol accorded to the PM attending a Commission of Inquiry, the Attorney General himself questioned the PM instead. The courtesy extended to the PM included desisting from addressing any follow up questions that would force the PM to go beyond the limits of what he seemed to have planned to say on the day.

It was a cakewalk for the PM, unlike for Minister Ravi Karunanayake, who was forced to resign as a result of what emerged from the questioning by the Attorney General’s department at the Bond Commission. This was a fate that did not befall the other three Ministers who attended the inquiry by whatever magic that ensured that neither Mr. De Livera nor Mr. Kodagoda would question them. The people understood the limits imposed on the Commission, but were glad that it did its best within them.

Going by reports of the PM’s replies to the written questions, and his replies at the Commission itself, he seemed to have absolved himself of any wrongdoing. In fact, he hardly admits there has been any wrongdoing by anybody at all.

If there were, he seemed to suggest that the Commissioners should look in the direction of Arjuna Mahendaran or Ravi Karunanayake. However he generously concludes that he is sure Mr. Mahendran "acted in good faith". What a relief for the beleaguered public. Not so bad then, if we were scammed "in good faith".

If the PM is innocent of any wrongdoing, it is nerve-wracking to think that our country is in the hands of someone of such enormously bad judgment. The large contingent of UNF Ministers who appeared in support of him at the Bond Commission, seem determined to celebrate him unconditionally including his bad judgment.

The PM’s replies are of great use to all who want to learn how to avoid blame. Just make sure it was someone else’s responsibility while declaring that you had complete faith in them. Examples abound.

Appointment of the Governor of CBSL

Was it the PM who in early January 2015, invited Mr. Arjuna Mahendran to accept appointment as the Governor of the CBSL?

The PM replies that:

In a discussion with him, Mr. Ravi Karunanayake agreed that Mr. Arjuna Mahendran was the best candidate

Mr. Ravi Karunanayake then recommended to the President, with the PM’s concurrence, that Mr. Mahendran should be appointed.

The President, "acting upon the said recommendation appointed Mr. ArjunaMahendran as the Governor of the CBSL."

So, it looks pretty much like it was Ravi Karunanayake who was immediately responsible for Mr. Mahendran’s appointment.

The Commission then makes a further attempt to pin the PM down on whether it was in fact the Finance Minister, Mr. Karunanayake or the Mr. Wickremesinghe "as the Hon. Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs (which is the Ministry under which the CBSL has been placed)" on whose recommendation Mr. Mahandran was appointed. But Mr. Wickremesinghe is not so easily pinned down! He repeats what he said earlier:

"… I discussed the proposed appointment with the then Minister of Finance who agreed that Mr. Mahendran was the most suitable candidate. Accordingly, the then Minister of Finance with my concurrence recommended to His Excellency the President that Mr. Mahendran should be appointed. His Excellency the President acting upon the said recommendation appointed Mr. ArjunaMahendran as the Governor of the CBSL."

Great stuff. "Not I Sir" is in full swing here.

Surely the question is, with whom did the then Minister of Finance "agree"? Who suggested Mr. Mahendran in the first place? Who "proposed" the "proposed appointment" of Mr. Mahendran?

There’s more.

The method of Bond Issuance

Question: Who decided on the method of Bond issuance?

The Commission tells the PM that Mr. Mahendran says that "you instructed him that, the practice of accepting Private Placements of Treasury Bonds should be stopped."

Answer: "It was the view of all concerned in the new Government that in order to achieve more transparency the raising of funds by way of Public Auction was preferable to the private placement method. This view was conveyed to Mr. Mahendran."

Basically, the unspecified "all concerned" are responsible for introducing a new method of Bond issuance without adequate thought to its consequences on the economy. The PM is not individually responsible for making that decision, even though he was the Minister in charge. No accountability seems to accrue to him. Is this the case with all Ministers? Is the Cabinet completely unaccountable for its decisions and are Cabinet Ministers unaccountable for their decisions?

Due Process for changing methods of Bond issuance

Question: Was the right procedure followed in implementing this sudden change? The Commissioners ask the PM:

"Did you, in fact, instruct Mr. Mahendran, on 24th February 2015, to immediately stop the practice of accepting Private Placements of Treasury Bonds?"

The PM predictably says what amounts to, Hey don't look at me! I had complete faith in the Governor to take care of all that!

His actual answers to the two questions trying to elicit who was responsible for the sudden change which occurred overnight were:

"…I insisted that Mr. Mahendran should consider the issuance of Bonds by way of Public Auction in accordance with the economic policy of the Government and I expected that he would comply with due procedure."

"…it was expected that Mr. Mahendran would take appropriate steps in accordance with due procedures to give effect to the objectives of the Government as expeditiously as possible in the light of concerns expressed by me."

Mr. Mahendran, it was You, Sir!!

The sudden increase in the amount of the Bond Issuance

The Commissioners want to know why such a large amount of Bonds were issued when they had evidence that it was not necessary. They say:

"…the evidence before this Commission of Inquiry suggests that the funds required for these payments were to be raised only in the months of April or May 2015 and that, there was no requirement for any funds for this purpose to be raised at the Treasury Bond Auction held on 27th February 2015 or at Treasury Bond Auctions to be held during the month of March 2015."

Answer:

The Minister of Highways stated that there was an urgent need of funds for road development projects, which were undertaken by the previous Government for which the Treasury was unable to provide funds.

The Interim Budget also involved additional expenditure including an increase in recurrent and capital expenditure in March.

I requested that the concerned Ministers and officials of the Treasury and CBSL meet as soon as possible.

Subsequently, they including the Governor CBSL had met on 26th February 2015 and they determined that Rupees Fifteen billion was urgently required.

Mr. Mahendran informed me that evening he may be able to raise money far in excess of Rupees One billion in the Bond Auction fixed for 27th February 2015.

Mr. Mahendran, it looks again like it was You Sir!

MR. Mahendran’s Son-in- Law’s involvement with Perpetual

The Commisioner’s ask:

"What action would you recommend against misleading and false statements made to the Prime Minister of the country?"

Reply: "I believed that Mr. Mahendran acted in good faith."

The Clincher! It’s all his fault! The ultimate "Not I, Sir!"

From the point of view of the citizens, checks and balances are there in systems and processes in order that errors of bias of this sort can be mitigated. Mr. Wickremesinghe’s ‘beliefs’ are his private matter and cannot be relied upon beyond a point! But the Auditor General who pointed these out is out on a limb!

And to further questions, more of the same by the PM:

"In this regard the due procedure I expected Mr. Mahendran to follow was to work within the rules and guidelines set by the Monetary Board and follow best practices relating to the running of a Central Bank. Beyond this, I was not expecting to give any instructions or exercise any supervisory role."

"As stated earlier, I had no reason to believe that Mr. Arjuna Mahendran would face a conflict of interest, and there was no special reason to satisfy myself that due procedure had been followed."

Mr. Mahendran! Tsk! Tsk!

But what about checks and balances? Who is responsible for satisfying themselves that due procedure had been followed?

The US Treasury

What about the text message that seemed to suggest that Arjuna Aloysius was meant to meet with Mr. Wickremesinghe regarding the US Treasury?

The Commissioners ask:

"…A text message sent on 14.01.2017 by Mr. Aloysius’s Personal Assistant Steve Samuel appears to be reminding Mr. Aloysius of a meeting with you regarding the US Treasury. Was there a meeting scheduled between you and Mr. Aloysius on that date? ... did you in fact meet Mr. Aloysius on 14.01.2017 regarding the US Treasury or any other matter?"

Answer: "There was no meeting scheduled between Mr. Aloysius and myself, nor did I meet Mr. Aloysius, on 14 January 2017, regarding the US Treasury or any other matter."

Clearly, that would not have been proper at all.

However, Mr. Wickremesinghe seems to have met a specialist from the US Treasury himself, dashing any hope that Mr. Aloysius may have had of joining in! The Daily Financial Times reports that "A specialist brought down from the US Treasury, said Wickremesinghe, introduced the Government to this system."

Who then Sir?

The PM, despite his great technique, failed to look anything like Caeser’s wife. So questions remain.

We put our faith in the Commissioners, to present their observations and conclusions leading to a process of clear identification of those who are accountable, directly and indirectly, for the scam, the chain of command or decision-making and thus enable the President to take appropriate action including recommendation of controls and monitoring as in Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron so that the country and its citizens are never again subjected fraud on such a massive scale by seemingly unrepentant perpetrators.

(The author was part of the Sarbanes-Oxleyteam as an accountant at GSK in London when the US Federal law was first applied in the UK.)

Ranil Passes Bond Scam Bucks To Mahendran And Ravi K Continues To Befriend Them

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, testifying before the Bond Commission, stated that he had rested on the assurance of Governor Arjuna Mahendran regarding the divestment of Arjun Aloysius’ ownership in Perpetual Treasuries and had insisted on the divestment prior to Mahendran taking over as Governor.

21November 2017

It is now clear that Aloysius did not resign from PT Holdings and is the mastermind of the Bond Scam. While there is no evidence as of yet that the Prime Minister had any direct dealings with Aloysius, he still maintains Mahendran as the Head of his Five Year Development Plan, despite Mahendran having lied to him about his son-in-law.

Wickremesinghe also stated that he made a similar assumption regarding Ravi Karunanayake, believing that the senior UNPer and former cabinet minister was telling the truth about the ‘Penthouse allegation when it was first made by MP Mahindananda Aluthgamage.

“I asked him ( Karunanayake) about it and he said no. There was no reason to go further”, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe said in response to a question posed by Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya.

When Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya asked Wickremesinghe if was no specific information that Mr Arjuna Mahendran in fact did keep those words about the assurances he gave, the Prime Minister said “I had no information that he deliberately misled me and the Pitipana committee also did not have any information to that effect and I don’t think even the COPE, although it did make some comments, had any findings of that matter.”

While the Commissioners appeared to take Wickremesinghe’s word about assurance given to him, they failed to ask why he had given Karunanayake a new post after it was found that Karunanayake in fact had lied to the prime minister about the penthouse.

After Ravi Karunanayake resigned as Foreign Minister, following revelations regarding dealings with Aloysius including the latter paying the rent of a plush penthouse, Wickremesinghe appointed him as the head of the Rural Infrastructure Special Programme. Karunanayake continued to use VIP security and vehicles like a powerful minster even after submitting his resignation.

Ranil’s reluctant tryst with truth

Wednesday, 22 November 2017

Twenty years ago in 1998, Dr. Jayadeva Uyangoda writing in the periodical ‘Frontline’ traced our peculiar path of progress in the 50 years of independence. In about 40 days we will reach the 70th year of independence as a post-colonial nation state.

The adjective ‘modern ‘is evaded for good reason. We are frozen in history. We elected a peasant in place of an autocrat who thrived in the patrimonial state. Yet Ranil’s style of governance bent on preserving a primitivity that dating back to pre-independence times, poignantly captured in the lyrics of the song ‘Master Sir, Mata Himi Thena Denna.’

Fossil minds in modern veneer

Sagala Ratnayake, Minister of Law and Order, switches off his mobile phone for an afternoon snooze in his manorial refuge in the deep south. The President wants to reach him for an update on a recent rumpus also in the south and instructs an aide to link him with Sagala by phone. The Presidential aide discovers the Minister’s mobile muted and calls the residence.

Sagala’s major domo informs the senior Presidential aide that waking his master in repose was unthinkable. “Hamu Mahaththya nidi. Aharunama kiyannan” (Master is asleep, will tell him when he is awake) was the response that the Presidential aide heard in tone clearly conveying its finality.

While the UNP ruling class is cocooned in feudal hierarchical primitivity, 21st century household servants are not dumb. The domestic aide’s refusal to wake up Sagala was dictated by a subconscious sharing of his master’s world view. He would have heard countless conversations between Sagala Hamu and Ranil Hamu that would have formed the frame of reference to the ‘Janadhipathithuma’ who in his opinion was another ‘Gamarala’ who could damn well wait till ‘Sagala’ Hamu wakes up.

Where are we today, a day after a Prime Minister for the first time in 70 years of our parliamentary democracy appeared before a commission of inquiry to explain his Prime Ministerial decisions? He is at great pains to explain that it was voluntary, and the purpose was to clarify events, circumstances and decisions.

In the humble view of this writer, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is also the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka who by a sworn affidavit has contradicted himself in the Hansard, the official record of parliamentary proceedings.

Where are we today

The answer to the question ‘Where are we today?’ requires retracing our tracks in the last 70 years. There is no point in reinventing the wheel.

Dr. Uyangoda has disassembled and reassembled our first 50 years in elegant prose and a pitiless probity. “…in a political and historical sense my own biography of the past 48 years has been closely intertwined with the 50-year biography of post-colonial Sri Lanka. I grew up in the early 1950s in the relative peace of an isolated Sinhalese village. As a six-year-old child, I learnt about the assassination of Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, and political assassinations were to constitute a major facet of my country’s politics since I reached the age of 38. As an eight-year-old child, I learnt about the differences between the Sinhalese and Tamil communities; then, of course, even the everyday events of my entire adult life were to be governed by Sinhala-Tamil conflictual politics. I came of age in the radical 1960s while being fed, looked after and educated by one of the best welfare states in the developing world. The welfare state, which also stood as an obstacle to significant economic growth, produced from among its own children a generation of bewildered idealists. Being one among them I ran away from home, became a modern anarchist, tried my hand at revolution and along with my generation paid a heavy price for that misadventure. Then in the twilight of my youth, in the 1980s, I witnessed how my country all of a sudden began to lose all its idealism and hope while aggression, hostility, ethnic self-righteousness, brutality and violence were welcomed with fervour by all those who mattered in shaping Sri Lanka’s political future. At present I am watching, not with pleasure, how Sri Lanka is running deeper and deeper into its decades-old crisis. In despair, I read the poetry of despair. As I recently read in a poem by Pakistan’s Kishwar Naheed, ‘I and my country were born together – We lost our sight in childhood.’” http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1505/15050620.htm

Ranil Wickremesinghe, Chandrika Kumaratunge and Mahinda Rajapaksa collectively epitomise the folly of the next 20 years from 1998 to 2018.

Chandrika is history. Mahinda dislodged from the saddle is fiercely clutching on to a part of the harness. The horse is restless. The purpose of this essay is to assess how long Ranil will remain on the saddle. In a previous essay 48 hours before, this writer noted that, “No matter how Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s encounter with the Commission turns out, its final outcome will be monumental and transformational.”

Reading the details of his affidavit submitted to the commission published in the Island newspaper and the detailed report of yesterday’s proceedings carried in the Daily Mirror makes it abundantly clear that he is not just injured but fatally wounded. The question is how he will survive on his saddle but how long?

Not Ranil bashing

Ranil bashing is today a fashionable pastime among commentators. This writer is not one of them. His earlier prime ministerial tenure was a positive path to progress economic and political. We knew Prabhakaran to be a ferocious beast. Given the magnitude of the carnage and the precious years forfeited in an unending conflict, this writer admired the courage of Ranil Wickremesinghe to sign a Cease Fire Agreement with the LTTE and explore a negotiated settlement. A more powerful executive President made some noise but did not repudiate the shaky peace that followed.

The war-winning redeemer of the Sinhala nation who by then was already anointed ‘Sri Rohana Janaranjana’ by the monastic order in Kandy did not critique the agreement and retained for more than two years continuing the dialogue under his presidency. In the presidential elections of 2005 Ranil lost by a whisker. Anyone claiming that the Sinhala people opposed the CFA is a classic parvenu and a charlatan. Ranil polled 48.43 % against Mahinda’s 50.29%. That was when Sinhala soldiers fought the war. ‘Ranaviru’ warriors emerged a few months before General Fonseka went to jail.

In an article published in the Daily Mirror of 20 October 2005 this writer condemned the protean politics of Mahinda and endorsed the decisive politics of Ranil.

The man changed after May 2009 and embarked on collusive politics with the autocrat Mahinda who was now Janaranjan not only of Sri Rohana but the entirety of the Thrisinhala.

Since 8 January 2015, he has bonded with oligarchs who thrived under Mahinda Rajapaksa. Under Mahinda, the sister of the Central Bank Governor accessed the nation’s largest pension fund. Ranil made it simpler. He appointed a Governor whose son-in-law lived with him, shared WhatsApp and Viber with him to do it.

The Prime Minister informs the commission in his affidavit: “Mr. Mahendran was selected for appointment in view of his professional qualifications and experience in the field of banking and investments. He had functioned as the Chairman of the BOI during the period 2002 to 2004. He had also held senior positions in the banking industry in Middle East and Singapore. The previous incumbent lacked comparable qualifications and experience and the administration of the CBSL during his tenure of his office had been the subject of severe criticism. Hence, prior to the general election of 2015 there was a general demand from our political allies that a competent person versatile in banking and International finance should be appointed to the post of Governor of the CBSL.”

Clarifications

During his voluntary clarifications he is told: “Now these are the clarifications we need. The first one is where you aware about the holding companies of PTL were Perpetual Capital Holding Ltd. and Perpetual Capital Ltd.?” Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe tells the commission: “No, I was not aware about the holding structure of those companies.”

In the affidavit the Prime Minster affirms: “Upon the formation of the new Government in January 2015 there was a general consensus within the Government that Mr. Mahendran should be appointed to the post of Governor of CBSL. I discussed the proposed appointment with the then Minister of Finance who agreed that Mr. Mahendran was the most suitable candidate. Accordingly, the then Minister of Finance with my concurrence recommended to His Excellency the President that Mr. Mahendran should be appointed. His Excellency the President acting upon the said recommendation appointed Mr. Arjuna Mahendran as the Governor of the CBSL.”

Protocol required the mild-mannered Attorney General to lead the clarifications of the Prime Minister. He was not asked if the general consensus of the Government on the outstanding suitability of Arjun Mahendran to be governor was shared by Dr. Sarath Amungama who was then a Cabinet Minister with extensive experience in dealing with multilateral financial institutions and specifically the International Monetary Fund.

Emerging after his clarifications he assured everybody that all clarifications were provided. “We may have made some mistakes. We will correct them and go forward. We will continue the Yahapalanaya.”

In the 40 years of public life, Monday was the first time that Ranil Wickremesinghe conceded that thin trace of fallibility.

Mark Twain was right. God made a mistake by forbidding the apple. He should have forbidden the serpent. Then Adam would have eaten the serpent and spared the apple.