The Suicide Of Sirisena & The Return Of Rajapaksas

By V. Kanthaiya –28November 2017

Let’s start with a question. How do/did you feel when you get low marks during your school exams? And how do/did you feel when your best friend also got the same marks? My life has ups and downs. Very few ups and so many downs. And it is always comforting to see that I am not the only person in a chaotic situation.

My dear Colombo Telegraph readers, let me introduce Mr. Maithripala Sirisena, the president of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, who is in a complete chaos and openly announced that he is preferring to commit a ‘political suicide’ as he is very much disillusioned with the Yahapalanaya he promised to deliver us in 2015. This act of Sirisena has driven the final nail on the coffin of Yahapalanaya and exposed the naked truth that the good governance is a complete failure in Sri Lanka. This may be shocking to the rationalists. But one should understand that this is Sri Lanka, a country where the proven logical, economical, mathematical, political and philosophical theories go wrong.

First of all, good governance is a possible but not a feasible political model in Sri Lanka. The people and the media may like it, but not the politicians. I ask you another question. Do you think all the politicians are risking all their wealth and competing fiercely with each other, just to serve the people? The aggression and the brute force used by the candidates during the election would make me think that why all these ‘to be saviors’ are fighting among themselves; rather they can take the chance of serving the people one by one and try to redeem us from our political, social and economic miseries. Also if they are passionate about serving the people, they can simply do it even without entering into politics.

Like every professional & businessman, the Sri Lankan politicians are more concerned about their own career growth and the return on their investment. The good governance concepts, especially transparency, rule of law and right to information are something anathema to them. The UNP took the good governance concept not because the party was determined to bring a change in the entire political culture of the country, but they needed a differentiation factor to attract the voters. Sirisena was chosen for the candidacy not because he was a champion of the values of democracy, but just to split the SLFP and embarrasses the Rajapaksas. The key players of the 2015 silent revolution (?) had their own political goals, which did not align with the goals of good governance.

 

The political system of Sri Lanka which include getting the candidacy, getting the money to finance the campaigns, jobs to the supporters and the business contracts to the party donors cannot be done through a transparent and just political system where the public would have the utmost authority. One should note the fact that even though both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe came to power saying they would punish the corrupt politicians and the bureaucrats of the Rajapaksa regime, only a few were charged just with minor offences in the court of law and only two, Lalith Weeratunga and Anusha Palpitiya were found guilty and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment and then the duo was later released on parole. Yes! Miracles do happen, maybe not to you and me, but to the affluent and the politically powerful.

With the foundation of the Yahapalanaya being so weak, we need to look at the other factor, the Rajapaksas. No one can deny the fact that on 9^th January 2015 most of Sri Lankans and the other concerned international stakeholders thought that the Rajapaksas have met their demise and gone forever, just like what happened to Prabakaran and the LTTE. But Rajapaksas are not Prabakaran, to wage a ‘do or die’ war. They are hardcore politicians. Politics is their family business and it is in their DNA. Many liberals and rationalists thought the strength of Rajapaksas is the political power and the authority. They forgot how the Rajapaksas came to power.

The real power of the Medamulana family is their ability to forge alliances. Mahinda Rajapaksas is a person who gives you what you want. He never projected himself as a policymaker, a statesman or an eminent economist.  He just projected himself as a person who would deliver what the common man wanted. In 2004, General elections, he promised he would create 40,000 employment opportunities for the graduates. He promised the Sinhala masses in the south that he will protect the motherland and will not give the ‘Eelam’ to LTTE. He promised the Tamils that he is prepared to hold talks directly with Prabakaran and determined to bring peace. He forged political alliances with the Muslim parties and then with the Sinhala Buddhist ultra-nationalists. He made a deal with Prabakaran to stop the people voting for Wickremesinghe in 2005 presidential election. It is a known secret and the Yahapalanaya has failed to prove that even after they came to power. When the war started, they made deals with Karuna, Pillayan and the EPDP to crush the partisan movements in the government held Tamil areas. They made deals with India to effectively manage the western pressure on human rights. They made deals with China for the unlimited supply of weapons and ammunition. This was the success story of the Rajapaksas in short. They were really good at balancing the stakeholder interest very well. The fall of Rajapaksas in 2015 came due to a stakeholder mismanagement, when India together with the western world felt that the Medamulana family was taking them for fools and siding with China.

Even with their loss of power in 2015, the Rajapaksas never lost their vote bank and they still hold it. They are the one and only hope for the Sinhala nationalists who are always in a constant lookout mode expecting an invasion of Tamils from Tamilnadu or Canada or even from the Andromeda galaxy. For them, Rajapaksas are the god sent saviors and the warriors protecting the Sinhala Buddhists from the Tamils and Muslims.

Now with the final nail driven on the Yahapalanaya coffin, in the coming weeks or months we are going to witness the potential Sirisena-Wickremesinghe split and ensuing political circus to retain their political existence.

 

So what is going to happen to the attempt to establish the good governance culture and the future of Sri Lanka?

Well! My advice is not to talk about establishing the rule of law, corruption-free, transparent and efficient state in Sri Lanka in public. The general public would think you have gone insane. At this moment, they feel the threat to Sri Lanka is the Tamils and Muslims in the country. They are prepared to vote for any devil which would preserve the unity of the country and the Buddha Sasana.

Read More

On misplaced ecstasy and the loss of the ‘Yahapalanaya’ moment

Sunday, November 26, 2017

The misplaced ecstasy of those who greeted Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s appearance before the Commission of Inquiry into the Treasury Bond Issuance early this week with cries of ‘Bravo”, (including former President Chandrika Kumaratunga), was equaled only by the palpable agony of those who watched the unfolding scenario with disbelief.

Need for some gravitas

Here was the Prime Minister of the ‘yahapalanaya’ unity alliance elected into power in 2015 on the platform of reversing the abuses of the past finding himself in an unpleasant situation where his presence was deemed necessary to clarify details of a gargantuan financial scandal swirling around the Central Bank of Sri Lanka implicating his own party and crony capitalist associates. Never mind the sophistry regarding whether he was summoned or came voluntarily for the Commission sittings. Even if his presence was voluntary, the mere fact that this was deemed necessary should have compelled some necessary gravitas. But that was not the case.

At one level, there is some empathy with the Prime Minister’s matter-of-fact comment at a symposium on cyberspace during a state visit to India some days later that, after opening the internet without any fetters to the Sri Lankan people, he has become the most maligned politician in the country. The incongruity of this statement being made in a background where the first banning of a news website (however dreadful and salacious its content may have been) had taken place weeks ago is beside the point.

The fact remains that this Government has indeed taken bold strides in bringing about an environment where critique and dissent flourishes in Sri Lanka. This is no special thing however, as one might add. On the contrary, it is the minimum of the democratic standard. And ruling politicians who pat themselves on the back for this ‘achievement’ comparing it with monstrous Rajapaksa excesses should be subjected to a reality check.

No cause for joy

But this whole debate is quite a different matter to the Central Bank bond scandal. Efforts made by the United National Party government to cover up this scandal with lame complaints that it was a ‘mere’ conflict of interest matter, the appointment of a committee with no credibility to inquire into the allegations and the later subversion of the report of a parliamentary committee through ‘footnotes’ is now all a matter of record. It does not make for pretty reading, let us be clear.

In that backdrop and with the Presidential Commission of Inquiry proceedings revealing startling details of the wheeler-dealing that went on, the Prime Minister’s appearance at the Commission was no cause for joy. That much must be emphasized. Hence President Maithripala Sirisena’s fury in regard to the ‘young bucks’ in the Government challenging him and his decision to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the matter is understandable.

On its own part, the Commission has got swept up in a firestorm that must certainly not to be to the liking of its good members. Indeed, the predicament that it is in illustrates why many independent personalities prefer not to court such controversies by engaging in inquiries that inevitably lead to entanglement in the ‘political thicket’ as it were. It has become a case of the Commission having to suffer blows from all sides.

Intertwining the Commission proceedings with the law

It is an interesting question if the unwarranted laxity on the part of counsel from the Attorney General’s Department and counsel from the unofficial Bar that has been daily evidenced in proceedings before it, would have been evidenced if these events had taken place in a court of law. The answer to that question is self-evident. It would not have.

Certainly the drama before this Commission has been aggravated by the behavior of counsel of the AG’s Department before the Commission which cannot be condoned even though they are lionized in some quarters. Inexcusable excesses in language and behavior on the part of one counsel at least has led the Commission itself to reprimand him severely.

That said, the practice of disciplinary action being taken against individuals based on proceedings of the Commission has caused considerable heartburn with one employee of the Central Bank going to court on the basis that disciplinary action had been taken against him on that basis.

There are clear precedents urging caution in this regard. That is so, even when the final findings of a Commission of Inquiry are in the public domain. One example concerned the arrest and detention of police officers in connection with the findings of the Batalanda Presidential Commission (1998). Their complaint before the Supreme Court that their fundamental rights had been violated as they had not seen the report, nor did they know what exactly they were accused of, was upheld.

Observing principles of natural justice

A three member bench of the Court pointed out that rights protection was held available to all, even alleged rights violators (I. Jayaratne v. de Silva and others S.C. (FR) No. 609/1996, SCM 21.09.1998. Its language was exceptionally stern, warning that allegations of misconduct must be dealt with promptly and effectively but cannot be contrary to basic constitutional safeguards.

Similar cautions have been issued under the 1978 Special Presidential Commissions of Inquiry Act in relation to the findings of the Lalith Athulathmudali Commission. Basic principles were laid down. Once allegations are made against an affected person by investigators of the Commission, the Commission should itself question him.

Handing over this responsibility to the team of police officers authorised to investigate and record the testimony of persons is not sufficient. It cannot be said that it would be impracticable for the Commission itself to hear and interrogate large numbers of individuals. Any affected person implicated by the findings of the investigators ought to have been so informed and heard before any recommendation was made on such findings.

Remedying the public deficit of trust

Properly mindful of these cautionary principles, members of the Commission of Inquiry into the Treasury Bond Issuance have vigorously refuted the claim that any action was taken against any individual based on directives issued by it. That would be a direct violation of the principles of natural justice, it has declared.

All in all, these controversies give rise to interesting and even amusing conversations. But even at this late stage, there is need for a sober re-evaluation of precisely how that exhilarating electoral ‘yahapalanaya’ moment in 2015 could have led to this week’s most disturbing of occurrences. Posters pasted on the city walls hailing the Prime Minister as a hero for ‘deigning’ to appear before the Commission does not suffice to address the public deficit of trust in the Government.

Without question, that must be remedied urgently.

Central Bank should be cautious in launching inflation targeting monetary policy

By Prof. Sirimevan Colombage Emeritus Professor, Open University of Sri Lanka-November 28, 2017, 8:49 pm 

While appreciating the Central Bank’s endevour to shift to an inflation targeting or more precisely, to a flexible inflation targeting monetary policy framework, I would like to emphasize here that it is not an easy task to effectively implement such a policy strategy in a developing country like Sri Lanka, given the fiscal imbalances, debt burden and other macroeconomic hindrances. These pitfalls were already brought to light in my previous articles appeared in the Island recently.

An increasing number of advanced countries have switched to inflation-target based monetary policy frameworks in recent decades, following the success story of New Zealand which began inflation targeting in 1990. Inflation targeting has been increasingly adopted by the central banks in several developing countries as well. However, inflation targeting has not been without its criticisms, particularly in the context of developing countries.

The Central Bank of Sri Lanka has recently declared its intention to move to a flexible inflation targeting in the conduct of monetary policy.

What is inflation targeting?

Inflation targeting is a monetary policy framework under which a country’s central bank aims to keep a pre-announced inflation rate over a specific time frame. Transparency and accountability are two essential components of inflation targeting. Transparency implies that the central bank should convey the inflation target with justification through public announcements. Accountability means that the central bank should not miss the inflation target.

In practice, the central bank needs to give some weightage to economic stability as well, since strict inflation targeting might lead to economic fluctuations. Hence, flexible inflation targeting is considered more desirable to give leeway to the central bank to adopt discretionary monetary policy to mitigate such fluctuations as and when the need arises. This is the type of policy framework that the Central Bank of Sri Lanka intends to adopt, according its recent announcements.

The central banks practicing inflation targeting use policy interest rates to influence the aggregate demand consisting of consumption, investment and foreign trade. The variations in aggregate demand affect inflation. Thus, inflation targeting focuses only on the demand side.

Advantages of inflation targeting

Obviously, there are many advantages of inflation targeting. It provides a nominal anchor for monetary policy and inflation expectations. There is clear evidence that inflation has come down in several countries after adopting inflation targeting. Inflation targeting does not require a stable relationship between monetary aggregates and inflation as in the case of monetary targeting. All available information is used in formulating monetary policy under inflation targeting.

The greater emphasis given in inflation targeting to regular communication with the public has enabled the central banks in advanced countries not only to gain public confidence but also to get public support for price stability.

Shortcomings of inflation targeting in developing economies

The success of inflation targeting is bound to be limited in developing economies due to various structural constraints and the absence of prerequisites needed for such monetary policy shift. Central bank independence is crucial for using monetary policy instruments freely to maintain the announced inflation targets. When there is fiscal dominance compelling the central bank to print money to accommodate fiscal deficits, as in the case of Sri Lanka, the space available to the central bank to conduct monetary policy that targets low inflation is extremely limited.

Inflation targeting does not permit a central bank to use any other nominal anchor such as the exchange rate. But central banks in developing countries, in general, are promoted to keep the exchange rate within a pre-determined range to avoid volatility in cost of living and government’s debt service commitments.

Another shortcoming of inflation targeting is that it addresses only the demand side of the economy, as noted earlier.Developing countries, however, are highly susceptible to supply side shocks which generate what is called cost-push inflation. For instance, foods shortages caused by droughts and floods can lead to steep increases in inflation. In order to identify the underlying inflation eliminating such temporary supply shocks, the central bank uses the measurement of core inflation. So, the influence of monetary policy is limited to core inflation, which is a part of headline inflation.

Fiscal consolidation essential

As envisaged in the Vision 2025, the government has initiated revenue-based fiscal consolidation to reduce the budget deficit and public debt in the medium-term. The government expenditure will be rationalized by strengthening the Fiscal Responsibility Act with binding targets for fiscal deficit and public debt. The government also envisages to introduce liability management strategies to ease domestic and foreign debt burden while meeting its cash flow needs using an appropriate combination of debt instruments.

Although such initiatives are commendable, it is questionable how far those are going to be successful in the near future to facilitate the planned inflation targeting drive. The Central Bank seems to be over-optimistic with regard to the envisaged reduction in the fiscal deficit to 3.5 of GDP by 2020 so as to activate the inflation targeting process. It all depends on the government’s commitment not only to revenue enhancement but also to expenditure cuts.

The fiscal deficit for 2018 is 4.8 percent of GDP, as announced in the Budget speech.It is doubtful whether the actual budget deficit could be retained within this announced target next year, given the frequent fiscal slippages in the past and the possible spending spree amid the upcoming local government elections. The projected deficit for 2017 was 4.7 percent of GDP as per last year’s budget speech, but the actual deficit has gone up to 5.2 percent of GDP.

The limited fiscal consolidation achieved so far has been restricted to revenue enhancement mainly through increases in indirect tax mobilization, adversely affecting the cost of living of the ordinary people. An improvement in income tax or direct tax mobilization is expected with the implementation of the new Inland Revenue Act. Rationalization of government expenditure too is imperative for fiscal consolidation.

Exchange rate effects on inflation unavoidable

The Central Bank cannot have any target or nominal anchor other than inflation in a pure inflation targeting regime. By and large, this prevents the Central Bank interfering in the foreign exchange market to defend a pre-determined exchange rate, as practised in the past. In other words, the exchange rate should be allowed to float in the market freely responding to demand and supply forces.

The impact of exchange rate changes on the real sector is substantial in Sri Lanka, given the significant import contents in the consumer basket and production structure. An exchange rate depreciation raises the general price level and in turn, cost of living. Similarly, exchange rate depreciation pushes up cost of production. The perfectly flexible exchange rate regime could, therefore, defeat the very purpose of inflation targeting by pushing up the general price level.

In essence, prices should be deregulated fully for the successful operation of inflation targeting. In Sri Lanka, administered prices account for a substantial portion of the consumer price index, and therefore, the influence of monetary policy is confined to non-administered price items.

External debt service commitments would upset inflation targeting

Exchange rate depreciation could also have significant effects on debt service burden where levels of foreign currency denominated debt is high, as presently experienced by Sri Lanka.

The external debt service payments, consisting of loan repayments and interest payments, are projected to rise from US dollars 2,132 million in 2017 to dollars 2,819 in 2018. Thereafter, there will be a bunching of debt service payments during 2019-2022 reaching a peak level of dollars 4,217 million in 2019.

Given these growing debt commitments, a marginal depreciation of the rupee will have a considerable impact on the budget. For instance, one percent depreciation of the rupee will increase the government’s external debt service payments roughly by a whopping Rs. 4.4 billion in 2018 and by Rs. 6.5 billion in 2019.

These additional debt serviceoutlays will obviously expand the fiscal deficit compelling the government to increasingly rely on the Central Bank to borrow money by way of money printing or seigniorage. This counteracts inflation targeting which is designed on the grounds of fiscal consolidation

In such a situation, leaving the exchange rate to market forces, as required by inflation targeting, is likely to bring about heavy fiscal burden. Hence, one could argue that some foreign market intervention many not be inconsistent with inflation targeting in difficult times as long as the motives for such deviations are fully communicated and understood.

No easy way out

Inflation targeting is recognized worldwide as a desirable monetary policy framework to combat the evil of inflation. The success of such policy drive, however, depends on many factors particularly in emerging market economies like Sri Lanka. Therefore, we cannot expect miracles from a shift to inflation targeting.

Sri Lanka faces a crisis situation as regards acute fiscal imbalances, unsustainable debts and widening balance of payments deficits. These problems are unlikely to be resolved in the near future although both the Government and the Central Bank have announced a series of corrective measures encompassing fiscal consolidation and inflation targeting.

It is questionable whether Sri Lanka is ready to implement inflation targeting or the declared flexible inflation targeting framework. The fiscal deficit is likely to expand further in the absence of any visible expenditure rationalization and the fragile revenue structure. The present government’s continuous borrowings for infrastructure projects such as the central expressway and the proposed light rail system will further enhance the debt service burden aggravating the fiscal imbalance.

On the foreign exchange front, the trade deficit continues to widen in the background of sluggish export performance and rising imports. Worker remittances, which have been a main source of foreign exchange earnings, begin to slow down exerting considerable pressures on the balance of payments and the exchange rate.

Meanwhile, foreign exchange flows have been further liberalized recently under the Foreign Exchange Act, No.12 of 2017. Given the market uncertainties, much improvement in foreign exchange inflows cannot be expected through the incentives given under this Act. If at all, there is a likelihood of capital outflows, though it is too early to predict the outcome of the exchange liberalization under this Act.

All in all, the current macroeconomic setting is detrimental to effective application of inflation targeting as planned by the Central Bank, although such processwould bedesirable from the viewpoint of macroeconomic stability.

Maithripala Sirisena on a slippery slope

Wednesday, 29 November 2017 

“The economy will keep sliding back while big egos of big people keep clashing in this manner in an appalling unleash of greed. The Curse of Kuveni is on…”

‘Counter-revolution’

I was in Sri Lanka and just returned after having my eyes and ears closer to the sights and sound of ground politics over there. Ever since Mahinda Rajapaksa was defeated in the “revolution of January 8th,’ the political scenario had been volatile.

Bitten by the desperate existential need to save themselves from jail, the Rajapaksa family and cabal went on a campaign of destabilising the new Yahapalanaya Government. With court investigations into serious allegations being held up on the excuses of due process, the ‘counter revolutionary’ forces had a field day of blustering its way along with political displays that seemed to create the ambience of fear and doubt that the former regime might claw its way back into power.

When the impact of displays began fading, trouble was created with the backing of organisations like the GMOA that enjoy untrammelled blackmailing power. I wouldn’t count out the former regime from the petroleum crisis that I witnessed.

New window for Sirisena?

The exposure effect of the prima facie cases of murder and theft attributed to the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime eventually scuttled the ‘Mahinda Sulanga’ movement. It was too much to bear as far as the public consciousness was concerned.

Provoked and deceived by his largely-crooked SLFP cohorts, Maithripala Sirisena (MS) perceived a new window of opportunity for him. The two-year period of cooperative agreement with the UNP and SLFP had ended and hence MS could not be troubled by public ethics. His deal-making brother Dudley, a businessman, was also a force to reckon with as far as MS was concerned. It is rumoured that Dudley is close to Gotabaya, who is Mahinda’s former-powerful brother.

While I was in Sri Lanka, there were hush-hush rumours that something was brewing. MS was no ‘neutral,’ outsider; he had been and is a thoroughbred political animal since his days of being a Grama Sevaka. Mahinda had blown up his image but Gota in non-convict status can blow the trumpet of southern Sinhala Buddhist nationalism.

The public myth of Gota is more real than the reality of Gota. Here was a new good brew for the voting public: A Third Force from within the ranks of the former regime forces. The new force will carry the slogan of ‘reasonable nationalism,’ ‘democracy,’ and governance that can deliver.

As Dr. Jayadeva Uyangoda writing in the Ravaya has pointed out, Sri Lanka is now facing a tri-polar situation that replaces gradually and imperceptibly the initial bipolar scenario of the YP Government versus the Mahinda Rajapaksa former regime forces. I would speculate that if alleged “Sirisena plans” work out, the former regime forces would be reabsorbed eventually into the newly-conceived Third Force. Gota and Sirisena will work out some arrangement given they win the battle of power politics.

Ranil?

What of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe? If the Third Force succeed in its plans, it would not be difficult to oust him and his United National Party for the second time since President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge.

The JO-led and orchestrated scurrilous rumours of Ranil’s alleged involvement in ‘the bond scam’ has tarnished the latter’s image of Mr. Clean. Ranil is still ‘Mr. Vision,’ nevertheless. On the hand if the Commission findings exonerate him, the clean image gets restored and he derives strengths from that.

Not speculation

in the air

Now, the above developing new scenario isn’t mere groundless speculation in the air. Remember how, some months back, President Sirisena made an angry speech critiquing attempts to arrest Gotabaya? He even described Gota as somebody who gave heroic leadership to the anti-LTTE war. The Attorney General has completed his investigations on most Gota’s charges and he is awaiting the President’s approval for some months now. It was inappropriate blaming Law and Order Minister Sagala Ratnayake, while the responsibility is firmly cast on the President.

The then Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe acted in the same vein with regard to Gota. He had admitted in Parliament that he had prevented Gota’s arrest as the latter was “a war hero who saved the country”. Simultaneously, Wijeyadasa openly backed the controversial Avant-Garde that had been Gota’s creation.

Wijeyadasa would not have quit had the UNP backbenchers not pressurised him to do so and had social media, the wider public opinion and civil organisations not gone against him. The UNP’s attempt to have Wijeyadasa removed from the Justice Minister portfolio during the reshuffle had been allegedly stymied by President Sirisena who cited the opposition of the Maha Sanga or some elements of the latter.

Mark my words: Wijeyadasa would be one of the first to join the new (alleged) Sirisena/Gota-led political force. He is waiting outside until the call and he is behind many machinations of the new force. Wijeyadasa has Machiavellian craftiness. He is a smooth talker and smooth dealer and can give a public impression of being ‘reasonable’. Senasinghe’s outburst had been in context.

Bond controversy

It is small wonder that many in the UNP accuse that the bond controversy had been hatched by Wijeyadasa Rajapaksa and that President Sirisena followed up with a Commission. Much of the success of this Third Force would depend, however, on the findings of that Commission. In this connection, Ranil Wickremesinghe’s late overture to the Commission to cross-examine him was a master strategy.

I was watching the media covering that event and I saw how the cameras had focused on Wickremesinghe and waited long for his right royal arrival. That was a spectacle to watch. That had been a Mangala Samaraweera media creation. No wonder that lecherous-looking bloke Dilan Perera grumbled about the media attention to Ranil. With Mangala on their side and if the Commission clears the UNP, the Third Force will not have an easy path upward. Many significant figures of the former regime are still with the UNP.

The gamble

Besides, it isn’t any easy gamble for President Sirisena. It can put him on a dangerously slippery path that can surprisingly slide him to disaster. He has to acknowledge that he had enjoyed thus far the cooperation of his UNP partner that had carried out their part of the agreement in good faith.

As for Ranil Wickremesinghe, the latter has befriended Modi in India and the two get along perfectly. It was, however, sad to see him implore the bellyful-God in the Tamil Nadu Kovil, once again. It seems God is the only hope. Did that God grant him his request on the previous occasion?

Ordinary people?

For the ordinary people, however, even God is no hope: This isn’t any good news. Power struggles at the centre can deflect foreign investment-something the island desperately needs to restructure its economy. There isn’t any patriotism in such power struggles. People remain mere foolish goats that must go when pulled along. Life becomes more and more desperate for these poor masses. The country will keep sliding back while big egos of big people keep clashing in this manner in an appalling unleash of greed.

The curse of Kuveni is on…
(The writer can be reached via sjturaus@optusnet.com.au.)

President Sirisena’s greatest betrayal imperils lives of officers who investigated nefarious decade frauds and murders..!

(Lanka-e-News -25.Nov.2017, 11.50PM) Following the most traitorous and dangerous decision taken by president Maithripala who has lost all his sense of shame (if he had any) and direction ,  to join with the corrupt murderous Rajapakse Blue brigand who were defeated ( virtually chased out)  not once but twice by the people, the chiefs of investigation divisions who conducted investigations risking  their own lives with commitment in the best interests of the country to apprehend the criminals including  crooks and  the corrupt involved in monumental frauds as well as murderers have been driven into a deep predicament . Their lives are at stake ! according to reports reaching  Lanka e news. 

With President Sirisena who is  the defense minister cum chief of the commanding forces directly  colluding with the criminals , the culprits are now thoroughly encouraged and are emboldened  so much so they are now in apposition to come forward openly and fearlessly to take revenge on the investigating officers. Consequently ,the lives of  these officers and their families are in great peril. These officers speaking to Lanka e news revealed , if the other parties of the government including the prime minister do  not understand the deadly explosive situation , and take immediate measures to provide security to them and their families ,  several of these honest officers would have to leave the Island seeking political asylum in foreign countries. 

Even the honest officers of the legal divisions  who rendered assistance  towards the investigations are facing the same dire ominous situation .

It is significant to note when Gotabaya  was to be arrested for his crimes on the orders of the Attorney General (AG)  ,it was Maithripala Sirisena who prevented the arrest of Gotabaya . Moreover, the officers of the AG’s department  raising no objections to the granting of bail to Lalith and Anusha  simultaneously by the High court , was also owing to the orders  issued by Sirisena.  Because of this illegal arrangement the state counsel conducting the case of Lalith and Anusha did not appear in court on the date bail was requested. 

---------------------------
by     (2017-11-25 18:48:51)

Alleged Threat On Anika's Brother CID Investigation Continues

2017-11-30 

The alleged death threat levelled on Anika Wijesuriya’s family after her testimony at the Bond Commission with reference to a powerful former minister and Perpetual Treasuries owner Arjun Aloysius in connection with multimillion rupee property transactions, came to the spotlight again following a fundamental rights petition filed by Shanil Nethicumara and a B report filed by the Criminal Investigation Department.  

The CID after recording a statement from Wijesuriya on the instructions of the Commissioners of the Bond Commission had filed a B-report at the Fort Magistrate’s Court (B 7357/ 17). The B Reports filed by the CID in this case provide details of efforts taken to locate Nethicumara, visits to several addresses and interviews with witnesses familiar with his whereabouts. According to the B Reports, it appears that the CID too had noted the telephone conversation between Nethicumara and Ms. Onella Karunanayake that took place moments before the recorded threatening phone call, and had indicated that further investigations into this offence are continuing.

The voice recording, which has now surfaced regarding the alleged threatening phone call made by Don Shanil Lakkika Nethicumara to VijithaWijesuriya, brother of Anika Wijesuriya, in which the former is clearly heard saying that he will “give with interest” to the Wijesuriya family for what they (Wijesuriyas’) have done to his ‘Uncle Ravi’. The recording states as thus, “What you did to uncle, with interest I will give you all…. remember that”.  

In the recorded call, according to the ‘B’ report, Nethicumara is also heard swearing to “thrash all of you” and warns the Wijesuriya family, “don’t get caught to me.” He explains his words by clearly stating that he is ‘giving an open threat’, which is in retaliation to how the Wijesuriya family acted after making hundreds of millions of rupees ‘from Uncle Ravi’s apartment complex.’  

This recording was also mentioned in a submission made by Vijitha Wijesuriya to the Supreme Court as the 4th respondent to the Fundamental Rights application (SC FR 388/ 17) filed by Nethicumara on October 30, 2017 seeking an interim order preventing the CID from arresting him. The FR petition by Nethicumara was however dismissed by the Supreme Court on November 28.  

In his limited objections, Vijitha Wijesuriya also made reference to a copy of Nethicumara’s telephone records that was attached to the Supreme Court petition.  

“It’s also evident that just before I returned the call of the Petitioner he had yet again spoken to Miss Ornella Karunanayake for 2 mins and 8 secs at 10.36 p.m. and only thereafter answered my call at 10.39 p.m. and proceeded to threaten me and my family with harm in retaliation to my sister testifying about the affairs of Miss Karunanayake’s father,” said Wijesuriya in his sworn affidavit to the Supreme Court.  

According to Nethicumara’s application, he had come to know about the allegation now levelled against him, through the media as to how Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda PC, had informed the Bond Commission on October 17, 2017 that he had made death threats against Anika Wijesuriya

Request to attest affidavit refused  

According to a person familiar with this matter, since Wijesuriya could not obtain consular support by the Sri Lankan High Commission in Singapore, he flew to Colombo in the wee hours of October 24 (Friday), signed the affidavit before a Commissioner for Oaths, and then left the country again a few hours later. It is learned that this was done in order to meet the Supreme Court deadline for filing objections. The affidavit, with attached documents and several audio CDs containing the audio recording, were submitted to the Supreme Court by Wijesuriya’s lawyers later that same morning.  
In the original Fundamental Rights petition submitted to the Supreme Court by Nethicumara, he pleaded that he is faced with the immediate threat of being subject to an unlawful arrest under the Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act No: 4 of 2015.  

Incident at night spot  

In his petition, Nethicumara had stated that he hadn’t had any contact with Wijesuriya, who is the 4th respondent, since 2014 until he met him on or about October 14, 2017 around 1.30am, at the Love Bar night spot at 58A, Horton Place Colombo 7. He charges that Wijesuriya, appearing to be under the influence of liquor, jumped out from behind a curtain and a started a quarrel with him over a personal matter. He has added that Wijesuriya had pulled him by his collar, threatened and insulted him in abusive and expletive language near the club washroom. According to Nethicumara’s application, although he was provoked as a result of the behaviour of the accused, he hadn’t sought to retaliate and managed to escape from the club where the dispute occurred.  

In his submission, he had further stated how he telephoned Wijesuriya the same evening around 10.34pm on his mobile for the sole purpose of chastising him over his conduct at the Love Bar. According to the FR application, Nethicumara categorically denies that he threatened Wijesuriya in respect of Anika Wijesuriya’s evidence at the Bond Commission, or that he has ever threatened anybody over the telephone.  

According to Nethicumara’s application, he had come to know about the allegation now levelled against him, through the media as to how Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda PC, had informed the Bond Commission on October 17, 2017 that he had made death threats against Anika Wijesuriya. Later on the same day, Nethicumara had lodged a complaint with the Cinnamon Gardens Police against Wijesuriya for assaulting and threatening him at the night club on October 14,  

Nethicumara further states that he was surprised how a personal dispute has been deceitfully manipulated by Wijesuriya and other interested parties into an allegation of threats to a witness before the Bond Commission. 

Fabricated incident  

According to the affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, Wijesuriya categorically denies the allegation of an altercation of any sort with Nethicumara prior to the threatening phone call, and posits that the petitioner fabricated the entire incident to muddy the waters and impede his arrest. “It appears that he waited for 10 days after the alleged incident (24/10/2017) to request a copy of the CCTV footage from the Management of the Love Bar, waited for 4 days after the alleged incident (17/10/2017) to lodge his first complaint at the Cinnamon Gardens Police Station regarding the alleged quarrel, altercation, or brawl with me and made no reference whatsoever regarding this alleged quarrel, altercation, or brawl that took place at Love Bar on the 14/10/2017 during the telephone conversation I had with him at 10.39 p.m., just hours after the incident is alleged to have occurred,” pleaded Wijesuriya, who submitted the audio recording as further evidence that Nethicumara didn’t make any mention of the events he describes in his petition while 
making the call.  

The petitioner states that he believes and is reliably informed that the accused hadn’t lodged a complaint with the police nor with any duly authorized authority at the time the Additional Solicitor General made the submission to the Bond Commission against him, which practice was highly irregular. He further states that he verily believes that the five respondents – the IGP, Director CID, OIC (Special Unit) CID, VijithaWijesuriya and the Attorney General have taken into account, an extraneous consideration and are attempting to arrest and prosecute him, without any reasonable grounds and without any material which would justify the same.  

He further believes that the night club where the ‘brawl’ occurred is owned by a friend of Anika Wijesuriya and there is a possibility of an attempt to destroy the recordings of the CCTV footage that could transpire the brawl that occurred on October 14. However, Wijesuriya pointed out that Nethicumara had waited over ten days before asking for these recordings, after which period many commercial CCTV recording systems have recycled their storage disks and lost older recordings.

Unable to hear  

Although Nethicumara states that he believes Wijesuriya hadn’t lodged a complaint either with the Police nor with any other authorized authority at the time the Additional Solicitor General informed the Bond Commission against him, the Daily Mirror is in possession of the complaint lodged by Vijitha Wijesuriya, Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into the issuance and Disposal of Treasury Bonds, S. Udugamasuriya on the morning of Monday, October 17, 2017, the first day on which the Commission sat following the incident on Saturday night.  

In his complaint, Wijesuriya states as thus, ‘When Mr. Nethicumara first called me at 10.34pm, I was unable to hear him clearly as his voice was garbled. It sounded to me like he was shouting and the call got disconnected due to a bad mobile connection. Again I received another call from Mr. Nethicumara at 10.35pm, and the mobile connection was very poor and I could not hear him and the call got disconnected once again. I then attempted to call him back and his number was busy. I finally spoke to him at 10.38pm, and the conversation lasted a little over a minute.   

“When I returned his call, I did so with my phone on loudspeaker mode while setting up another mobile device to record the conversation. While his voice was slightly garbled on that occasion too, Mr. Nethicumara appeared clearly and said ‘what you did to my uncle machang I will kill all you….  

Following this complaint, on the instructions of the Members of the Commission, Secretary S. Udugamasuriya on October 17, had written to the Director CID, SSP, Shani Abeysekera (Ref: PC/ CBTB/ Order) to take necessary action against those who were involved in the alleged threat under Section 8 and 9 of the Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act No: 4 of 2015 and to provide protection to the Wijesuriya family with immediate effect under Section 24 of the same Act and to keep the Commission informed on the progress of the directives by October 26.  

In the original Fundamental Rights petition submitted to the Supreme Court by Nethicumara, he pleaded that he is faced with the immediate threat of being subject to an unlawful arrest

Anika’s e-mail  

Meanwhile, on October 18, Anika Wijesuriya in an e-mail to the Director CID had stated that she had to leave the country the day after she was testified. Her letter further states as thus, “I am eager and willing to corporate with the investigation into this matter while I am overseas. I could provide written answers via e-mail to any questionnaire submitted to me by investigators, or make myself available to give a statement in person if investigating officers are in a position to travel overseas to record my statement”.  

In the affidavit submitted with his limited objections to the SC by Vijitha Wijesuriya on Friday October 24, he catergorically denies the averments contained in the petition and responding further, states that he briefly visited the Love Bar in Colombo 7, on October 14, 2017 with two of his friends. According to the statement, during the period when Wijesuriya was at the Love Bar, he dadn’t met the petitioner nor had he any knowledge of the fact that the petitioner was present. ‘I therefore vehemently deny the contention of the petitioner that I initiated a quarrel, altercation or brawl with him or had any interaction with him whatsoever. “I state that the petitioner has preferred his application in bad faith and has attempted to mislead Your Lordship’s court in attempting to cover up the factual incident which took place as more fully described in this affidavit,” Wijesuriya has said.  

Through the affidavit, Wijesuriya categorically denies the averments contained in the petition and states that on October 14, 2017 around 10.34pm and 10.35pm, the petitioner attempted to call him on his mobile phone, but however was unable to have a conversation as the line wasn’t clear. Wijesuriya in his affidavit had stated that he had produced the mobile phone and the recording device that was used during the communication with Nethicumara to the OIC (Special Unit) CID as evidence to the 
ongoing investigation.  

---

Supreme Court Dismisses Nethicumara FR Petition

The Supreme Court, comprising a three-judge bench, on tuesday(Nov.28) refused leave to proceed in the Fundamental Rights Application filed by Shanil Nethicumara pleading for an interim order to preventing the CID from arresting him on the allegations of threatening to attack Anika Wijesuriya’s family in retaliation to Wijesuriya having testified against former Minister Ravi Karunanayake at the Bond Commission.  

President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris, appearing for Nethicumara, argued that the telephone call between Nethicumara and Vijitha was being taken out of context and said that it had anything to do with former Minister Ravi Karunanayake, but was related to a previous relationship between Nethicumara’s sister Lakshi, and VijithaWijesuriya.  

At the conclusion of the argument, the three-judge bench comprising Justices Eva Wanasundera, Buwaneka Aluwihare and Anil Gunaratne, ruled that there were no grounds to allow leave to proceed, and dismissed the application filed by Nethicumara.  

President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris and Danushka Rahubadda instructed by Sanath Wijewardene appeared for petitioner Shanil Nethicumara. Deputy Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne appeared for the Attorney General, IGP, Director CID and OIC of CID Special Branch. Counsels Asthika Devendra and Dinusha Mohan, instructed by Lilanthi De Silva appeared for the fourth respondent VijithaWijesuriya.  

---

VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

Shanil: Yeah Bro.
V.W. : Yeah machang. Sorry men, the line was quite bad. What’s up?
Shanil: Wha… What’s up is machang, uhhh… you’re my friend, no?
V.W.: Yeah, sure. What’s up?
Shanil: Machang, what you did to my uncle machang, I will… You know... With interest I will give all you … Remember that.
V.W.: Sorry?
Shanil: What you did to my uncle Ravi machang, I will repay with … interest. Remember that.
V.W.: You will what?
Shanil: I’ll come, I will… What you did to my uncle machang…
V.W.: Yeah
Shanil: You know Machang, in two thousand one machang, who gave your … uncle, who gave your father machang, that post. But what y’all did, I thought you were my friend. So now machang, I’ll… Openly telling you… I’ll give you a open threat… Don’t get caught to me because I will definitely hit all you … with a bottle. All of you.
V.W.: Ok. So is, I uhhh…
Shanil: Don’t get caught to me. I’m telling you, don’t get caught to me. I’ll thrash all you … Don’t get caught to me machang, you’ll….
VW: Unintelligible
Shanil: Y’all made six hundred million rupees from Uncle Ravi’s apartment complex. Now machang let’s play the game. I’m telling you. Be careful, ah. I won’t tell you again. Shut the … up and cut the phone.
VW: So are you saying that next time you see me…
[End of Recording]

Egypt mosque attack: death toll raised to 235

Scores more  Egypt mosque attack results in hundreds of deaths – video

Adham Youssef in Cairo and agencies-Saturday 25 November 2017 13.07 GMT

Egypt’s military has responded with airstrikes directed at “terrorist” locations and vehicles after hundreds of people were killed in a bomb and gun assault on a mosque in the north of the country.

Egypt’s chief prosecutor, Nabil Sadeq, said the 305 people killed included 27 children, while a further 128 people were wounded in the attack on the Rawdah mosque in Bir al-Abed, north Sinai.

In the deadliest attack in the country in recent memory, a bomb ripped through the mosque as Friday prayers were finishing, before militants in four off-road vehicles approached.

Sadeq said the attack was carried out by 25 to 30 militants, who stationed themselves at the mosque’s main door and 12 windows before opening fire on worshippers inside.

More than 50 ambulances ferried casualties from the mosque, about 25 miles (40km) west of the city of Arish, to nearby hospitals. Pictures from the scene showed rows of bloodied victims inside the mosque.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but it marks a major escalation in a region where for the past three years Egyptian security forces have battled an Islamic State insurgency that has killed hundreds of police and soldiers.

The Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, delivered a defiant television address on Friday evening, vowing to respond with “brute force” and offering condolences to the families of victims.

“This act will only increase our will and unity,” he said. “The police and military will avenge our martyrs and restore peace and security.”

He added: “We will respond with brute force to combat these terrorists and deviants ... This is an attempt to deter us from fighting terrorism and to destroy our will, but we are steadfast, and I say to all Egyptians, the battle you are fighting is the most honourable.”

Hours after the attack, Egypt’s military launched airstrikes on targets in mountainous areas around Bir al-Abed, security sources and witnesses said. The targets were described as vehicles used in the attack and “terrorist” locations where weapons and ammunition were stocked.

Sisi, a former armed forces commander who presents himself as a bulwark against Islamist militants in the region, convened an emergency security meeting with his defence and interior ministers and intelligence chief after the attack and declared three days of mourning.

One witness, a shop owner from Bir al-Abed, said local people heard a massive blast followed by gunfire. When he arrived at the site of the attack he saw people rushing to pick up the bodies and to offer help to the injured. He said he saw at least 20 bodies wrapped in cloths and blankets.

One resident whose relatives were at the scene told Reuters that the attackers shot at people as they left the mosque, and also at the ambulances. The attackers had also set alight nearby vehicles to try to block routes away from the mosque.

The mosque belongs to a Sufi order – a mystical branch of Islam whose followers are regarded by hardline Islamists as apostates because they revere saints and shrines.

An Isis propaganda outlet had previously published an interview with the commander of its “morality police” in Sinai who said their “first priority was to combat the manifestations of polytheism including Sufism”.

The attack came days before the annual celebrations of the prophet Muhammad’s birthday. Festivals are being held by Sufi-affiliated mosques around the country.

Another witness, a student who gave his name only as Mohamed, told the Guardian he had heard calls for help emanating from other nearby mosques after Friday’s attack.

“I went with my family and friends to the scene of the mosque and found ambulances loading bodies and injured,” he said. “What happened in al-Rawdah is a massacre against peaceful civilians.”

 Egyptians walk past bodies following a gun and bombing attack at the Rawdah mosque. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images


He said residents went to every pharmacy and clinic they could to gather medicine and instruments for local hospitals treating the wounded.

“In the Ber al-Abd hospitals, there was chaos,” he said. “Blood and screaming were everywhere. We heard that [all] male members of one family were killed, the elders, the youth and the children.”

Striking at a mosque would be a change in tactics for the Sinai militants, who have usually targeted security forces since bloodshed in the Sinai worsened after Sisi led the overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013.

But jihadis have also targeted Sinai tribes working with the armed forces, branding them traitors for their cooperation.

In July at least 23 soldiers were killed when suicide car bombs hit two military checkpoints in the Sinai, an attack for which Isis claimed responsibility.

The local Isis affiliate, Wilayat al-Sinai (the governorate of Sinai), also carried out the previous deadliest attack in the region when it downed a Russian passenger jet carrying tourists back from the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in 2015, killing 224 people.

Militants have tried to expand beyond the largely barren, desert Sinai peninsula into Egypt’s heavily populated mainland, attacking Coptic Christian churches and pilgrims.

In May gunmen attacked a Coptic group travelling to a monastery in southern Egypt, killing 29.

The grand imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, the centre of Sunni learning, condemned the attack as an “attempt to spread chaos”.

“After targeting Christians, the turn for mosques have come,” he said in a statement. “As if terrorism wants to unite Egyptians in deaths and chaos, nevertheless it will be defeated, and the will of Egyptians will prevail.”

There was also international condemnation for the attack. The UN security council and the secretary-general, António Guterres, issued a statement calling the assault a “heinous and cowardly terrorist attack” and called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

“The world cannot tolerate terrorism, we must defeat them militarily and discredit the extremist ideology that forms the basis of their existence,” US President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter, calling the assault “horrible and cowardly”. 

He later tweeted:

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Will be calling the President of Egypt in a short while to discuss the tragic terrorist attack, with so much loss of life. We have to get TOUGHER AND SMARTER than ever before, and we will. Need the WALL, need the BAN! God bless the people of Egypt.

1:49 PM - Nov 24, 2017

•  26,56826,568 Replies
 
•  21,07321,073 Retweets
 
•  102,169102,169 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The UK foreign minister, Boris Johnson, condemned the “barbaric” assault, while his French counterpart, Jean-Yves Le Drian, expressed his condolences to the families of victims of the “despicable attack”.

Ahmed Aboul Gheit, head of the Arab League, which is based in Cairo, condemned the “terrifying crime which again shows that Islam is innocent of those who follow extremist terrorist ideology”, his spokesman said in a statement.

Agence France-Press contributed to this report

Posted by Thavam