“WE HAVE LOST ALL HOPE. THERE IS NO POLITICAL WILL TO TRACE THE FORCIBLY DISAPPEARED IN SRI LANKA” – LETTER TO ZEID FROM FAMILIES OF THE DISAPPEARED

Image courtesy of Tamil Guardian. 


11/12/2017

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR, Geneva

Through: UN Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka, Colombo07

Your Excellency,

We have lost all hope. There is no political will to trace the forcibly disappeared in Sri Lanka.
We have continued the struggle in the heat and rain and have been on the road with the hope that the present regime will keep its promises to trace and hold accountable those who were forcibly disappeared by previous regimes. We have met Hon. President Maithirpala Sirisena three times to date with no results forthcoming. Following our most recent meeting with the President on 16th November 2017 we have lost all hope that the Sri Lankan Government will make good on their promises. The Government calls itself a Government dedicated to ‘Good Governance’ but does not care about our suffering. Most of us are old and have been out on the roads protesting under terrible conditions. The Government does not care that seven has died since we started the protests. How can this Government dare describe itself as a Yahapalanaya/ Nallaatchchi Government?

During the last few days of the war we surrendered our loved ones to the Sri Lankan Armed Forces trusting the Government’s promises of security of life and their dignity. The Army registered them many times at the security check points and at the camps where they were taken to. If the Government is willing, it can trace, within a very short period of time, the whereabouts of our loved ones with the help of these lists. If the lists are not available the Government can seek information from those who were in charge of the camps/ security check points at the relevant time. Without doing any of this the Government drags its feet while giving the appearance that they are committed to tracing by putting out announcements periodically over the last year or so in relation to the process of establishing of the Office of Missing Persons. Each of these announcements has been targeted towards the international community seeking to impress upon them that they are making progress.
 We have time and again said that the OMP will only serve to be yet another eye washer unless the Government takes some concrete steps that give us the indication to the contrary. The only means by which the Government can build trust regarding the OMP is by releasing those lists that we demanded in our meeting with the President on 12thJune 2017. We don’t want to shed tears and narrate our stories again to an institution that is being set up to serve the interests of the Government of the day.

As the world prepares to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the most meaningful action that the UN and the international community can take vis a vis Sri Lanka is to apply concrete pressure on the Government to take concrete steps to trace the fate of our loved ones and hold those responsible for their forced disappearance. Otherwise Human Rights will remain for us an unrealized value, full of rhetoric and of no practical relevance to our plight.
Thank you.

On Behalf of the Relatives of the Enforced Disappeared.

Will OMP ensure justice ?

 2017-12-12

comes to a close families of the disappeared still linger in hope that their loved ones would return. Some have been missing for decades and yet their loved ones express hope of their return. In the Budget 2018 speech Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera said that the Office of Missing Persons(OMP) will commence operations from 2018. However the debates on the Enforced Disappearance Bill have been postponed twice. Against this backdrop civil societies have shown concern over the delay in passing the Enforced Disappearances bill and setting up of the OMP.   

Will OMP ensure justice.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Lord Naseby’s Number Game

By Karikalan  S. Navaratnam –December 11 2017

“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” ― Mark Twain

On 12 Oct. 2017, in the course of a debate on Sri Lanka in the House of Lords, Lord Naseby(a.k.a., Michael  Morris) had urged the British government, inter alia, – To “ get  the UN and the UNHRC in Geneva to accept a civilian casualty  level of  7,000 to 8,000, not 40,000.” in the Sri Lankan ethnic war, and – To acknowledge “that no one in the Sri Lankan Government ever wantedto kill Tamil civilians.”  ( Daily Mirror, 14 Oct. 2017 – “West must remove war crime threats on SL…..” )

40,000   Vs.  7,000:

While trashing the (Darusman Report) figures of 40,000 civilian casualties as “best-guess” based, Lord Naseby had  fixed the war casualty level at  7,000 to 8,000. In support of his postulation,  he had cited the figures extracted from different sources , viz: UN Country Team, UTHR(J), Sri Lanka Census Dept., US envoy Robert Blake and Maj. Gen. Holmes. Most of them do not include the casualties of the closing days of fierce and intense fighting.

The nationalists and ‘patriotic’ columnists in the mainstream media in Sri Lanka and commentators in Colombo Telegraph have gaily greeted Lord Naseby’s recent  manoeuvres. They believe  that the “Naseby revelations” would  convince the UNHRC to revisit resolution  30/1 and that Sri  Lanka  could wriggle  out of her Geneva commitments. ( The Island, 30 Nov. 2017   – “Naseby Revelations……”).

By the way,  although  the LTTE also stands accused of committing serious war Crimes,  it is  intriguing that  the “patriots” have been throwing temper tantrums at the mention of the word  Geneva.

‘Bombshell’  Statement?

In a state of ecstasy,  the patriots tend to treat the Naseby revelations as a rare discovery. The Island (ibid.) has described the disclosure as  “Naseby’s…bombshell statement in the House of Lords….”

Evidently, there is nothing to find a “bombshell” in his statement. In fact, Lord Naseby had already canvassed the same issue in a previous debate in the House of Lords in Jan. 2013:

“……On the numbers killed, four reports have come out recently. One was produced by the UN Country Team, which was never published. ………….. That indicated that 7,000 were killed. A satellite analysis by the Americans indicates that fewer than 2,000 were killed within the graves that can be found. The recent census by Tamil teachers, again, indicates that just over 7,000 were killed. There were not 40,000 killed.” (House  of  Lords Hansard, Volume 742, 8 Jan. 2013 – Sri Lanka debate).

The only element that sets apart Nasby’s  recent grandstanding is that he had since accessed the British Defence Attache dispatches.

President Sirisena himself had, on 2 Nov. 2017, written to Naseby expressing appreciation for all his efforts on behalf of Sri Lanka. In particular, the President had thanked Naseby for keeping him “periodically briefed of  his efforts…” ( The Island, 16 Nov.2017 –“Prez thanks Lord Naseby” )

Naseby’s   preferences:

Lord Naseby’s  predilections and preferences bear examination: Naseby has a weakness for Sri Lankan hosts and hospitality. He has been “interested in Sri Lanka for 50 years”. He is the founder-President of the All-party Parliamentary Group on Sri  Lanka (and there is a pro-Tamil rival grouping of  British M.Ps, called “All-Party  Parliamentary Group for Tamils”). He has visited  Sri Lanka many times, including two “key visits” in Jan. 2009 and March-April  2013. (Hansard, Vol. 742 – ibid). He was awarded the “ Sri Lanka Rathna” national honour “for exceptional and  outstanding service to the nation.” (Daily Mirror, 14 Oct.2017 – ibid). He has been keeping President Sirisena “periodically briefed of his efforts”

Apologist for Sri Lankan  govt.:

Incidentally, Peter Osborne, the chief political commentator of Daily Telegraph (UK) had some unkind words for Lord Naseby in the context of Nasby’s snarky remarks about Channel4 portrayal of the savage war in Sri Lanka:

“…… Most troublingly he has become an apologist for the Sri Lankan government…… it is essential to adhere scrupulously to the facts when  it comes to an event as grave and sensitive as the massacre of the Tamils in the final stages of the Sri Lankan civil war………Lord Naseby has given misleading testimony to the House of Lords, and his remarks  have been picked up in Sri Lanka and are being used in defence of the regime.”

“The rules are clear. Those who make misleading statements to Parliament must correct the record at the first opportunity. Lord Naseby has misled parliament, and thus given comfort to perpetrators of state-sponsored terror. He must return  to Parliament and withdraw his allegations.” ( Colombo Telegraph, 6 June 2014 – “Lord Naseby has misled the Lords over Sri Lanka…..” )

The Lord’s  attitude and antics would reveal his bias and propensity.  By way of illustration:

In his opening remarks in the House of Lords, Naseby has gone out of his way to appease the ultra-nationalists in Sri Lanka:

“…..(B)ut we need to understand the history behind the current situation. In the 11th century AD Tamil Cholas invaded Sri Lanka and took over the north and north-east. Understandably, the Sinhalese were left with the remainder…...” ( Daily Mirror, 14 Oct.2017– ibid)

Naseby’s  histrionics:

Thus, Lord Naseby  had digressed from the issue and proceeded to denigrate the Tamils as the progeny of alien invaders – not natives of the island  – not the original inhabitants of the North-East habitats, but illegitimate occupants. Lord Naseby’s histrionics can in no way detract from our distinct heritage and the shared history with the Sinhala people. Proceedings in the House disclose that many  members did not buy Naseby’s biased version and had politely disagreed with him. In the face of dissenting voices, Naseby appeared pathetic, stumbling and bumbling during intervention.

(Let me revisit the scenario):

Read More

CTF recommendations to address accountability

By Neville Ladduwahetty-December 11, 2017, 9:05 pm

In the wake of the most recent challenge by Lord Naseby in the House of Lords to the oft touted claim of 40,000 civilian deaths, the former Secretary to the Consultative Task Force for Reconciliation Mechanisms, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu has called for setting up a Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and Non-Recurrence Commission (TJRNRC) to address accountability issues and included Section 5 of the of the Consultative Task Force (CTF) report, in his response (The Island, December 4, 2017). Relevant paragraphs of Section 5are as follows:

5.3: "The CTF is of the opinion that at a minimum, the purpose TJRNRC must be to establish the truth of what happened in the conflict in Sri Lanka…".

5.4: "Truth in this context entails responsibility but establishing criminal responsibility, i.e. the determination of who is a perpetrator, is best suited to a judicial mechanism or the existing judicial system…".

5.5: "The CTF recommends that the Truth Commission conduct investigations in order to find the truth and share information relating to criminal conduct with a prosecutorial body".

5.11: "Given the importance of ascertaining the truth it is imperative that the Truth Commission has a strong investigating unit made up of researches with relevant skills including in the law, history, anthropology, forensics, criminology, sociology, psychology and sociology…".

ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS

Before considering the need for a full scale investigation, a few essential and relevant parameters need to be established to guide a Truth Commission.

They are as follows:

1. The time frame of any truth seeking exercise should be that referred to in the Resolution 30/1, which is the time period covered by the LLRC – February 22, 2002 to May 19, 2009 (Para. 7).

2. The Panel of Experts, i.e., the Darusman Panel, appointed by the UN Secretary General states: "There is no doubt that an internal armed conflict was being waged in Sri Lanka with the requisite intensity during the period that the Panel examined. As a result, international humanitarian law is the law against which to measure the conduct of both the Government and the LTTE".

3. Paragraphs 175, 182 and 183 of the OISL report prepared for the Human Rights Council by the Office of the UN High Commissioner states:

Para. 175: "OISL notes that Sri Lanka has submitted a Declaration of State of emergency, dated 30 May 2000, derogating from articles 9 (2), 12 (1), 12 (2), 14 (3), 17(1), 19 (2), 21 and 22 of the ICCPR. Measures taken pursuant to derogation are lawful to the extent they comply with the conditions set out in international human rights law".

Para. 182: "Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflicts not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka, with all parties to the conflict being bound to respect the guarantees pertaining to the treatment of civilians and persons hors de combat contained therein. Common Article 3 binds all parties to the conflict to respect, as a minimum, that persons taking no direct part in hostilities as well as those placed hors de combat shall be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction".

Para. 183: "In addition, the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by the relevant rules of customary international law applicable in non-international armed conflict".

4. The Darusman Panel further states that their mandate did "not extend to fact-finding or investigation". It "determined an allegation to be credible if there was a reasonable basis to believe that the underlying act or event occurred. Allegations are considered as credible in this respect only when based on primary sources that the Panel deemed relevant and trustworthy". Since this evidence is archived until 2031, access to such evidence is not available.

5. The OISL report states that it is a "desk review of existing material". This included access to the documentation gathered by the Darusman Panel that is presently archived until 2031.

SUMMARIZING the above.

(a) Time frame for the Truth Commission is February 22, 2002 to May 9, 2009.

(b) Applicable law is international humanitarian law.

(c) Alleged violations should therefore be judged ONLY in terms of violations of international humanitarian law and NOT in terms of human rights and humanitarian law as applicable in resolution 30/1, in view of paragraph 175 of the OISL report.

(d) All allegations of violations were based on evidence considered "credible" by the Darusman Panel. Interpreting as to what is "credible evidence" is highly subjective, judging from the subsequent conduct of members of the Panel.

(e) The OISL report is based on a "desk review" of existing material including Government publications, international and Sri Lankan NGO/civil society reports, the reports of LLRC and other commissions etc., and above all, material considered credible by the Darusman Panel together with documentation they had accessed in the material archived until 2031.

DETERMINING the TRUTH

There is considerable variation in the estimates of the number of civilian deaths. Paragraph 137 of the Darusman Panel report states: "In the limited surveys that have carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead civilians is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths…". Therefore by the Darusman Panel’s own admission, the estimate of 40,000 civilian deaths is not based on "a reasonable basis that that the underlying act or event occurred", but is based on sources they considered to be credible.

Estimates of other sources such as the UN Country team, UN spokesman Gordon Weiss, US Department of State, International Crisis group are only a fraction of the 40,000 estimated from credible sources in the Darusman Panel report. The most recent estimate is 7,000 to 8,000 from Lord Naseby, based on highly redacted dispatches of the British Attache, Lieutenant Colonel Anton Gash.

In view of the range of these estimates, there is a need for an independent national judicial mechanism as stated in the President’s 100 Day Programme, to review the background material relating to these numbers. Such a Commission should address accountability on the basis of a desk review of all existing material in reports of the LLRC, the Darusman Panel, the OISL and the Paranagama Commission, together with all inter-governmental material available in the public domain, the most recent being that presented by Lord Naseby to the House of Lords. This should include all the "credible evidence" currently archived with the UN High Commission. Denial of access to this evidence should be grounds to reject all conclusions reached based on these materials.

Such an approach is justified since the mandate to the Darusman Panel "does not extend to fact-finding or investigations" (Framework of the Panel’s work). In the absence of even prima facie evidence as to the credibility of the evidence, to engage in a strong investigative unit as recommended by the CTF (5.11) would amount to the accused having to defend charges that are not based on fact or investigation, but only on what a prejudiced Panel whose credibility itself is questionable, considers "credible". This is further justified because the LTTE members who were perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who gave the orders to commit international humanitarian violations cannot be identified or located. A full scale investigation is also not warranted since such investigations could overlap with investigations relating to Missing Persons.

The constitutional provision in Article 13 (5) that "Every person shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty", is violated if a full investigation is initiated on charges that are not based on prima facie evidence. The additional constitutional provision in Article 13 (5) of "Provided that the burden of proving particular facts may, by law, be placed on an accused person" does not apply, since no laws exist in Sri Lanka relating to international humanitarian law which incidentally should be the basis for determining the truth.

REMIT to NATIONAL JUDICIAL MECHANISM

The remit to the national judicial mechanism should be that it addresses accountability as two distinct and separate undertakings.

One undertaking should address the overall conduct of the armed conflict by the security forces and by the LTTE in terms of international humanitarian law. The task for the national judicial mechanism would then be to conduct a desk review of existing evidence to ascertain whether there were any violations of international humanitarian law by the security forces or by the LTTE. The context of such an assessment should be that each party to the conflict isThe second undertaking should address whether prima facie evidence exists relating to individual acts that amount to violations of international humanitarian law, and if so, such materials should be handed over to existing judicial mechanisms in Sri Lanka for necessary action, under provisions of local law. Since this may require assessing the credibility of some of the evidence during the course of a desk review, it would be necessary for arrangements to be made for the protection of those who furnish such evidence.

CONCLUSION

The proposals made herein are limited to issues relating to the UNHRC resolution 30/1 with a focus on addressing the vastly divergent assessments in the estimates of the civilian deaths in the context of international humanitarian law. The recommendation by the Consultative Task Force for a full scale investigating unit to find the truth and identify perpetrators is unwarranted for three reasons:

(i) the LTTE who perpetrated violations of international humanitarian law cannot be held responsible since they cannot be located or identified, (ii) since charges against the Sri Lankan government are based on oral evidence and desk reviews of such evidence, the same methodology should be deployed to address the charges leveled against the government (iii) such an investigation could overlap with investigations relating to Missing Persons.

Therefore, the rational approach for a independent nation judicial mechanism should be a desk review of existing material as two distinct and separate undertakings where one undertaking addresses allegations relating to the conduct of the armed conflict by the security forces and the LTTE within the context of international humanitarian law, and the other undertaking addresses individual acts of violation to establish prima facie evidence that could be passed on to existing judicial mechanisms.

Instead of being process driven, recommendations, whatever they are, should be pragmatic and not lose sight of the objective which in this instance, is reconciliation.

Neville Ladduwahetty

December 11, 2017.

In Their Absence: Families of the Disappeared Share Treasured Keepsakes

Featured image courtesy Selvaraja Rajasegar

SELVARAJA RAJASEGAR- 12/10/2017

The following is the translation of a story by Selvaraja Rajasegar, editor of Maatram (click hereand here to view the series in Tamil). As of today, the families of the disappeared have been protesting, across the North and East. In some areas, it has been over 290 days. Their pleas, to provide details about what happened to their families, have yet to be answered. Five of the protesters have died since the protests began. In light of Human Rights Day, which falls on December 10, Groundviews translated this series, to highlight their continuing struggle. 

 All names have been withheld to maintain the privacy of the individuals interviewed.

Maatram:

 “Do you have anything that reminds you of your son/daughter/husband/grandchildren? Something that they used?”

Mother/Father/Wife/Sister/Grandmother:

“I have, son. I kept it safely. I washed my son’s blood-stained shirt, and kept it with me.”

“Yes, brother. I have one brother’s camera, and the other’s comb. I have my husband’s shirt as well.”

“We only had our clothes when we crossed over to the Army side, right? We didn’t have anything else. We thought our son would return, and that’s why we handed him over to the Army.”

“I have the blazer that we made for him to wear for his elder brother’s wedding. Since that’s all I had left in my suitcase, that’s the only thing I have to remember him.”

“I have the bedsheet my husband used. When she thinks of him, my daughter covers herself with this sheet.”

“This is a shirt my son sewed himself. He used to make clothes for me as well.”

The relatives of those who have been forcibly disappeared live on. They live surrounded by treasured possessions, each a reminder of their loved one’s absence. They pass by the places they once walked, and meet people their missing ones loved.

Recently Maatram visited these families to ask them a difficult question – if they would share their loved one’s possessions to be photographed. Upon asking this question, they wept bitterly. Their pain cannot be described with words.

Still, they came forward with these treasured belongings, wet with tears. They believe their loved ones will return. It was with great relief that their loved ones had survived, through bullets and shellfire that they handed them over to the Army. Now, since they haven’t returned, they are suffering.

Their sadness is immeasurable.

This is their story.

View the full story, created on Adobe Spark, here, or scroll below.

Political showboating won’t end impunity

2017-12-12 

Attacks on Media:

Last week, at a UNESCO organized conference to end impunity of crimes against journalists, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe found fault with lack of attendance by media personnel, and alleged that some media organizations and senior journalists were at cahoots with the former regime.  

Perhaps a better explanation for the media fraternity’s indifference towards those political show-boating is that they believe those events have no real impact on media in general or the public at large.   

Mr.Wickremesinghe questioned whether media were really interested in media rights and ending impunity. Surely, journalists are not masochists who get a thrill from getting beaten up, abducted, have their legs broken, and made to disappear. However, providing that basic level of physical security (as well as job security) to journalists is not the government’s discretion, but the duty.  

Also, journalists can hardly be held responsible for the slow progress in the current investigations into the attacks on media. Nor can they be faulted for this ever recurring curious spectacle of stalemate that many investigations come to face, often after some crucial information is unearthed and a breakthrough is announced. That however is not a new phenomenon, because this smacks of a pattern of events well observable during the Rajapaksa regime itself.   

Also many other equally heinous attacks targeting Tamil language press have not yet even been launched. That made senior journalist T. Premananth ask the Minister of Law and Order Sagala Ratnayake why a series of attacks against his own paper, Uthayan were not being investigated.  

Investigations into two incidents- abduction of Keith Noyahr and the killing of Lasantha Wickrematunge initially seemed to have a decisive breakthrough. Investigations into Noyahr’s abduction revealed a trail of telephone calls from Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to Chief of National Intelligence Major General Kapila Hendawitharana who in turn called Chief of Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) Amal Karunasekera, who called Major Prabath Bulathwatte, while Noyahr was being tortured. Major Bulathwatte and four other military personnel - two Sergeants and two Lance Corporals - were later arrested, produced before court and remanded. That breakthrough should have been used to identify the chain of command behind the incident and to bring to book, high-flyers who ordered the crime. Instead, investigation has come to a standstill.  

Similarly, the court decided to reopen the investigation into the assassination of Lasantha Wickrematunge on the request of the CID. The CID subsequently arrested a warrant officer attached to the military intelligence, who was later identified by LasanthaWickrematunge’s driver in an identification parade. The suspect,Warrant Officer Malinda Udalagama was produced before the court and remanded. Later another former military intelligence officer, I. Jayamanne hanged himself, leaving a note taking responsibility for the killing of Wickrematunge and requesting the release of Warrant Officer Udalagama.   

The Prime Minister can look into what is holding back those investigations, and the curious dead-end they all come to face, after some crucial information is unearthed

Also, former Army commander Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka in a testimony to the CID claimed that there was a special secret unit outside his authority and controlled by Gotabaya Rajapaksa through the then-Chief of National Intelligence and that unit was operated outside the army command structure and was used to target journalists and other dissidents. Mr. Rajapaksa shot back saying “it was not possible to operate any Army unit and/or deployment without the sanction and/or approval of the Army Commander.” Later during a meeting with the Foreign Correspondent Association, he claimed “a lot of things happened without my knowledge” and that he was working more at “policy and strategy-level and not on things at the tactical-level.”  

Investigation into the Lasantha Wickrematunge assassination has not moved since the arrest of Warrant officer Udalagama. Similarly, ten suspects including a Colonel, were arrested in connection with the disappearence of Prageeth Ekneligoda, and were subsequently released on bail. That investigation itself is gradually losing momentum now.  

The Prime Minister can look into what is holding back those investigations, and the curious dead-end they all come to face, after some crucial information is unearthed. There is no gainsaying that these investigations are an extremely sensitive matter within the military intelligence circles. That requires a delicate balancing act. However, one should not conflate killings and abductions of journalists and attacks on media institutions with counter-terrorism. Those attacks were carried out to avenge the bruised egos of political and military heavyweights. They effectively discredited the security forces.  

In conventional military duties, officers and other ranks can refuse to carry out illegal orders. However in intelligence operations which often operate in the gray area, such a line is often obscure. Therefore, while it is important to hold accountable those who fired the shot, it is far more important to bring to book those who ordered those crimes. Otherwise, these investigations would end up being show trials of the kind of the Udathalawinna case, which acquitted Anurudda Ratwatta and his two sons, while sentencing five army commandos to death.  

The Attorney-General can offer reduced sentence to lower and middle level military officials implicated in those crimes, in exchange for their co-operation to trace the chain of command behind those events.  

However, there appears to be little interest to investigate political heavy weights behind these crimes. That may be due to a political deal or simply due to fear over an ultra-nationalist backlash, or both. And blaming journalists for the government’s vacillation to find truth and justice would be of little help.  

Follow @RangaJayasuriya on Twitter  

WHO IS AFRAID OF GOTABAYA RAJAPAKSA?: WINNING ELECTIONS, NO WALK IN THE PARK

10 December, 2017

That is a question we must ask because the former Defence Secretary and sibling of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa is generating headlines without doing much, really. To put things in a nutshell, the current hullabaloo is as follows: The Financial Crimes Investigations Division (FCID) is attempting to take action against Rajapaksa for alleged misappropriation of funds in constructing the D.A. Rajapaksa Memorial Museum, built in honour of the patriarch of the Rajapaksa clan.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is fighting this in the Court of Appeal, where he has filed a petition seeking an order to prevent action being taken against him under the Public Property Act.

Thus far, the Court of Appeal has acceded to Rajapaksa’s request, granting an interim order which was extended this week until December 15.

If this was a simple case of alleged misappropriation of public funds, we can surely let justice take its course and let those who adorn the benches of the highest courts in the land do their job. But, this is Sri Lanka and matters are seldom what they seem to be at first glance.

So, let us get some perspective, shall we? Among those who took to public life in the current generation of the Rajapaksa clan, Gotabaya was the exception: he was not- and technically, is still not- a politician.

He was primarily a soldier who joined the Sri Lanka Army at the age of twenty two and went on to serve for twenty one years, before migrating to the United States at the height of the Eelam war. There he applied for and obtained citizenship of the United States.

Of course, when the war raged in the ‘80s, Gotabaya did his stints in operational areas while serving in the Gajaba Regiment. We next heard of him when he returned to Sri Lanka.
In 2005

That was in 2005, when brother Mahinda was elected President. He was appointed as Secretary of Defence. Mahinda Rajapaksa was asked about that, implying that it was nepotism, giving the country’s top defence job to his brother.

The elder Rajapaksa countered that in style, asking why you wouldn’t do that when you had a war going on and you needed someone trusted to spearhead efforts against it. It turned out to be a masterstroke.

Gotabaya handpicked Sarath Fonseka, over and above others and one year senior to him in the Army, as the Army Commander. Fonseka and Rajapaksa both survived suicide bomb attacks by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

In prosecuting the war, Fonseka had the military acumen and the ruthlessness that was called for. As an army man but also being the brother of the President, Rajapaksa was the perfect conduit between the political and military establishments.

The rest, as they say, is history: in four years, a war that many thought was unwinnable, was won. Ironically, that is where Gotabaya Rajapaksa appears to have lost his marbles.

Bolstered by the war victory- and a rousing endorsement for brother Mahinda at the 2010 Presidential Election where ironically, Mahinda defeated Fonseka, Gotabaya became omnipresent and omnipotent.

Fonseka was stripped of his rank, his pension and his dignity and sent to Welikada dressed in a prison jumper. Gotabaya went from strength to strength and, as Secretary to the Ministry of Urban Development, had embarked on a plan to beautify Colombo.

There were, however, controversies. Gotabaya Rajapaksa has been accused of threatening and intimidating journalists. His name has been linked to the assassination of Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickremetunga and the abduction of The Nation deputy editor Keith Noyahr but no conclusive evidence has been found.

There have been allegations of financial impropriety related to the floating Armoury, Avant Garde Maritime Services, and the purchase of MIG aircraft for the Sri Lanka Air Force, but nothing has been proved in a court of law, yet.

All this would make Gotabaya Rajapaksa yet another individual of the former regime who is under scrutiny for alleged misdeeds, albeit being the former President’s brother.

That though is not why all this is important. It is important because the 19th Amendment to the Constitution- to which three Rajapaksas in the current Parliament: Mahinda, Chamal and Namal signified their assent- bars Mahinda Rajapaksa from running for President again.

Advertising agency

So, the so-called ‘Joint Opposition’ which is the advertising agency marketing the Rajapaksa brand has to come up with an alternative. And the signs are slowly but surely emerging that the new mascot is none other than Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Consider the evidence: Gotabaya has launched two movements within a short space of time: Eliya, a movement for the purpose of ‘enlightening’ the public about the new Constitution and Viyath maga, a network of “academics, professionals, and entrepreneurs” ostensibly “wishing to contribute towards the betterment of the country”.

The strongest evidence of Gotabaya’s political ambitions came a few weeks ago. Full page advertisements appeared in national newspapers saying ‘Gota, together for all’ or, in Sinhalese, Gota, api venuven api, the latter a reference to a catchy tune that called for support for the armed forces during the final years of the war. So, make no mistake.

If Gotabaya was a closet politician all these years, he has now ‘come out’. One can almost predict the slogans: rata jaathiya beraagath Gota” would be the underlying theme, portraying him as the war hero who saved the nation from the scourge of terrorism. Gotabaya’s rivals, be they in the UNP or perhaps even in the SLFP should not underestimate him. After all, he won an unwinnable war.

But, if the Joint Opposition thinks that with Gota as a candidate, the next presidential election will be a walk in the park for them, they need to think again.

Sri Lankans have already decided that just because someone won the war, they-or their family- can’t be given a blank cheque to do as they please, forever: just ask Mahinda Rajapaksa. And if they think being a war hero guarantees them an election win, that doesn’t work either: just ask Sarath Fonseka! 

Taking A Look At The ‘Miracle’ At Wattala

By Shyamon Jayasinghe –December 11 2017

“ David Hume proposed that a claim of a miracle has one sure test of veracity: the possibility of the miracle not happening should be even more crazy than the possibility that it did.” ~ Wattala Claim

I have no desire to run down any religion and I am sans any religion. On the other hand, I am impelled to examine claims that are tantamount to a war on science -claims that can only serve to deceive a gullible public. The latest sensational story is a tale about an alleged miracle at St Anne’s Church in Wattala, Sri Lanka – a dominantly Catholic suburb.

The claim is made by the Parish priest himself-Revd Father Sanjeev Mendis – listening to the story told by a young woman who reportedly said that she saw drops of sweat pouring down the visage of a picture of Jesus given to her by some priests who brought the picture from Chalakkuddi in India. “We had family problems for some time and these subsided since the miracle began,” said this woman. “I have experienced some strange feelings which are hard to explain ever since this miracle began.”

Religion Depends on Miracles

Religious institutions world over and through the ages have depended on miracle stories to boost their faithful numbers. I say this is yet another one like the old ones. Persons in authority like the priest in this case should be doubly careful before they spread a narrative of this sort; they have a responsibility to tell the truth.

The Bible relates many such miracles during the time of Christ. The very resurrection from a state of death of Jesus Christ has been the centrepiece. Turning water into wine and feeding thousands of people with just one loaf of bread are just a few of the biblical stories.

Among the modern ones include the miracle at Lourdes and the miracle at Fatima, Portugal. Australian national pride was heightened when the Pope recently canonised one of her citizens, Mary Mckillop, as “saint” for having “successfully interceded to cure a cancer patient.” The Buddhists-although adherents of an atheist religion – have their own stories about “Iddi balaya, ” which is a kind of ability to levitate and fly through air without any mechanical device like an aeroplane. The latter power is alleged to have happened not by divine intervention, however, but by effective deep meditation.

Violate Natural Laws

These tales do one thing: they claim certain happenings that violate natural laws, which form the very heart of scientific and technological investigation. The God -believers’ stories are that it is divine or supernatural intervention. The ‘supernatural influence,’ contradicts natural laws and naturalistic explanation for phenomena. The simple reason is that we never experience such interruptions in natural laws in any general sense save for a few and far-between isolated personal stories or anecdotes.

David Hume on Miracles

David Hume, the 18th century Scottish philosopher and an intellectual giant in the history of the philosophical enterprise, gave the best logical repudiation of miracle tales-to date. Hume wrote his account in his, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.” Even Professor Richard Dawkins does little more than develop on what Hume did say. David Hume first posits through the evidence of our experience that there is a defining regularity in the universe that is reflected in what are deemed laws of nature. The sun rises every morning. A ball thrown up, falls to the ground  by the operation of the natural law of gravity; tides come in and out in regularity due to the gravity of the moon; liquids behave the same way, day in and day out. The illustrations of regular happenings of natural events are endless and the evidence for such regularity is vast. This observed regularity creates a kind of habit in our minds to predict that they would occur again and again in the future. Science and technology has advanced so much today on the central assumption of such predictability.Therefore, the “laws,” are factual or are firmed  in every pragmatic sense. Since they work, we accept them. Admittedly, it isn’t logical to believe that just because a serial of events and consequences occurred in the past they would occur in the future, too. Hume admitted this illogicality but accepted the scientific truth on a pragmatic basis.

Read More

USING THE ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES ACT IN DECLARING THE RAILWAY AS ESSENTIAL, VIOLATES BOTH THE RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT

Image: Railway Strike in Sri Lanka (live.firstnews.co.uk)


11/12/2017

In a hand delivered letter to PM Wikremesinghe today,  Anton Marcus,  Joint Secretary of the Free Trade Zones and General Services Employees’ Union  says that “using the Essential Public Services Act in declaring the railway as essential, violates both the responsibility and duty of the government in implementing the ILO Core Conventions as ruled by the ILO Committee of Experts on Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) in relation to previous misuse of this Act and also the guarantee given by your government to honour Core ILO Conventions in regaining EU GSP Plus”.

He requests the PM to intervene  in

1. withdrawing the gazette notice declaring the railway service as essential
2. negotiating with the railway unions that lead the railway strike
3. taking necessary steps to establish an independent mechanism for resolving of public sector trade union disputes
4. making a public pledge to refrain from using the Essential Public Services Act No. 61 of 1979 other than as ruled by the CEACR.

Full text of the letter follows:

Hon. Prime Minister
Ranil Wickramasinghe
Prime Minister’s Office
No.58, Sir Ernest De Silva Mawatha
Colombo 07.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

Protest against using Essential Public Services Act No.61 of 1979 against lawful work stoppage.
We as a trade union and also as a member of the Monitoring Committee of the EU GSP “Plus” wish to register our strongest displeasure and protest over your government’s use of the Essential Public Services Act No. 61 of 1979 in breaking up the on-going railway strike by declaring it illegal.
The two trade unions that lead the railway strike, the Station Masters’ and the Locomotive Drivers’ unions, claim they have not been given any opportunity to discuss their grievances and salary issues, despite efforts made to sort them out through discussions. We are also aware, they had engaged in discussions at high level during the weekend, but that unfortunately had been an unofficial attempt, when it should have been official, in negotiating a reasonable solution.

While the Rajapaksa rule used Court rulings, police repression and thugs against protests and agitations, we see your government’s new repressive trend in using this ‘Essential Public Services Act’ against legitimate workers’ strikes. It was previously used by your government along with thugs, against striking Petroleum workers in July this year. This for a government that promised good governance and strengthening of democracy, is a total betrayal of public trust.

Using the Essential Public Services Act in declaring the railway as essential, violates both the responsibility and duty of the government in implementing the ILO Core Conventions as ruled by the ILO Committee of Experts on Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) in relation to previous misuse of this Act and also the guarantee given by your government to honour Core ILO Conventions in regaining EU GSP “Plus”.

The CEACR ruled the term “essential services” does not mean services that cater to social needs in a very broad sense. The CEACR defined “essential services” as, [quote] those the interruption of which would “endanger the life, personal safety or health” of the whole or part of the population and unlikely to include services such as broadcasting services. [unquote]. While the railway strike inconveniences the public in many ways and disrupts the normal daily life of commuters, it cannot be said or interpreted as one that “endanger the life, personal safety or health” of the whole or part of the population.

Therefore no effort in getting even parliamentary approval for the gazette notification that declares the railway strike illegal, can justify continued misuse of this Essential Public Services Act in repressing the rights of workers.

We also wish to stress the importance of establishing an independent dispute resolving mechanism for the public sector, a benefit presently enjoyed by the private sector with the Industrial Dispute Act. The Public Administration Department and the Public Service Commission (PSC) are only mandated to inquire and resolve individual employee issues and disciplinary matters. For the public sector employees, there is no conciliatory mechanism their trade unions can resort to when collective bargaining fails with the minister taking the final decision. If there was such a mechanism, the railway trade unions would have had to submit their demands for negotiations with the mandated authority before taking a strike decision.

It is therefore important and necessary for the government to take measures that could prevent work stoppages than resorting to unnecessary repressive steps that can hinder other benefits to the whole country as well, from EU GSP “Plus”.

We therefore request you to immediately intervene in,
1. withdrawing the gazette notice declaring the railway service as essential
2. negotiating with the railway unions that lead the railway strike
3. taking necessary steps to establish an independent mechanism for resolving of public sector trade union disputes
4. making a public pledge to refrain from using the Essential Public Services Act No. 61 of 1979 other than as ruled by the CEACR.

Let us also stress that the responsibility and the duty of an elected government is to resolve disputes through negotiations however difficult that may be and not to repress and crush worker rights, using laws and regulations that contravene and contradicts the responsibility of safeguarding democracy and rights of workers.
Thank you,

Yours sincerely,
Anton Marcus
Joint Secretary
Free Trade Zones and General Services Employees’ Union
C.c

1. Minister for Transport and Civil Aviation
2. Minister for Labour & TU Relations and Sabaragamuwa Development
3. Secretary, EU GSP “Plus” Monitoring Committee
4. Members of the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC)

Fence mending prospects between SLFP factions before nominations receding

By C.A.Chandraprema-December 9, 2017, 7:13 pm 

With nominations set to open on Monday for the first 93 local government institutions, frantic last minute moves are being made to form an alliance between the Joint Opposition and the SLFP faction in the government. The initiative in these moves is from the latter rather than the former. Several public figures like Ven. Elle Gunawansa thera have been involved in these negotiations on the assumption that the Sirisena faction of the SLFP is more progressive than the UNP and therefore, the Joint Oppositioin should form an alliance with them in order to keep the UNP and the TNA at bay. Ven. Gunawansa has put forward three main conditions on which he hopes the two estranged factions of the SLFP will be able to unite - halting the process of formulating a new constitution, halting the privatization of national assets and filing action against the persons involved in the bond scam.

What is missing is the main demand put forward by the Joint Opposition which is that the Sirisena faction should leave the government before serious consideration can be given to their request to field a joint list for the elections. This was a demand put forward for practical reasons – the impossibility of the opposition and a part of the government running a joint campaign against the government. The fact that the monks have chosen to de-emphasise this fundamental demand put forward by the JO indicates that theirs is an agenda based quest – to put a stop to the constitutional reform process, to stop privatization and to have the bond scam culprits brought to book. These are laudable objectives no doubt, but whether an election alliance can be forged on such an agenda is questionable.

In the first place, these three demands assume that the SLFP Sirisena faction is against the new constitution, against privatization and are willing to prosecute those at fault with regard to the bond scam. We have to bear in mind that when Arjuna Ranatunga was opposing the agreement with China Merchant Co in relation to the privatization of the Hambantota harbor, President Sirisena himself removed Ranatunga from that post and replaced him with Mahinda Samarasinghe and it was the latter who worked with his UNP colleagues to sell of the rights to the Hambantota port to China Merchant Co. Then when it comes to the new constitution, members of the SLFP like Dilan Perera and Nimal Siripala de Silva have been as vocal as anyone in the UNP on the need to devolve power in the manner recommended in the documents put out so far by the subcommittees and steering committee of the Constitutional Assembly. Furthermore, when Ven. Medagoda Abhayatissa had met the President to speak to him about the constitution, the former had told Ven. Abhayatissa that the Tamil people have an issue and that some solution has to be given to this problem.

Referring to the people of the North, Sirisena had even said "Egollange mune le binduwak ne". To this Ven. Abhayatissa had replied that this so-called Tamil problem is that of the Tamil people not having a state of their own and that this is not an issue that can ever be resolved in Sri Lanka. What that exchange shows is that the President Sirisena himself is committed to the new constitution proposed by the UNP except to the part where the executive presidency is abolished. President Sirisena if at all is even more beholden to the TNA than is Ranil Wickremesinghe. The only reason why President Sirisena is the President today is because of the majorities he received from the northern and eastern provinces. The people of the North gave him more votes than they gave Vigneswaran. So he is acutely aware of his obligations to this constituency. Even in the early days of the yahapalana government, President Sirisena was in the habit of saying that during the Rajapaksa era various things had been distributed to the people of the North but that not one of the recipients had a smile on their faces. He was implying thereby that the only thing that will put a smile on the faces of the northern Tamils are not various chattels but the granting of their political demands. So to imagine that Sirisena is more progressive than Ranil Wickremesinghe with regard to the constitution is obviously a mistake.

As for filing action against the culprits in the bond scam, that will be a matter of political strategy. Once the report of the bond commission is in the hands of the President, it will become a weapon with which he can manipulate the UNP at will. In the event that Sirisena wishes to contest the presidency next time, the bond commission report will be the tool he will use to ensure that there is no UNP candidate and that he is the UNP’s candidate for the second time. He may not use it to file action against the UNP simply because the bond scam happens to be a crime. So to imagine that Sirisena is more progressive than Wickremesinghe would be a major folly. In terms of rhetoric the official SLFP sounds better than the UNP but what counts is what they do in practice. One gets the impression that the Sirisena faction which is in partnership with the UNP appears to be progressive only because they are a passive partner in this government. It is the UNP that drives policy and we see the SLFP responding to this policy sometimes from a populist standpoint and that is what gives them an appearance of being different.

There is also an element of the good cop, bad cop routine in the way the UNP and the SLFP cooperate with one another in running the government. The UNP puts forward a proposition and the SLFP seemingly opposes it only to agree to it later saying that the original proposal has been modified appropriately. This is in fact a better way of handling public opposition without confronting it head on. For all these reasons, the UNP and the SLFP faction in the government are one. After voting with the UNP to hand over the Hambantota Port to China Merchant Co on Friday and voting with the UNP again to pass the budget in Saturday, it would be rather odd for the SLFP Sirisena faction to be handing in nominations this week as a partner of the Joint Opposition. Would the JO want to be seen in public with such a partner? With nominations set to open on Monday and close at noon on Thursday, time is running out for decisions to be made.

The fiction of President Sirisena being able to hold his own as a political party leader is now being proved to be just that, a fiction. What President Sirisena needs now is not futile posturing but an exit strategy. The best option for him now will be to simply refrain from fielding any list at all on the grounds that those contesting on the JO list are members of the SLFP. By not contesting, he will avoid being defeated and he will also be able to claim that he did not allow the party to be divided. By not contesting the JO he will be able to (at least partly) wash off the sins of August 2015 when he deliberately undermined the UPFA campaign by saying that he would not make Mahinda Rajapaksa the Prime Minister even if the UPFA won and sacking the general secretaries of the SLFP and the UPFA and appointing his own loyalists to those positions on the eve of the poll. In fact, it is the bitter memory of August 2015 that has prejudiced members of the JO against any move to unite the two factions of the SLFP. If Sirisena does not field his own list and gives the JO a free run to confront the UNP, the acrimony between the two estranged factions of the SLFP will abate, and unification may become possible at some point in the future combined with an amicable exit strategy for Sirisena.       

Bracing for the financial shocks of 2018

Last week the IMF completed the third review of Sri Lanka’s Extended Fund Facility arrangement and approved the disbursement of a further US$ 251.4 million. In doing so, the IMF observed that the government had met the fiscal targets and passed the laws necessary for income tax reform and they pointed out that tax revenue had to increase further to meet Sri Lanka’s high debt burden. The main purpose of the IMF programme for Sri Lanka is aimed at reducing the fiscal deficit. In layman’s terms this means collecting more money to pay for government expenditure. The IMF in disbursing the latest tranche observed that "it is important to build on the progress made and accelerate reforms to further reduce fiscal… vulnerabilities… The new Inland Revenue Act will make the tax system more efficient and equitable, and generate resources for social and development programs." We pointed out in analyzing the budget for 2018 that the government was preparing to milk the people dry and indeed that’s what is on the cards from April 2018 onwards when the new Inland Revenue Act comes into effect.

According to the budget for 2018, total government revenue has to increase from an estimated Rs. 1,997 billion in 2017 to Rs. 2,326 billion and increase of Rs. 329 billion in just one year. Tax revenue is expected to increase from Rs. 1,749 billion in 2017 to Rs. 2,034 in 2018 an increase of Rs. 285 billion. Guess who’s going to be forking out all this money? In 2018, the government dipping directly into the pockets of people will not be the only horror in store for us. The IMF statement in releasing the latest tranche of the Extended Fund Facility further observed that    ‘weak financial performance of state-owned enterprises increases the importance of further fiscal consolidation’ and recommended that ‘structural reforms’ and ‘energy pricing’, will support fiscal consolidation. What is meant by the term structural reforms is usually privatization and what is meant by energy pricing is increasing the prices of fuel. There is already a demand from LIOC to increase fuel prices which is being kept down with some effort.

The problem however is that the ‘energy pricing’ and ‘structural reforms’ referred to will be coming at a time when the government will be having to face elections – first to the local government institutions, then the provincial councils and then the presidential elections. The signs are that 2018 and 2019 are not going to be happy years for the yahapalana government. Apart from these shocks that one can see coming, there are the shocks that come unexpectedly and at all times under this government. As we go to press, the country is in the middle of a major railway strike and a shortage of aviation fuel.