BTF and USTPAC Commemorate International Human Rights Day - 2017

 
Dec 11, 2017

On this day in 1948, the United Nations adopted a universal set of human rights values that apply to all of us. The British Tamils Forum (BTF) and the United States Tamil Political Action Council (USTPAC) honour this milestone towards creating a freer and more equal world by reconfirming our commitment to achieving a just and equitable political solution for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

BTF and USTPAC call upon the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and its member countries to ensure that Sri Lanka commences a credible and timely transitional justice process as envisioned in 2015's Resolution 30/1, which Sri Lanka co-sponsored and re-committed to in 2017's Resolution 34/1.

UNHRC Resolution 30/1 encouraged the Government of Sri Lanka to take firm action to set up a transitional justice process to provide a pathway for reconciliation and a peaceful future for all Sri Lanka’s communities following a long war. Resolution 30/1 envisioned the reform of Sri Lanka’s domestic law, along with implementation of the recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and the recommendations in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner’s Investigation of Sri Lanka (OISL), including by providing for, in a manner consistent with Sri Lanka’s international obligations, the trial and punishment of those most responsible for the full range of crimes committed during and after Sri Lanka’s recent war. The Government of Sri Lanka committed that this judicial process would be undertaken by a hybrid special court which contained Commonwealth and foreign judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators.

The United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) November 2017 report on Sri Lanka notably calls into question President Siresena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s commitment to the promised full implementation of Resolution 30/1, as do Sri Lanka’s failure to accept many recommendations during the recent Universal Periodic Review process, the report of the Commission on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the reports of numerous UN Special Rapporteurs who have visited Sri Lanka in recent years.

The painfully slow progress on implementing critical confidence-building measures and credible transitional justice structures and multiple statements by the president and prime minister and other members of the government denying the need for any action raise doubt about their actual commitment to the promises made in Resolution 30/1.

The Chairman of the UK All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Tamils, Paul Scully MP has called again today on the government of Sri Lanka for time-bound action on implementation of Resolution 30/1. To this day none of these commitments have been fulfilled by the Government of Sri Lanka and no one has been brought to justice. Co-sponsors of Resolution 30/1 should hold Sri Lanka to its commitments and ensure full implementation of the OISL and LLRC recommendations

BTF and USTPAC call upon the EU, the UK and US governments to take into consideration the lack of progress on transitional justice, the ongoing human rights abuses on the island, statements by many members of the current government that do not respect Sri Lanka’s international commitments and recent critical reports on Sri Lanka by relevant UN bodies and rapporteurs. We believe that Sri Lanka has been merely paying lip service to human rights for the benefit of an international audience in expectation that there will be few consequences. The UNHRC and its constituent members must take a strong stance on Sri Lanka’s failure to respect its commitments in a timely manner and should start alternative international diplomatic initiatives to achieve the recommendations of Resolution 30/1.

BTF and USTPAC call upon the EU, the UK and US governments to take into consideration the lack of progress on transitional justice, the ongoing human rights abuses on the island, statements by many members of the current government that do not respect Sri Lanka’s international commitments and recent critical reports on Sri Lanka by relevant UN bodies and rapporteurs. We believe that Sri Lanka has been merely paying lip service to human rights for the benefit of an international audience in expectation that there will be few consequences.

The UNHRC and its constituent members must take a strong stance on Sri Lanka’s failure to respect its commitments in a timely manner and should start alternative international diplomatic initiatives to achieve the recommendations of Resolution 30/1.

On this Human Rights Day, our thoughts are with the families of those who were arrested and disappeared during and after the war. Many of these families have been protesting on the roadside for 300 days and all continue to wait in sorrow and impatience to receive information and to see justice done.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Choice For The Tamils

By Kumarathasan Rasingam –December 13 2017 

Article 1 of UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 recognises and grants the right of self-determination to peoples all over the world.

The Section says: “All peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of that right; they freely determine their political status and thereby pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

This fundamental human right of peoples is rooted on the preservation of their equality of rights, opportunities and treatment. In pursuit of these objectives, they can choose this option on their own without any third party intervention or compulsion.

 

People of different ethnicity, language, religion, history and culture posses this right to preserve and develop their identities, national consciousness is another mounting factor to claim this right, which allows them to form their own state and choose their own form of Government, which could be Union or Confederation with other similar states within a territory. This right is now recognised as a Universal Right exercisable by all the peoples who posses their own distinct characteristics.

Exercise of this right does not depend on any pre-conditions like oppression, discrimination and subjugation though these situations justify and invite international interventions, recognition and acceptance of their cause and decision.

As far as the Tamils are concerned, they are qualified as peoples within the UN definition of ‘peoples’ as they have been already recognised as people living in the North and East until the British conquest of Sri Lanka in 1798 and even later by the Bandaranayake-Chelvanayagam Pact of 1958, Oslo Accord 2002 and Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987.

This being accepted as a universal right, it is fully exercisable by the Tamils, though the past 50 year history of Tamils which is spilling with ill-treatment, genocide, discrimination, denial of opportunities etc. makes their case for the exercise of this right rock proof and more just and right.

Another viable option for the Tamils is to call for a referendum to decide the best possible political solution. Referendum involves a general voting by the electorate on a simple political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.

 

As far as Tamils are concerned, a referendum would involve all the Tamil electorates to vote on a special political proposal or position to shape their political destiny. The political questions could be one of the following with answers of YES OR NO – OR NO OPINION:

[1] A Federal form of Government or

[2] Separation – Independent sovereign State.

[3] Unitary form of Government.

In order to legitimately call for a referendum it is important for Tamils to gain the political acceptance of the Tamils through election success which endorse the right of referendum for a particular political question. Alternatively, International Community including UN can initiate same with the consent of Sri Lankan Government, if Sri Lanka refuses to consent. However consent of Sri Lanka is only a distant possibility, and the only hope is UN”s Security Council to pass a resolution calling on Sri Lanka to hold a referendum confirming it to Tamil electorates.

During the 1990s many countries resorted to this referendum which paved way for the creation of several independent sovereign states. Some of the countries which became sovereign states after a ‘YES’ referendum vote are as follows:-

Eretria April 1993 separated from Ethiopia

East Timor August 19991 separated from Indonesia

Slovenia Dec. 1990 separated from Yugoslavia

Montenegro Dec. 2006 separated from Serbia

Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia – separated from Yugoslavia

South Sudan 2011 separated from Sudan.

It is to be noted that countries like Canada and Switzerland have constitutional provisions allowing referendum as a legal option, while Parliamentary Supreme countries like, United Kingdom can only approve referendum by passing legislation to that effect. French speaking state of Quebec in Canada held a referendum on October 30, 1995 to opt or reject to form a separate independent Government separate from Canada. The referendum voted ‘NO’ for separation. Likewise UK Parliament approved a referendum in 2015 for Scotland to decide the formation of an independent Scotland state. The referendum rejected the proposal with a 55% ‘NO” vote, However, moves are now underway in Scotland to initiate another referendum with the approval of UK Parliament.

The sticking point is that in UK, another Parliament has the power to revoke and reverse the ‘YES’ referendum vote of Scotland by another parliamentary legislation. Unless and until constitutional guarantee is in place, a referendum with ‘YES’ result runs the risk of ‘no effect’

Furthermore, referendum can be initiated for constitutional changes like extension of Presidential term or no election for certain period. Late J.R Jayaweardenae resorted to referendum in 2000 to extend his term of office for six more years, without a general election.

A referendum for Tamils can only succeed if the Sri Lankan Parliament approves it and also makes the necessary constitutional changes by making a “YES’ result by Tamils irrevocable under any circumstances. In that event only the referendum result will get international recognition. Other alternative is for the UN recognise it and pass a resolution to this effect calling for compliance from Sri Lankan Government to hold a referendum.

Similarly a referendum without the approval of a government, unless backed by international community or UN, runs the risk of being suppressed by a government using its central power and security forces, as happened in the 2017referendums in Turkey by Kurds, and Catalonia in Spain. The noteworthy and significant  matter of political ‘Vaddukoddai Resolution” of 1976 which called separate state for Tamils resulting from the 1977 general election which was in fact a referendum which got a massive YES endorsement from Tamils.

Read More

Work for reconciliation and religious co-existence

A Religious Co-existence Convention organised by the National Co-existence Dialogue and Official Languages Ministry was held at the BMICH yesterday under the patronage of President Maithripala Sirisena. Mahanayake of the Amarapura Maha Nikaya Most Ven

Zahrah Imtiaz-Wednesday, December 13, 2017

As leaders of the four main religions in the country convened to discuss peace, President Sirisena appealed to them to use their sermons and influence to preach reconciliation and religious co-existence to their respective congregations.

“Today, we are gathered here because deep down we know that we have a problem in this country,” said President Maithripala Sirisena addressing the Religious Coexistence Convention held at the BMICH yesterday.

The Convention sought to bring all communities together to promote peace and religious coexistence in the country.

“The ethnic and religious conflicts in this country resulted in a 30-year war. The war was ended through a military solution. Our Forces were able to defeat a separatist terrorist organisation but we have not managed to defeat the beliefs that led to it,” the President said.

“Though the idea of separatism has not been openly dealt within the country,” the President noted that this belief was very much alive in international fora.

“We all know that ideas and beliefs cannot be defeated with arms. It can only be replaced with a better, more positive belief”, he added.

In order to accomplish this, he stressed on the need to have dialogue and conventions such as these. An educated society, will be able to choose the right path and the more positive option through debate and discussion, believed the President.

“I strongly believe that our local temples and religious institutions do not preach conflict. The religious leaders always try to direct the people in the right direction. All philosophies, be it Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Christianity, strive try to correct society”, he said.

But we now lack religious co-existence in our society and thus we need to address it, he added.

“The main reasons why we have this situation is suspicion and fear created between various religious and ethnic groups”.

The President stressed that the government was committed to promote religious coexistence. All societies, he said have extremists in their midst- but this is a minority.

“The vision and direction of religious leaders is very important to us in at this juncture. They can calm society, bring in peace and direct them in the right path”.

“We are seeking the advice of religious leaders in our development path,” said President Sirisena further.

“The Government has formed national religious co-existence organisations to deal with local conflicts. At the district level, these organizations will function under the leadership of the District Secretariat and bring together people of all religious and ethnic groups to resolve issues which arise at the local level. This would also be extended to smaller groups being formed under the divisional secretariat level,” the President said.

The President was happy to note that whilst some would ridicule the idea of reconciliation, the majority of people in the country today were aware of what reconciliation and co-existence is.
“I am positive about our future, and let us all fulfil our duty, let us all commit to this,” said the President.

“It is then that we can achieve; real and long lasting peace, where there will be no more war”

Security Sector reforms in Sri Lanka Reduction of troops and rural economy

By Rathindra Kuruwita-2017-12-12

Ever since the end of the civil war in 2009, there has been a debate on the need for security sector reforms in Sri Lanka. With the defeat of the Rajapaksa administration and with the United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG) promising such reforms, the debate has rekindled.
The need for security sector reforms is recognized by different actors across the spectrum, from people who want a complete demilitarization of the North and the East to people like me who have insisted that the nation can't reduce defence expenditure.

With such diverging stakeholders and with politicians affiliated with Former President and Kurunegala District MP Mahinda Rajapaksa attempting to equate reforms with weakening of the military, the situation is obviously complex.

On the other hand, no one has attempted to explain to the general public about what security sector reforms are and to obtain their ideas. Surely, if the general public is qualified to give their opinions on the proposed Constitution of the nation, they are able to comment on security sector reforms.

Security sector reform under MR

After the end of the war, Sri Lanka was left with a powerful defence establishment. It had over 200, 000 military personnel and in 2009 the defence budget was Rs 175 billion. However, it was also the focus of controversy, allegations of human rights violations and there was a feeling that there were too many soldiers for a peacetime Army.

The popular view among analysts regarding the military from 2009 to 2015 is that no reforms have taken place. I have come across many academics who insisted that Rajapaksa held into an oversized Army which drained Sri Lanka's public funds and that steps should have been taken to minimize the defence budget from 2009 itself.

My opinion regarding this differs, I believe that Rajapaksa in fact did carryout security sector reforms. He reoriented the Security Forces towards development and the Army Engineering Corps played a significant role in the massive construction projects under Rajapaksa. The military was also encouraged to do business, from farming to managing hotels.

The military did exceptionally well, when it came to construction and maintenance. The Engineering Corps of the Sri Lanka Army carried out a number of major construction works, efficiently and adhering to deadlines, which is not what we usually see from Sri Lankan construction companies. In addition one cannot doubt that the Ministry of Defence controlled Urban Development Authority (UDA) did an exceptional job in making Sri Lanka's major cities much more attractive spaces.
So, it is absurd for Wimal Weerawansa or for Udaya Gammanpila to equate any military sector reform to weakening of the Army because guess what, his boss also carried out military reforms.

Reforming without firing

The 2018 budgetary allocation for the Defence Ministry is around Rs 290 billion; out of capital expenditure is only Rs 30 billion. Rs 260 B has been spent of recurrent expenses, which can't be reduced. This is why reducing the defence budget is not an easy task, the military employs a large number of people and the income generated by these young men and women is an important source of income for Sri Lankan families. Especially in some rural areas, the village economy would collapse if soldiers are let go.

What is interesting to note is that during the three decades from 1980, successive governments allowed agriculture and manufacturing sectors, which used to be the backbone of rural economy, to stagnate. The contribution of these two sectors has continuously declined and most of the jobs left in these sectors, especially in agriculture are low-productive jobs. (Forgive me if you think I am diverting, but it is important for you to realize how these are interlinked).

Given the degradation of the rural economy most of the youth took a rational decision that the best way to escape rural poverty was by joining the military. Thus the steady stream of recruits from rural agricultural and semi-urban areas where there used to be manufacturing jobs. Despite what the liberal narrative would tell you most of the recruits were not 'misled' by the Rajapaksa's propaganda machine into joining the Army, the young men and women who joined the Army were only taking a very well-thought-out and rational decision.

Stagnant job growth

As I mentioned the only way to reduce the defence budget in a significant way is to let soldiers go and letting these young men and women (with weapons skills and angry about getting rid of them after putting their lives on the line) go into an economy where job growth has been stagnant for many years would be disastrous socially and economically. Mahinda Rajapaksa realized this dilemma and thus had no option but to reorient the Army towards development activities. The current Government will also have to look at options to redirect troops for different sectors so that we ensure jobs and development.

Rathindra holds an MSc in Strategic Studies from S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU, Singapore, and can be reached via rathindra984@gmail.com

LORD NASEBY AND THE PRESIDENT’S LETTER

by SANJA DE SILVA JAYATILLEKA-December 12, 2017, 11:06 pm 

The Island has to be congratulated on its ‘scoop’ of a statement by Lord Naseby in response to the summary dismissal by the British High Commission in Colombo of his views on the infamous UNHRC Resolution 30/1 of 2015 and the increasingly untenable figure of 40,000 civilian casualties.

According to the statement "Lord Naseby makes it quite clear that he shall pursue every organisation and the persons involved to ensure that the Darusman Report figure on civilian casualties is publicly amended to reflect that the truth about an estimated 6,500 Tamil civilians who died at the end of the Sri Lanka conflict. Truth must and will win out however inconvenient that may be to the authorities."

Bravo! We should be sincerely grateful to Lord Naseby for taking such a principled position on behalf of Sri Lanka. And sincerely grateful is exactly what President Sririsena was, when he wrote a letter to thank Lord Naseby for his efforts.

The President’s letter was dated 2nd November 2017. It was addressed to Lord Naseby. Four working days later, on the 8th of November, the Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote a letter to the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London, H.E. Mrs. Amari Wijewardene, requesting her to personally hand over the letter to Lord Naseby.

A photograph of this letter was reproduced in LankaCnews, revealing a curious instruction from the Secretary/Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that the contents of the President’s letter "are not shared with the media either in the UK or in Sri Lanka". Why? It was a decent gesture on the part of the President to thank someone who had done Sri Lanka an enormous favour at considerable effort and continued to engage in clarifying matters to do with the serious allegation of war crimes against this country, its armed forces and the entire system. Wouldn’t it have been to the President’s benefit if the contents had been released to the media, both in the UK and Sri Lanka, and indeed worldwide?

There is another curious fact that is revealed by the photographic image of the letter written by Foreign Secretary Kariyawasam. When communications are received by an overseas mission, they are date-stamped by an official indicating the date of receipt. The date-stamp on that letter shows the 17th of November.That is 9 full days or 7 working days after it was written by the Head of State! It isn’t exactly illegal to use a carrier pigeon, but the diplomatic bag is usually sent by airplane.

By then, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vasantha Senanayake had already tabled the President’s letter dated 2nd November in Parliament, as well as his own letter to Lord Naseby, thanking him for his efforts. He did this on the 14th of November, 4 days before the President’s letter reached our High Commission in London. Minister Vasantha Senanayake also indicated that Lord Naseby was aware of the President’s letter but hadn’t yet received it. Of course he hadn’t. It seems to have been somehow stuck in the Foreign Ministry, together with the Foreign Secretary’s covering note dated 8th November!

By the time the President’s letter reached London on the 17th of November, the Foreign Secretary’s curious instructions as to its confidentiality had become superfluous. Once tabled in Parliament on the 14th of November, the contents were effectively in the public domain.

It is not clear when exactly Lord Naseby received the President’s letter, but it would seem that he is in possession of it now. It is just as well that Lord Naseby is determined to do the work that is needed to defend Sri Lanka, since the performance by Sri Lanka’s officials in getting a letter by the Head of State delivered to a member of the House of Lords in the UK on such a serious a matter as massive war crime sallegations, hardly inspires confidence in their capacity to do the work themselves.

Lord Naseby says in his statement to The Island that he has sent the relevant documents to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Al Hussein, and all nine Special Procedure Mandate Holders who have visited Sri Lanka. This is in the context in which none of Sri Lanka’s own reports, such as the LLRC report and the Paranagama Commission Report which challenge the allegations of war crimes, has been presented to the UN Human Rights Council by the Government of Sri Lanka.

The Island has been relentless in its pursuit of this story. Due to its efforts we now know that we are not the only ones bemused at the stand taken by Britain on this matter. Lord Naseby says "It is therefore disappointing that the British High Commission fails to acknowledge the importance of the despatches of its own former defence attaché and the insight that is provided by his communications with the British Government."

More importantly, Lord Naseby confirms the most significant attribute of UNHRC Resolution 30/1 which Sri Lanka co-sponsored: that it was based on allegations of war crimes which relied upon the unsubstantiatedand ‘genocidal’figure of 40,000:

"While not expressly stated so in the resolution, those who have closely followed events in Sri Lanka after the end of the conflict would agree that the basis for the successive resolutions on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council stemmed from the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity (and in some quarters ‘genocide’) said to have been committed by the Sri Lankan armed forces and the LTTE. Especially, the Report of the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, commonly known as the ‘Darusman Report’, alleged that ‘a number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths’".

Lord Naseby argues that Britain’s motives in encouraging UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka seeking to establish the truth, "whilst at the same time effectively prohibiting its own relevant information from being considered by the Human Rights Commission, may need to be called into question."

It seems only fair that Sri Lanka’s own government’s motivations are questioned, in co-sponsoring the resolutions alleging war crimes, the reluctance to submit or the suppression of evidence which challenge those allegations, and tardiness in conveying messages of gratitude to those others who do that work for us.

Lord Naseby took "issue with those in authority be they the UK government or any other Government" for ignoring the "context behind the resolution". He says Col. Anton Gash’s evidence corroborates "a large number of other sources that confirm a casualty figure of around 7,000-8,000 (of which about 20% were LTTE cadres who are said to have thrown away their uniforms resulting in Tamil civilian casualties of about 6,500)."

"Any other Government" obviously includes Sri Lanka’s, and we should take issue with it too. Our government had access to the "large number of other sources" even if they didn’t include Col. Anton Gash’s, when it co-signed the 2015 Resolution.

The Sri Lankan government has a duty of care towards its armed forces. This demands that the government defends them to the best of their ability from false allegations. It requires that they undertake line by line examination of any UN resolution alleging war crimes.

When a UNHRC resolution is proposed, the usual practice is to engage in negotiations. These negotiations take weeks, before the final draft is presented to the Council. The drafts go back and forth many times, where a single word or phrase can make a significant difference. Even when it is formally presented, further amendments can be proposed. Since the current government assumed office in 2015, it has not bothered with this most normal of procedures. Instead,its representatives co-signed a resolution which it is increasingly becoming obvious, was based on utterly dubious testimony.

Lord Naseby is not advocating that human rights violations are ignored. He advises the conducting of "credible investigations" and that "appropriate due processes of justice should follow". This is also what the LLRC recommends. The emerging evidence from the British Foreign Office, and the studies already undertaken by the Legal Advisory Council to the Paranagama Commission leave little doubt that "credible" has to be negotiated back in to the UN resolutions on Sri Lanka. With Lord Naseby valiantly supportive of that cause, it would be in Sri Lanka’s interest to do so without further delay at the upcoming March 2018 session of the Human Rights Council.

In Parliament, Hon. Dinesh Gunawardene was in the process of canvassing multi-party support from those willing to sign a motion calling for the renegotiation of UNHRC resolution 30/1. It seems that the delay is due to the preoccupation with elections. The President should step in to support this effort, as he did Lord Naseby’s.

SRI LANKAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST SHREEN SAROOR GETS FRANCO-GERMAN AWARD

12/12/2017

Colombo, December 12 (newsin.asia): Noted Sri Lankan human rights campaigner Shreen Abdul Saroor, received the Franco-German Human Rights Award at a ceremony here on Monday in the presence of the Sri Lankan Minister of Finance and Media ,Mangala Samaraweera and the German Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Jörn Rohde.

The Franco German Prize for Human Rights and the Rule of Law is granted to persons who show significant engagement in the protection and the promotion of human rights and the rule of law.
Shreen is among 15 rights workers who received the award this year world-wide.

She has been specializing in women’s rights and empowerment and engaged in reconciliation work between displaced Muslim and Tamil communities.

Speaking on the occasion, Minister Samaraweera said: “ Shreen, you are an example not only to Sri Lankan women but to women and men all over the world. You have faced tremendous hardship yourself. Yet, you had the courage to use your personal adversity to reach out and help the most vulnerable in our society. Your courage and sincerity continue to help those who are most in need in our society.”

“As a Sri Lankan, this is a proud moment for me as well to see your work recognised. You have touched the lives of so many, and what you have done, and continue to do, stands not only as a contribution to the citizens of Sri Lanka, but to all of humanity.”

“Although the conflict is over, it will take years to heal the wounds, and it will take persistent effort to sustain and secure the gains that we have already made. The Government has the will and determination to face these challenges including gender-based violence, and promoting and protecting human rights for all, while working towards achieving equitable and inclusive economic development. Yet, Government alone cannot achieve all this.”

“This is why I hope that the work that Shreen has done, and continues to do, will inspire more young people and more men and women to be engaged, and stand up for the rights of all. I wish you the strength to keep doing the great work that you are doing, and to keep on fighting the good fight.”

“Being the leading Members in the European Union, Germany and France have become vanguard of universal human values. Your active interest encourages all of us to strengthen our efforts in preserving those common universal values at this time of populism and integration.”


Shreen Saroor received the Peace Award at Bremen in 2011

In 2011, Shreen had won the Peace Award in the category “Public Engagement” given away at a ceremony in Bremen.

Shreen is one of Sri Lanka’s well-known women’s rights activists who has repeatedly risked her life in the struggle for peace, human rights and reconciliation. She is especially dedicated to campaigning for disadvantaged women.

She has suffered the effects of war, death and displacement. As a member of the Muslim minority, Shrreen and her family were driven out of their home town Mannar in the north of Sri Lanka in 1990 by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The predominantly Hindu Tamil separatists were demanding an independent state in the north and in 1983 they began fighting against the government lead by Sinhalese Buddhists. The Tamil Tigers’ defeat in 2009 marked the end of the civil war, but to date, Sri Lankan ethnic groups have not reconciled.

In 1998 Shreen gave up a successful business career in order to put all her energy into campaigning for peace and understanding between the different ethnic groups.

She is a passionate feminist having done Women’s Studies as well as Business Administration. She campaigns first and foremost for women threatened by social exclusion. She encourages them to fight against discrimination and domestic violence, and to devote themselves to the reconciliation process.

In 1999, Shreen and her colleagues founded the Mannar Women’s Development Federation, which not only helps women in more than 100 villages to lead a more independent life but also organizes the country’s largest women-run microcredit program.

As one of Sri Lanka’s prominent women’s rights and peace activists, Shreen works in the conflict affected areas and is consequently exposed to great danger because the State still pursues and punishes dissidents.

Shreen has shown her ability to bring people together. Her contacts with national and international organizations have made her an important integrative agent for the human rights and democratic movements in Sri Lanka.

People at the grass-roots level are especially important to Shreen as they are at the heart of her work and the real reason for her courageous commitment.

(The featured picture at the top shows Shreen Abdul Saroor at the awards function attended be Sri Lankan Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera)

News.Aisa

Betrayal Of A Bodhisattva

By Sarath de Alwis –December 11 2017 

‘Koley Iragena Angey Halaganta epa. Londery Hathakinn Suddda Karanta Behe’ is the advice in pithy Sinhala idiom, the President offered to his critics and opponents in a recent homily delivered at Nikaweratiya. 

His analogy was inch perfect in accuracy and savagery. His reference was to the compulsory gravy bag that comes with the ‘koththu roti’ one takes home –  the universal social leveler in our urban life. Mishandle the delicate knot and seven laundries will not remove the stains on your sarong, trouser or whatever.

Now he himself has got drenched in nauseating gravy of political jiggery-pokery. He has called Anagarika Basil Rajapaksa [one with no home] and pleaded for help to unite the SLFP.

 

Bhikkhu Medagoda Abayatissa who led the ‘Pindapatha’ to collect the fine imposed on the two convicted in the ‘Sil Redi’ case and Rasputin in the Mahinda masquerade is the middleman.

The reported conversation between the President elected on a reform agenda and the person who is denounced and stigmatized as being responsible for unimaginable financial villainy evades comprehension by the average mind of this writer. When it surfaced the natural inclination was to dismiss it as a fabrication, a falsehood.

We live in times of great turmoil. Understanding the compromises made and truths reconstructed and reshaped is not easy. More difficult is the business of deciphering outright lies from simple deceptions. The past three years of good governance has been a trying experience. We have had to accept false fronts. Deceit is now almost a virtue because it protects the reputation of someone who is indispensable to what is termed a ‘yahapalanaya’. The term that was once a galvanizing call is now a term of derision if not an outright obscenity.

The report that appeared in the widely read Sunday Times political column has been confirmed by Basil Rajapaksa in a direct quote to its sister paper Daily Mirror on Monday.

Basil Rajapaksa has clearly gained credibility as the Pied Piper. Following this aborted unity talks, rats on both sides of the SLFP divide have taken due note of who holds the numbers.

 

A Mistake We Elected

President Sirisena is a mistake we elected. Under the new electoral scheme, he could have easily claimed moral high ground and fielded credible, honourable men and women at the local government elections and delinked the process from partisan politics. Local government is about community. Local government is about providing municipal services. It could have been made in to a debate on creating social justice at grass roots. A creative campaign could have put distance between a new SLFP and the scandal tainted UNP and the corrupt clique that is focused on avoiding prosecutions.

President Sirisena is free to speak to anybody he decides to interact with. That freedom is his only if he repudiates the process that put him in that high office.

Leaders in quest of the presidency of a republic must fight all the way to the top. They must outwit and demolish rivals and even destroy those who stand in their way.

But, that is not the path that brought him his present high office. He owes it to the most venerable Maduluwawe Sobhitha thero who made him the common candidate and persuaded a rainbow coalition to make him president of the Republic.

The ‘Sobhitha’ Idea needed a big mind. We now know, that what we have is not what we hoped for.

The Sobhitha idea will not take root until we find enough big minds to run for high office and to occupy high office. President Sirisena by calling Basil Rajapaksa has shown us that he has a little mind that cannot cope with big problems.

Read More

AG calls upon govt . to address international concerns immediately

US anti-corruption advisor to be based here

By Shamindra Ferdinando-December 12, 2017, 11:22 pm 

Auditor General Gamini Wijesinghe yesterday alleged that the failure on the part of successive governments to take tangible measures to tackle state sector waste, corruption and irregularities had contributed to US decision to propose a Colombo-based Resident Legal Advisor.

Had those who had been at the helm and the government of the day followed basic laws and brought in required new legislation, Sri Lanka wouldn’t have ended up among group of nations categorized as corrupt, Wijesinhe told The Island, in response to a query. Sri Lanka has been categorised along with Nigeria, Ukraine and Tunisia though those countries weren’t offered a Resident Legal Advisor.

The State Department announcement coincided with the inaugural Global Forum on Asset Recovery (GFAR) launched to mark International Anti-corruption Day in Washington last week. Sri Lanka was represented at the GFAR by the Attorney General’s Department.

Wijesinghe stressed that Parliament should inquire into the circumstances leading to the degrading State Department statement. The AG said Sri Lanka shouldn’t find fault with the international community but take meaningful measures to tackle corruption without further delay. "We should inquire into circumstances leading to State Department intervention," Wijesinghe said, adding that the US would have had a plethora of reasons to categorize Colombo with other countries perceived corrupt.

According to the State Department, since 2016, the US has provided foreign assistance for anti-corruption efforts in Sri Lanka to improve the functioning of Sri Lanka’s legal system and civil society, and to enhance good governance. Programmes included the provision of a Resident Legal Advisor to provide anti-corruption and asset recovery training, and support to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC).

Wijesinghe pointed out that Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee Lasantha Alagiyawanna revealed last Friday (Dec. 8) Parliament had not cared to examine AG’s reports that dealt with state institutions. MP Alagiyawanna’s disclosure in parliament that none of the five reports submitted to parliament had been scrutinised and debated this year, underscored the gravity of the problem.

Pointing out that MP Alagiyawanna had declared that the Speaker, the Leader of the House and party leaders should ensure there should be debates on those reports, Wijesinghe said that urgent remedial measures were called for. "Of course, the parliament and the Finance Ministry should accept responsibility for the current crisis," Wijesinghe said, adding that MP Alagiyawanna’s admission was nothing but a positive sign.

Wijesinghe said the national economy certainly had paid an extremely heavy price for the previous administration’s refusal to enact the National Audit Bill. Unfortunately, those who had repeatedly assured the country that the National Audit Bill would be enacted during President Maithripala Sirisena’s 100 day programme in early 2015 were yet purposely delaying it.

Wijesinghe said their efforts to convince the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration of the urgent necessity to enact the National Audit Bill had failed, though at one point a consensus was seemed likely.

The AG asserted that those who had categorised Sri Lanka among four countries worst affected by corruption would have probably taken the absence of required legislation into consideration when deciding on the tag. Wijesinghe said that the National Audit Bill was to be enacted in accordance with the much touted 19th Amendment to the Constitution to enable the Auditor General to excise unhindered authority over state institutions as well as joint ventures in which the state held 50 per cent investment.

Asked whether he felt the government had undermined 19th Amendment, Wijesinghe said there couldn’t be any other explanation.

Having had enjoyed 70 years of parliamentary democracy, Sri Lanka should be ashamed to have been called one of the four countries unable to govern, Wijesinghe said, admitting that the State Department announcement had flabbergasted everyone other than the rulers.

Wijesinghe called the US tag a slur on every honest Sri Lankan.

The Attorney General said the parliament should take up this matter early next year. Political parties should engage in a serious dialogue as to how Sri Lanka reputation could be restored.

Members of parliament on holiday till January 23, 2018.

The outspoken official said successive governments hadn’t been interested in bringing in required amendments as well as introduce new laws. Could there be anything as shocking as an MP being imposed a measly fine of Rs 1,000 for not declaring his assets? Wijesinghe asked.

The Auditor General was referring to former UPFA MP Sajin de Vas Gunawardena recently being imposed Rs 1,000 fine. The AG pointed out that the Galle District MP wasn’t the first former member of parliament to receive similar low fine.

"I’m not here to advise parliament as the Auditor General of Sri Lanka, I perform my duties to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, the Auditor General’s Department doesn’t receive the much expected political backing," Wijesinghe said.

Parliament should have been jolted by the State Department announcement, Wijesinghe said, adding that the government’s response obviously indicated that the humiliating tag was acceptable.

FMM fights for Media professionalism in Sri Lanka

 

Many professions in Sri Lanka enjoy social respect; why not the media?

2017-12-13

In June 1992, the Free Media Movement (FMM) was formed by a group of journalists and media activists with the purpose of creating a safe environment for journalists and an environment for freedom of expression.

The organization turned 25 this year and as the landmark event of its 25th anniversary, the FMM held a ‘National Summit on Free Media Culture with Social Responsibility’ on November 21, 2017 at the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute. Many print, electronic and online media personnel, activists, policy decision makers and academics were present at the event where discussions on the struggle to end the animosity against journalists in Sri Lanka and a collaborative approach to media reforms and future challenges were held. 

It should be accepted that Sri Lankan media men especially provincial correspondents are confronting challenges in lack of media professionalism and the sustainability of media institutes. It is essential to strengthen media professionalism as it makes media personnel understand how to use the given freedom properly

One of its founding members Lakshman Gunasekara referring to the emergence of media suppression in the late 1980s, spoke about a need for a strong media movement in order to urge authorities to restore freedom of expression and ensure the safety of journalists. He said what made the FMM different from other media organizations was its contribution and the instances where it had stood against not only issues pertaining to journalists, but to all groups in society. 

Emphasizing the importance of media professionalism, FMM Convener C.Dodawatta said it is essential to strengthen media professionalism because it makes media personnel understand the manner in which the given freedom is used without abusing it but responsibly in the role of a watch dog. 

“There are two sides of this issue. What we can do to solve the issue as a media organization is actually limited to some extent. It should be accepted that Sri Lankan media men especially provincial correspondents are confronting challenges in lack of media professionalism and the sustainability of media institutes. It is essential to strengthen media professionalism as it makes media personnel understand how to use the given freedom properly,” he said. 

According to him, the FMM had organized a number of training programmes and awareness programmes for provincial correspondents and reporters from rural areas. The programmes incorporated media ethics, standards and safety practices of the media and investigative reporting. Currently, there are four programmes being held in four provinces covering methods of investigative reporting. 

He went on to say: “All the members of the FMM are working on a volunteer basis. It adds to the fact that there are limited resources and also a limited output that our organization could provide. But, we are trying our best to make the greatest impact.” 

Ownership is probably the greatest influence on that issue. Support and contribution of media institutes is in a sorry state. Proprietors of media institutions also have a responsibility in terms of professional training

Dodawatta stressed that a national policy should be introduced to recognize professionalism of media personnel. “Policy decisions should be made by the authorities with regard to this. Media literacy is not provided even in schools. If it can be made a practical subject rather than involving theoretical aspects, the root of many issues can be resolved. Attitudes should be changed on how to maintain standards and ethics while working as journalists.” 

He was of the view that a half-baked professional who will certainly malfunction is akin to a faulty machine that cannot give a correct out-put.    He added; “Ownership is probably the greatest influence on that issue. Support and contribution of media institutes is in a sorry state. Proprietors of media institutions also have a responsibility in terms of professional training.”    He also said that media institutes in the country should prioritize initiatives to enhance media professionalism through the implementation of more coordinated approaches to human resource development.

He underscored that by saying there is a handful of media institutes that are maintained genuinely as media institutes. 

“They are not run on charity but investments that must yield profit to their owners. Some of the owners set up these media organizations in the country for political reasons. Some others engage in the media to launder black money. Proprietors of such media institutes don’t bother about the professionalism of their journalists and reporters. Owners have used it as a means of satisfying their quest for power and wealth. It is enough for them to get their work done by journalists,” Dodawatta remarked. 

Another founding member of the FMM, Seetha Ranjanee was of the view that there needs to be an institute parallel in function to an ‘administrative board’ to address issues related to media personnel. 
“All such issues will be addressed once professionalism of media personnel is established. Society’s attitudes towards journalists will also be changed thereafter. Welfare issues such as salaries of journalists should be backed by trade unions which I think have a major role to play in pressurizing the relevant authorities to do what is required,” she said. 

“A number of major media institutes were closed in the last few months. Does anyone care how many journalists lost their livelihoods? Journalists are left at cross roads in the country from choosing between professionalism and survival. Amidst such confusion the non-payment of salaries to journalists has also arisen when due. This is despite the fact the salaries are not enough to take care of the basic needs of the journalists. These issues were not even a topic among other media personnel.” 
“When we were informed about welfare issues, we instructed them and proposed to make a collective movement in order to demand for their rights from the heads of the institutions that employ them. Sadly, that is exactly what our journalists are lacking; collective [bargaining] and unity. Each tries to make individual attempts to save their own jobs. Since many media institutes are begun with different agendas in view, once their agenda is completed or if they realize obstacles or difficulties are hard to face, they give up the projects and shut down the institutes, leaving dozens of journalists helpless and jobless,” Ranjanee said. 

Various professions the world over have carved identities for themselves which they depend on for pride and prestige. Highlighting the major role that the government has to play in establishing professionalism of journalists, she said that the relevant authorities should ensure that social respect given to other professions is given to the media as well. 

A number of major media institutes were closed in the last few months. Does anyone care how many journalists lost their livelihoods? Journalists are left at cross roads in the country from choosing between professionalism and survival

Dodawatta, responding to a question regarding allegations levelled against the FMM, said since the beginning, the FMM has received financial support from various Non-Governmental Organizations and donors for its projects and programmes and that the FMM membership did not see anything wrong in it. 

“It is not important to talk about the source of income but what is done using that money. The FMM has done quite a lot good stuff. Obtaining foreign funds should not be a problem because even the Sri Lanka government receives financial support from rich countries. Individually, FMM members are not financially strong to bear all the expenses of the organization. It is indeed a common feature in organizational culture to accept any financial support for its progress when offered,” he said.

Pics by Waruna Wanniarachchi    

RAVIRAJ MURDER APPEAL RE-FIXED

Lakmal Sooriyagoda-Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The appeal filed by the wife of slain TNA Jaffna district MP Nadaraja Raviraj, was yesterday re-fixed for support on February 16, by the Court of Appeal.

Mrs. Raviraj is challenging the Colombo High Court’s judgment to release the five accused, including three Navy intelligence officers, in the Raviraj murder case

Court of Appeal Judge, Justice Kumuduni Wickremesinghe re-fixed the matter for support since the Bench was not properly constituted.

The aggrieved party, Sashikala Raviraj, wife of the slain MP filed this appeal seeking an order to set aside the verdict of the Colombo High Court dated December 23, 2016, to acquit and release all accused from the case. On December 23, 2016, three Navy intelligence officers and two others, accused in the Raviraj murder, were acquitted and released from the case after they were found not guilty by jury trial.

The verdict was delivered by High Court Judge Manilal Waidyatilleke, as per the unanimous decision reached by the jury, following a month long trial. The jury’s decision was that the accused cannot be convicted based on the evidence in the case.

The petitioner further sought an order to set aside the order of the High Court allowing the request of the accused for the case to be tried before a jury. The petitioner stated that a trial by jury cannot be accepted in this case since three charges out of five had been levelled under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).The High Court allowed to proceed with the Raviraj murder trial in absentia of the three accused Palana Sami Suresh alias Sami, Sivakanthan Vivekanandan alias Charan and Fabian Royston Toussaint who were evading Court since the initiation of investigations. The indictments were filed against six accused Palana Sami Suresh alias Sami, Prasad Chandana Kumara alias Sampath, Gamini Seneviratne, Pradeep Chaminda alias Vajira, Sivakanthan Vivekanandan alias Charan and Fabian Royston Toussaint on five counts, including committing the murder of Raviraj and his security officer Lokuwella Murage Lakshman under the provisions of the PTA and Penal Code.

The three accused who were not present before Court, were identified as ex-LTTE cadres affiliated to the Karuna faction.Wijeya Wickrema Manamperige Sanjaya Preethi Viraj was made state witness in the Raviraj murder trial. 

Mangala Goes To CID To Absolve Media ‘Hit Man’ Of Involvement In Ekneligoda Disappearance

author: COLOMBO TELEGRAPH-December 12 2017 

Minister of Finance and Mass Media Mangala Samaraweera has moved to have the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) investigate the alleged involvement of his Personal Secretary (Media) Ruwan Ferdinandez in the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda.

Samaraweera’s request to the CID follows a suggestion by Ferdinandez who demanded that the allegation be investigated and that he be temporarily relieved of his duties until such investigation is concluded.
Ferdinandez wrote to Samaraweera after the website Abrighterfuture.lk quoted what Ferdinandez refers to as a ‘gossip site,’ namely www.lankaenews.com claiming that a certain ‘Ruwan’ was associated with the disappearance of Ekneligoda.

As Colombo Telegraph has reported, Ekneligoda was abducted twice, the first time on August 27, 2009 and the second time on January 24, 2010.

Prior to the second abduction, the CID had questioned Ekneligoda’s friend Kelly Senanayake, owner of Navamaga Printers, to ascertain the identity of a handwriting sample. Senanayake confirming that he had indeed been summoned to the fourth floor of the CID, said that the investigating officers had inquired if he printed the document to which Senanayake had replied in the negative. He had however confirmed that the handwriting on this document (which was a photocopy and not an original) was Ekneligoda’s.

The said document was one that Ekneligoda had written to support Sarath Fonseka’s election campaign and took the form of a scurrilous pamphlet (‘kaelae paththaraya’). It covered 23 persons including President Mahinda Rajapaksa, his siblings Basil, Gotabaya and Chamal, his son Namal, nephew Sasheendra and ministers Wimal Weerawansa and Dulles Allahapperuma.

The document had been typeset. Ekneligoda had checked the proofs and his handwriting was visible in some sections of the document.

Lankaenews editor Sandaruwan Senadheera in an interview with a UK based journalist named Kalpa Palliyaguru has stated that such a document was in fact written by Ekneligoda and had been handed over to Samaraweera’s office in Rajagiriya. Samaraweera at the time was backing Fonseka. The document was received by Ferdinandez, according to Senadheera.

Senadheera reveals that Senanayake had told him about being questioned by the CID. He supports his suspicion of Ferdinandez’s involvement by pointing out that Ferdinandez’s name was on a CID ‘paying list’. Ferdinandez, upon being asked about this, had said he had no idea how his name happened to be on it, Senadheera said. He also pointed out that it was Ferdinandez who had, sometime later, began to post in various websites allegedly handled by him (Ferdinandez) that Ekneligoda was an LTTE agent. This, Senadheera says, seems to confirm that Ferdinandis was in fact a paid agent at one time.

Senadheera believes that Ekeneligoda’s disappearance was a result of the said document getting into the hands of the CID in January 2010.

Read More