Unless Lasantha Murder Case Is Solved Accused Could End Up As PM Or President: Lal Wickrematunge

author: COLOMBO TELEGRAPH

Unless Lasantha Wickrematunge murder case is solved accused could end up as Prime Minister or the President, says murdered Sunday Leader editor Lasantha’s brother Lal Wickrematunge.
We publish below the Message read by Minal Wickrematunge at the 9th year memorial on behalf of Lal:
Nine years have passed since Lasantha Wickrematunge was done to death in the most dastardly fashion. Nine years have passed and justice has not been done. Murder, not restricted to Lasantha but of other journalists were carried out with impunity at a time when apathy reigned amongst the people. At present there is a sense of hopelessness at the manner the present administration is handling investigations.


Should political authorities be guiding murder investigations, one may ask. Some may argue that it is the duty to do so since the very same murders have been used to garner votes at election time. Presently, the murders are conveniently used to remind people of how brutal a regime was when they occurred. But what about bringing the perpetrators to book?

 

Many such investigations are all but concluded. The need is to arrest the suspects and charge them for murder. Letting time pass by till it is convenient may turn out to be counter productive, as history has evidenced. The last regime was defeated on the backs of those committed journalists who lay down their lives when even those in parliament were quivering before a marauding group in control of every sphere of human activity in our land. Justice need be done not as a favour. Justice need be done to prevent a repetition. Else, they would have died, not for the people but for a chosen few to replace the defeated.

Murder when it is committed by criminals outside of politics are investigated in haste and convictions obtained in a couple of years. Failure to bring to justice those responsible for the murder of Lasantha, could even open the door to the prime suspect or suspects to be elected the President or Prime Minister of our land at a future date. Who knows.

We remember Lasantha who revolutionised the journalistic landscape of Sri Lanka at a time when none dared. He was brave, committed and resolute in his task to eradicate corruption within the halls of government. If the authorities cannot bring justice, let us commit ourselves to perpetuate his name amongst the people on who’s behalf he lay down his life. Lasantha was honoured posthumously by many a prestigious overseas organisation. But that is to be understood. Honour is rarely bestowed outside a singular profession, in Sri Lanka.

Read More

Mangala pledges justice for Lasantha

• Promises all resources to deepen investigation
• Calls on media and civil society to support by volunteering information  

Tuesday, 9 January 2018

Finance and Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera yesterday pledged to provide all resources to the CID and Attorney General’s Department to bring justice to former The Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge and insisted that “failure is unacceptable.”
Given below is the full statement released by the Minister.

Today, 8 January 2018, marks the ninth anniversary of one of the most heinous crimes ever committed against Sri Lanka’s constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. It was nine years ago, today, at 10:45 a.m. that I received the news that Lasantha Wickrematunge, the fearless editor of The Sunday Leader, and my dear friend, had been ambushed and attacked as he drove to work. A few hours later when Lasantha succumbed to his injuries, Sri Lanka lost one of the most enigmatic and courageous journalists that the world had ever known.

In the aftermath of this cowardly assassination, the media, legal fraternity, civil society and the political opposition parties joined together as one, demanding justice for Lasantha by way of a thorough and impartial investigation and condemning those who gave aid, comfort and shelter to his killers. For six years, we struggled in vain, until on 8 January 2015, the people of Sri Lanka threw out the Rajapaksa regime and placed their faith in the Unity Government led by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Our moral and civic duty to demand justice for Lasantha has been replaced with the responsibility for delivering that justice, by enabling and ensuring a thorough and impeccably independent police investigation, led by the officers of the Criminal Investigation Department. This investigation has already exposed the intricacy of the measures taken by the previous regime to cover up the murder. From the false cause of death in the original post-mortem report to the irregular transfer of the investigation away from the CID, and the death of a key witness-turned-suspect in custody, it is clear that no stone was left unturned.

Despite these and whatever obstacles come before us, this Government is committed to providing the CID and the Attorney General’s Department with whatever resources and support they require to indict and convict those who committed, aided and instigated Lasantha’s murder. Failure is unacceptable. This is a debt of honour that we owe not just to Lasantha and his family, but also to the citizens of Sri Lanka, who have been deprived of one of the foremost champions of their democracy.

Today, I call upon all media institutions, the legal fraternity, private sector and civil society organisations, once again to unite with us in rendering all possible aid to the police in this investigation, by seeking out and volunteering relevant information, identifying and safeguarding possible witnesses and responding to any requests promptly and thoroughly. Only by the conviction in a court of law of those responsible for this insoluble bloodstain in our national history can we honour Lasantha’s sacrifice.

Sri Lanka: AG along with Supreme Court violates the sovereignty of the people!

Justice Eva Wanasundra accused of Judicial Corruption

( January 8, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) “The supreme court on 8th September 2017 ruled that the postponement of Provincial Council Election violates people sovereignty rights (franchise),” a well-known activist and advocate Nagananda Kodituwakku has pointed in his latest submission to the Chief  Justice of Sri Lanka.

“Yet, the Attorney General on 20th September gave an absolutely wrong opinion to the Speaker that the amendments brought into the Provincial Council Elections Bill (Published in the Gazette dated 07th July 2017) at the Committee Stage, that is after the expiry of one-week window given to the sovereign people to challenge the said bill”, he added.

The full text of the submission reads as follows;

A footnote to Bond Commission report

2018-01-09

Last week, President Maithripala Sirisena swung his ‘sword’ that he recently vouched to use. The UNP had a good deal of its vital parts cut off. It would be nursing those wounds throughout the local government election campaign, which it was earlier expected to win hands down. The president in his much awaited statement on the report of the Presidential Commission appointed to investigate the alleged irregularities in the Central Bank bond deals delivered a damning censure against the former Central Bank governor Arjuna Mahendran, his son-in-law and Perpetual Treasuries Ltd., owner Arjun Aloysious and former finance minister Ravi Karunanayake. He assured that legal action would be taken against those implicated by the Commission and to implement the Commission’s recommendations that involve an overhaul of the Central Bank’s bond department, introducing a new Monetary Law and replacing the Registered Share Market Act with a new law.  
Parliament will be convened tomorrow for a special session to debate the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) report. The UNP would have a tough time defending the indefensible. The party, both the leader and the MPs earlier defended Arjuna Mahendran & Co, insisting that nothing wrong had happened. Now the Commission report has proved they were wrong, if their vocal defence was not an act of sycophancy, it was still downright stupid.  

Now, if the government does mismanage this debacle, the winner would be the joint opposition, the coterie of the Rajapaksas, who have already begun circling around the carcass. They do not deserve any credit. They are indeed worse than any of those white collar crooks in the UNP. Not only are they corrupt, they are complicit by commission and omission in far more egregious human rights violations. Some of their most flaunted members, tipped as probable future presidential candidates have blood on their hands.   

Now, if the government does mismanage this debacle, the winner would be the joint opposition, the coterie of the Rajapaksas, who have already begun circling around the carcass

This Presidential Commission could never have taken place under the Rajapaksa presidency. If it ever did, it would have been staffed by his own stooges and the report probably being written in the President’s House, exonerating not only past, but also, probable future crimes. Few believed that the current president would break that tradition of impunity. That he finally did it is commendable and should set a precedent for future leaders. That the Attorney General’s Department and the CID were able to conduct investigations independently and question, even intimidatingly, those politically-connected individuals, without being followed by White Vans and receiving instructions from the President’s House is also proof that the old system has changed. None of that though absolves the government from its willful ignorance that led to this mass robbery of public money. However, unlike in the past, allegations are now investigated and crooks are named and shamed. That is the silver line in the dark clouds and that deserve to be applauded.  These days, the much flaunted idea of clean politics, in fact, has much to do with institutions and the rule of law, than politicians and people themselves. People are malleable; malleable people elect malleable politicians; many of them anywhere in the world, would sweep the public coffers clean, if they are sure they would not get caught. It is the institutions of the state that stand as a bulwark against that earthly temptation. Mr. Rajapaksa is not the only president who undermined these institutions and the rule of law, though he had lesser inhibitions to do that than his predecessors.   

This government and the president came to power promising to restore the rule of law and the independence of state institutions. Now by allowing credible investigation into its own deeds, and publicly sharing the outcome, it has signaled that it is willing to walk the talk. That however also needs for the government -- especially for the UNP -- to shun those who have been implicated in the Commission report. Mr Ravi Karunanayake claimed last week in an interview with the Daily Mirror,‘I am running across the country to ensure victory for the UNP.’  

That he finally did it is commendable and should set a precedent for future leaders

The bond commission report is obviously the first such in many ways in recent times; however the bond robbery is not the first such large scale swindling of public funds in this country. The Presidential Commission has also recommended that Central Bank Bonds during the period of 2008-2014 be also investigated. There was large scale plunder of the SriLankan airlines, State banks and State-Owned Enterprises. Those shoddy deals in the past also need to be investigated, not just because it is politically advantageous to the government to do so. A precedent set in this regard would discourage future pillage of public property.   

Now that it has investigated its own, the government could ask its foreign friends for their help and expertise to recover public money stashed in foreign bank accounts. These investigations should now appear as more of a national effort to reconstruct domestic politics than a political witch-hunt. To that end, the government should undertake necessary reforms by way of legislation to fast track investigations and provide staff, resources, training and foreign expertise to personnel of the Bribery Commission and the Financial Crimes Investigation Division.   

This Presidential Commission could never have taken place under the Rajapaksa presidency

If the government fails to investigate the crooks of the former regime, they will not stay in the sidelines forever. One day, they will bring this government down. Then, there won’t be any reports after the next bank robbery.  

Follow @RangaJayasuriya on Twitter  

CB bond scam and scams of another kind

By Neville Ladduwahetty-January 8, 2018, 8:51 pm

President Maithripala Sirisena, while outlining the highpoints in the final report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) into to the issue of Treasury Bonds of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, also referred to the final report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate and inquire into serious acts of Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power, State Resources and Privileges (PRECIFAC). Both reports have been handed over to the Attorney General for necessary action.

Judging from the history of previous Commission reports, getting to this point is indeed historic and the President has to be commended for the actions taken by him and all those associated with this unique achievement. However, it has to be acknowledged that Sri Lanka was able to get to this point because it was possible for the President as the Head of the Executive under provisions of separation of powers, permitted to act independent of the government despite the curtailment of executive powers under the 19th Amendment. On the other hand, if it was a Parliamentary system with a Prime Minister who nominates a person of his choice to be the Governor of the Central Bank, the whole issue would have died on the vine.

The curtailment of executive powers under the 19th Amendment was possible because of the belief that Article 4 of the Constitution is not an entrenched article as reflected in the judgment that stated: "It has to be borne in mind that the Sovereign people have chosen not to entrench Article 4. Therefore, it is clear that not all violations of Article 4 will necessarily result in a violation of Article 3". This is a serious misreading of facts. According to the Hansard (p. 1958) the 3rd Reading of the Bill on the "Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka" commenced on August 16, 1978. At its conclusion, Mr. R. Premadasa responded in Sinhala and stated: (translated version) "pages 52, line 21, Articles 1,2,3,4 9, 10,11 numbers and words to leave out and instead Articles 1,2,3,4,6,7,8, 9,10,11 numbers should be included (in Sinhala "athul viya yuthui")".

Although the Court to its credit declared that Article 4 should be read with Article 3, had the Court been aware that during the 3rd Reading, Parliament had determined that Article 4 should be included in the list of entrenched Articles, it would not have been possible to curtail the powers of the President and the Presidency without a referendum. Had this been the case it is highly unlikely that the Prime Minister’s nominee would have been the Governor of the Central Bank.

SCAM OF ANOTHER KIND

Although the President is free of any involvement with Treasury Bond issues, he is not free of the formation of the National Government since he is a vital component of it, and it is under the watch of this National Government that the Bond Scams occurred. Furthermore, it is under the guise of a self proclaimed "National Government" that this government increased the Executive Branch from the constitutional limit of 70 to 93 through the means of a Parliamentary Resolution.

The resolution that enabled this government to increase the Executive Branch to 93 was tabled in Parliament by the Prime Minister on 3rd September 2015. This resolution states:

"Whereas the United National Party which obtained the highest number of seats in Parliament has formed a National Government, Parliament determines in terms of Article 46 (4) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka the number of Ministers in the Cabinet of Ministers shall not exceed 48 and the number of Ministers who are not Cabinet Ministers and the number of Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 45" (Hansard p. 98).

Article 46(4) referred to above reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (1) of this Article, where the recognized political party or independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament forms a National Government, the number of Ministers in the Cabinet of Ministers, the number of Ministers who are not Cabinet of Ministers and the number of Deputy Ministers shall be determined by Parliament".

While the above Article gives Parliament the authority to determine the size of the Executive Branch upon the formation of a National Government it is incumbent on the Parliament to meet the criteria of a National Government as stated in Article 46 (5) of the Constitution given below.

Article 46(5) states: "For the purpose of paragraph (4), National Government means, a Government formed by the recognized political party or the independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament together with the other recognized political parties or the independent groups".

The issue to be resolved is whether the formation of the present government meets the criterion of a National Government stated above.

FORMATION of the PRESENT GOVERNMENT

According to the Gazette Extraordinary of August 19, 2015 there were a total of six (6) recognized political parties elected to Parliament at the election of August 15, 2015. Of these six political parties the United National Party (UNP) with 106 seats received the highest number of seats in Parliament. The second highest was the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) with 95 seats. Since no political party received a majority to form a government the formation of a coalition or an understanding between political parties was inevitable for the formation of a government.

However, for such a coalition or understanding between recognized political parties to be legitimate, it is absolutely vital that the formation is between recognized political parties that contested the August 2015 election and not between constituents of the UNP or the UPFA, if the franchise of the people is not to be violated. Furthermore, since franchise is part of the sovereignty of the people under Article 3, a coalition or an understanding between constituent parties of the UNP or the UPFA is a violation of the sovereignty of the people as well. Article 46(5): For the purpose of paragraph (4), National Government means, a Government formed by the recognized political party or the independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament together with the other recognized political PARTIES or the independent GROUPS" (emphasis added).

What is reported is that there was a Memorandum of Understanding between the UNP and the SLFP, signed by the respective secretaries of the SLFP and the UNP on August 21 2015 for a period of two years which is supposed to have been extended up to December 31, 2017. This means that at this point in time there is no understanding whatsoever between the UNP and the SLFP other than a media report to the effect that any future understandings would be after the Local Government elections. Since the SLFP is only a constituent political party of the UPFA, this understanding should be not be treated as a coalition but only as a temporary pact for the SLFP to support the UNP in the formation of a working government without any constitutionally recognized status.

Under the circumstances cited above, what was the basis for the Parliamentary resolution of September 3, 2015 to state "the United National Party which obtained the highest number of seats in Parliament has formed a National Government …"? The obvious question that arises is, with which recognized political party or parties did the UNP form the National Government, which it claims as justification to increase the Executive Branch to 93? Furthermore, since the entirety of neither the SLFP nor the UPFA is with the Government, it cannot be claimed that the current formation is even a "coalition" government, leave alone a National Government. Therefore, the current formation of the government is in violation of the Constitution, the Franchise of the people, the people’s Fundamental Rights and consequently the Sovereignty of the People.

CHALLENGING the CURRENT FORMATION

A Fundamental Rights Petition was filed in the Supreme Court (SC. FR. No. 116/2016 challenging the legitimacy of the claim that the current formation of the government is that of a National Government as defined in Article 46 (5) of the Constitution. The determination of the Supreme Court on October 3, 2016 was:

"Having heard the submissions of all Counsel, we find that the matters referred to in the amended petition dated 11th May 2016 have been taken up before the Parliament on 3rd September 2015".

"The Court further observes that the said matters have been debated in Parliament as evidenced by the Parliamentary Hansard dated 03rd September 2015 marked R1. In terms of Article 67 of the Constitution read with Section 03 of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act No 21 of 1953as amended, the speech, debate and proceedings in the House shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of the House"".

Based on this determination the Petitioner’s right to proceed was denied despite the existence of an earlier case, Fernandopulle v. Premachandra de Silva [1996] 1 Sri L.R., wherein a panel of five judges of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice upheld the decision of an earlier Court of three judges that using extracts from the Hansard was acceptable when it comes to issues of general and public importance. Furthermore, the House of Lords, UK, had unanimously determined in Pepper v. Hart 1993 that "One of the uses the courts now make of parliamentary proceedings is as an aid when interpreting Acts of Parliament".

Thus it is crystal clear that the determination of the Supreme Court needs to be revisited since the judgment was given per incuriam. Furthermore, had the Court used the debates in Parliament as guide, it would have been apparent to the Court from the variety of interpretations given by Members of Parliament during the September 2015 debate, of the need for the Court to interpret the meaning of a "National Government".

CONCLUSION

From the material presented above it should be clear that the current formation of the Government cannot by any stretch of imagination be claimed as a National Government. Therefore, expanding the Executive Branch beyond the 70 called for by Article 46 (1) of the Constitution is a violation. Interpreting what a National Government is, should NOT be left to Parliament. Instead it is the "sole and exclusive" responsibility of the Supreme Court as per Article 125 of the Constitution.

There are two approaches to get to this point. One approach is for the President to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court as to whether the current formation of the government is that of a National Government as per Article 129 of the Constitution. The other approach is to petition the Supreme Court for the violation of the Constitution, Fundamental Rights, Franchise and the Sovereignty of the people, thus giving the Court an opportunity to revisit its earlier judgments made per incuriam and fulfill its responsibilities as the sole and exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution in respect of the claim stated in Resolution of September 3, 2015 that the UNP has formed a National Government.

If neither takes place, expanding the Executive Branch to 93 on the basis that the formation of the government is that of a National Government would remain a scam of another kind.

Cold Facts & Warm Bodies

By Sarath de Alwis –January 8, 2018

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.” ~ Mayer Rothschild

Founder of the Rothschild dynasty 

It is now clear that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has decided to ride out the storm that has engulfed him, his party and his administration.

 

Endowed, as he is, with a prodigious supply of illusion and indifference, that is only natural. The Prime minister seems to emulate the Somerset Maugham character in the novel ‘Razors Edge who asserts “You’re beginning to dislike me, aren’t you? Well, dislike me. It doesn’t make any difference to me now.”

The writer is indebted to the Political Editor of the Sunday Times for this anecdotal reference to Maugham’s novel the “Razors Edge’.   

In his political column last Sunday, he says that the President has, with his statement to the nation on the report of the Bond Commission has placed his Sri Lanka Freedom Party’s relationship with its coalition partner, the United National Party on a Razor’s edge.

The reactions in the English print media on the report of the bond probe is a telling commentary on the deep rooted privatization of public affairs in our land.

The editorial in the Sunday Times was far more interesting. It is a classic example of what the famed American columnist and media pundit Walter Lipmann described as the ‘world outside and the picture in our heads’ in his seminal work “Public Opinion’.

 

The Sunday Times editorial faults the President for making the main points of the CoI report “without the courtesy of showing it to his Prime Minister.”

The editorial proceeds to unravel the electoral fall out of the Presidential statement.  “..it begs the question whether he had a different game-plan in using the report as political leverage against his coalition partner in Government with the all-island local council polls next month. In his address he said that he had already sent a copy of the report to the Attorney General – why did he not give a copy to his own Prime Minister? Does he not trust him?”

The Sunday Times Editor is blunt with his opinion. “That he mentioned the PM’s name in his public address without first telling him seems strange, if not politically incorrect, and especially so in a coalition partnership.”

The editorial continues “… Not that he should have omitted the reference. He shared the report given to him the previous Saturday with only his close confidants. Is his own PM now no longer one of them?”

Even in this digital age the news media has a definitive role to set the nation’s agenda in situations such as the current drama surrounding the Bond scam. People who like to be informed rely on well documented information about public issues. Large headlines, lead story on page one, editorial comment frame the issues.

Was the President wrong in not showing the transcript of his statement to the Prime minister? This writer opines that the President was right in not showing his statement to the PM. If the President was prepared to amend, adjust or alter the text, he could have indeed done so. The purpose of this missive is to again reiterate what this writer asserted in a previous essay. We voted for President Sirisena the common candidate for a specific task. This is the first time in the last three years that he has acted in accordance with the compact he made with most venerable Maduluwawe Sobhitha thero.

Anticorruption is not an industry. It is not a project. It is not a policy. It is about institutional reforms. It is about enhancing transparency and accountability in state and economic institutions.  The ordinary citizen has a greater claim on the findings and recommendations of the CoI on Bonds than the Prime minister who appointed the Governor whose conduct is the subject of the probe.

This is not about coalition politics. This is about social empowerment and anti-corruption strategy. The surest way to achieve this objective is to first recognize that corruption in high places is systemic. The antidote is social empowerment, expanding and protecting, political and economic resources, and alternatives, open to ordinary citizens.

Only social empowerment can provide the necessary support for institutional reforms. The President must be commended for empowering us citizens by his forthright statement.

As has been made evident during the public hearings of the Bond Commission, the you scratch my back, I scratch your back syndrome is  embedded in a web of personal or neo-patrimonial relations that cover our politicians, businesspeople and an intermediary class of shadowy operators who specialize in maintaining the equilibrium in competitive party politics.

The most interesting aspect of the political column of the Sunday Times is the reference made to the ‘placement of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka under the Prime minister.

Read More

Feeling trapped in a failing state

That illusive dream


Monday, 8 January 2018

It is three years since that euphoric day of change the country woke up to:the illusive ‘Yahapalana Dream’. A dream never to dream again, and a day never to experience again either. At least not in my lifetime, for sure.

The defeated sulked, the sceptics smirked and the victors rejoiced, while the majority of the country embarked on a journey of hope.  The silent voter hoped against hope that the country would see a new era in the political landscape devoid of fear, mass scale corruption, rampant nepotism and cronyism, blind wastage of public funds and a clean-up of the rotten system that prevailed for a decade or more. Three years to date,the day Yahapalanaya was ushered in, the country breathed a whiff of freedom and sensed an ambience of good governance.


Those who dreamt of a better country placed their faith on an insignificant politician who came forward as the ‘common candidate’; onlywith convincing oratorical skills, heswore to usher in a clean State, while the many-times-defeated ‘wannabe’ Prime Minister put all his efforts behind a ‘now or never’ political ambition. The desperation to see a change from a rogue government was at the core of this drama, in which we all played our part in blind faith. It was undoubtedly an ‘anti-MR’ force more than a ‘pro-MS’ vote of confidence. Talk about being in the middle of a rock and a hard place!
Wake up call

Unfortunately, the rot started to set in very early in the day. Before we even realised the downfall, the old boys’ networks had kicked in, scams were hatched, deals were struck, offspring had sprung into motion and the old familiar political circus was back in town.

Three years into this nightmare, hardly any promises have been fulfilled. It is a ‘free-for-all and ‘nothing-happens-at-all’ kind of feeling all round. Lack of strategic communication from the Government hasn’t helped the situation either.

Yes, now I accept we were a group of political suckers. Suckers who clung onto a quivering hope of a better run country with a better tomorrow for our children. Suckers who foolishly believed that politicians can in fact be a decent breed under different circumstances. Suckers who believed that good governance is finally possible. Sadly, anaïve and gullible majority has been truly duped!

The rudderless ship

We are told the economy is turning for the better. It’s unfortunate that the masses aren’t feeling it! The bureaucracy is at a standstill and no one knows what’s going on with the Government institutions. There’s a gross lack of urgency and accountability at all levels.

The country hasn’t seen any newsworthy FDIs coming in for the lack of consistent policies and a pathetic ‘doing business’ climate that prevails. The kickbacks are climbing through the roofs while corruption is rampant in all quarters. No wonder development is stalling!

The cities are dirty and the billboards and cut-outs have reappeared. Sadly no one seems to care. Politicians and the Government officials are busy feathering their nests.The so-called ‘engine of growth’ is frantically looking for greasing spots. The looters and the murderers of the last regime are being protected for political allegiance it seems. The vision of the Unity Government seems to have turned into a mission of clinging onto power at any cost.

The weather gods haven’t been too kind either to an already-battered nation, punishing us with rains, floods, landslides and droughts as if to teach a lesson for misleading a trusting countrymen and women. Managing disasters doesn’t seem a priority for this Government. It has always been the citizenry that has risen to the occasion each time.

A coalition that came into power promising a rainbow nation seems often deaf and blind to ethnic unrest. Reconciliation seems to have gone into the backburner, with the north starting to simmer with its own post-conflict challenges.
Ah, that unity!

A unity government is supposed to be ‘united’, not pull in different directions to suit their individual political agendas. Sadly this seems to be the modus operandi of the Government which gets worse by the day.

The President is ruling the country constantly looking over his shoulder to see who is going to stab him from the back, while the PM is busy strategising his next political move. And we, the tricked citizens are wondering what our fate would truly be in this catastrophic state of affairs.
I shall do it again!

While regrets are many with the current status quo, there are none with the efforts put in to changing a regime that would have left the country worse off than today, for sure. In hindsight, that is my only solace.
Let’s not overlook the few positives

I try to focus on the few positives that I keep telling myself we must not forget. After all, we have freedom of expression without fear of the ‘white van’. Yes we can say we have democracy, although it’s taking the Government hostage due to its lack of direction and leadership.

The international image has been turned around by 180 degrees. The 19th Amendment which paved the way for the many commissions, which may or may not function independently, and the RTI bill that was passed even though its true implementation is a question in my mind are the few achievements that I count as blessings.

Noteworthy is the setting up of the FCID which has made a positive impact on Government servants fearing wrong actions, which sadly has also contributed to them not making any decisions at all due to their FCID phobia, which in turn has slowed down the Government machinery in the most disastrous manner. 

I for one have been trying to cling onto any kind of glimmer of hope, but find none; not in the economic upturn, cost of living, governance, policies, political commitment, a tangible vision for the country (yes, there is a 2025V somewhere!) or at least some faith and trust on those we voted into power. Sadly, we are being pulled into an abyss on a daily basis. I ask myself if we even have a choice now.
Choice-less choices

Maybe we do have a few choices in the offing, come next elections; a dead swan, a senile elephant, a shrivelled-up beetle leaf, a broken chair, a lifeless hand, a withering bud and a corroded bell. Alas, a ghost of a Gota beckons too. It’s truly a Hobson’s choice!

A trapped voter in this failing state has very littleto hope for.

Despite all this, I believe there still remains a small window. A window of opportunity to make good the hopes and promises of a nation in waiting. A nation that put their lives on the line for a better tomorrow that promised a ‘Yahapalanaya’; a better governed country for all its people. That window is slowly closing however, and our hopes slowly fading with it.

(The writer is a socially sensitive Sri Lankan who loves her country. She can be reached via sandyasalgado@gmail.com.)

Bonds Commission: An Untold Story

BY Kavindya Chris Thomas-2018-01-07

Sri Lanka has a long and vibrant history when it comes to formally inefficient inquiries and investigations carried out by various authoritative institutions. Yet, only a rare handful - let's just say that it's less than five and easily counted on the fingers of one hand - among the countless others that are established, have provided satisfactory solutions, which were implemented by the then administrations. We would like to believe that the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, investigating into the Treasury Bonds Auctions of the Central Bank, has achieved this unique disposition.

With its 1,257 pages and 100 annexures, the final report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry is seemingly through and through. The inquiry carried out by the three Commissioners, its Secretary and the staff, and those who assisted the work of the Commission, Attorney General's Department, Police Department and other relevant organizations and individuals, should be lauded. Yet, we cannot help but wonder how things could have been if matters were taken more seriously.

COPE Report at the AG's Department

Following the statement made by President Maithripala Sirisena last Wednesday (3) which, like seismic waves, sent the entire Government into shivers of fear, damaging the deeply rooted political relationships, the Prime Minister's office also published a statement. This of course, did not have the same flare and attention-grabbing act of the President, after all, that would be abusing something that was already done. The Prime Minister cannot, of course, do that.

The statement read that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had requested the Attorney General, in December in 2016, to make recommendations on legal action to be taken against those officials responsible for the controversial Bonds transaction. The statement added that the Prime Minister referred the COPE findings on the Bonds issue to the Attorney General on 31 October 2016.
The statement read, "the Attorney General had been assigned with the responsibility to institute legal action on the Bonds transaction by the Prime Minister in December, 2016 and by the President in January, 2018. The Yahapalana Government has been able to establish its law-abiding characteristic once again. It is expected that the Attorney General will initiate action."

Furthermore, the Prime Minister's Office once again touched on the recently pledged promise to probe the alleged frauds and irregularities, of similar nature, within the Central Bank, that happened since 2008. The Office said it was the duty of all to let the law prevail in this regard instead of resorting to mudslinging and character assassination.

Under this context, the 55-paged COPE findings on the Bonds issue came under massive criticism at that time. It reached a certain magnitude that it required another COPE committee to be established in order to understand what happened at the Central Bank on 27 February. This decision, to establish the second COPE into the Treasury Bonds matter, which would later on go on to become more controversial and poisonous, would have ultimately hindered the initial findings that were submitted to the AG's Department.

Therefore, any attempt to pass the ball to the Attorney General's court (pun intended) would be useless. The reason the second COPE was established and later on the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, is purely political. If those institutions were not established, the original COPE findings would have been sufficient for the Attorney General's Department to take necessary legal action or at least recommend it against those who have been accused. Yet, things never took that turn. The COPE report was inundated by political waters at the Attorney General's Department and now we have the current narrative which says otherwise.

Mahendran's Exit and the Future

In the fallout of the report and the President's statement, there was a growing fear that those who stand accused, especially the former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran would leave the country to escape the repercussions. This comes as a palpable fear; as a Sri Lankan citizen with dual citizenship in Singapore, he could easily leave the country to Singapore, escaping the final report of the Presidential Commission. This would only go to make the matter of implementation much more complex. Of course, it's not as if he has not done it before; the former Central Bank Governor left the country on 27 October, 2016 right before the findings of the initial COPE report was published.
However, if it was interpreted and argued properly, the Commission could have had the opportunity to stop him from leaving the country, as it would hinder the inquiry mandate. Seeing that the tenure of the Commission came to an end with the hearing of evidence last December, this would not have been possible unless it was predicted earlier on.

Mahendran stands large as one of the main culprits in the issue, as ruled by the Commission in its final report. While the actual report never saw the light of day, falling into the hands of the general public, we received the President's narrative in a statement to media on Wednesday (3), President Sirisena said the list includes "relevant persons and officials who are responsible for the fraud including PTL, Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena." Accordingly, the Government is in consultation with the legal authorities in order to level charges in the criminal and civil Courts, the President said.
"The report stated that the Perpetual Treasuries Limited has earned profits through means that are not legal, with the involvement of then Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran, Bank officials and some external parties," he said.

The report stated that senior officials of the Central Bank were inactive before the former Governor.
The Commission also faulted Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe for making a statement in Parliament supportive of Mahendran, because he "believed in the facts presented by Mr. Mahendran." The Commission also wants action taken against former Minister of Finance Ravi Karunanayake, regarding the payment of rent for the 'Penthouse' apartment by Walt and Raw Company, owned and controlled by the Aloysius family.

Yet, last Thursday (4) Shanil Nethicumara, who allegedly threatened the initial witness- Anika Wijesuriya - in the Penthouse debacle, was released on bail. Nethicumara, who was charged with having issued death threats to Anika Wijesuriya and her sibling Vijith Wijesuriya over the telephone, for having submitted evidence against former Minister of Finance, Ravi Karunanayake, was released on a surety bail in Rs 150,000 by the Colombo Magistrate's Court. Anika Wijesuriya, who fled the country due to certain death threats to her and her family, is currently living abroad.

implementation will take time

Undoubtedly, most of the directives given by President Sirisena, in his statement, would take time before they are in all actuality implemented. The Government has not set a deadline for it as yet. However, things seem to have started off with a bang. The President has already submitted a copy of the Commission report to the Attorney General to initiate necessary criminal or civil legal action. A minor amendment to the Bribery or Corruption Commission Act must be enacted to take legal action on the recommendations of the Commission. For this purpose, already experts at the Legal Draftsman's Department are working on the required amendment.

A financial audit of the Central Bank and the Employee's Provident Fund, as recommended by the Commission, will hopefully commence in the near future. According to reports, the Government is eyeing a foreign independent source for the audit. This would of course, ensure transparency and shed some light on the notorious similar frauds that had happened since 2008 under the then Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal.

Yet, the most major recommendation is the one that will take the most time. Under normal circumstances, recovery of money that was lost to the Government from the source that it was spent, is done through civil legal action. However, it is a time consuming method. As an alternative, the Commission has recommended that Parliamentary Legislation could be passed and the money could be recovered in a speedy manner through a Parliamentary procedure. This is a commendable method. However, before this happens, those who stand accused, those who have had a hand - nominal or otherwise - have to be dealt with.

Punishment is essential. Strict punishment is required; nothing less than the stripping them of their designations and powers. Unless this is achieved, there is a chance that recovery of losses through PTL assets might be a wasted move.

Sri Lanka: Bond scam — Prosecute the real culprits

by Dr. Janaka Ratnasiri-Jan 8, 2018

Jan 8, 2018

( January 8, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Maithripala Sirisena, in his recent statement on the findings of the Bond Commission, last week said that “Perpetual Treasuries Ltd (PTL) had made an undue profit of Rs 11,145 millions in the secondary market. In this, EPF and other government institutions had lost more than Rs 8,524 million or Rs 8.5 billion” and further said “It (Commission Report) also recommends that activities of the EPF must be looked into, and in order to bring the EPF into a proper order, steps must be taken to restructure the EPF”.

The PTL did not rob the money from the EPF and other government institutions at gunpoint or by breaking their safes. These institutions willingly handed over funds from their kitties to PTL for whatever benefits the decision makers received from PTL. In such a case, aren’t they the real culprits who caused losses to the government? I believe the existing laws are adequate to prosecute them if the government has the will.

As government institutions, shouldn’t they have followed the standard procurement procedures applicable to all purchases whether material goods or money market? If the rates offered had been high, there would have been no compulsion for any of the government institutions to purchase the bonds at high rates and make PTL richer. It was also revealed during the investigations that PTL was able to make this enormous profits only because of the help it got from insiders in these government institutions who probably were well compensated. It was a game played by PTL together with some insiders in these government institutions to siphon off public funds within the existing legal framework.

Therefore, without pointing the finger at PTL alone, authorities should immediately prosecute the relevant officials in these institutions for aiding and abetting PTL for robbing them. They should also be made liable to pay back the money they earned through these transactions. Restructuring of these institutions alone will not help. (Like changing the pillow for headache, as a saying goes!)

President has also said that a code of conduct for the officials of the Central Bank must be introduced and that the of conduct for Primary Dealers must be revised and updated. Shouldn’t he first introduce a code of conduct for ministers and ensure its strict enforcement? If the management of government institutions default causing heavy losses, the line ministers should take the full responsibility because the practice today is for the ministers to hand pick persons for appointment as chairpersons and members to the management body.

PTL only took advantage of the opportunities available within the present system of bond transactions to make quick money which it could do because of the advance information it received from the Central Bank and the support it received from some state institutions with public funds which had accumulated for decades.

In the long-term, government must endeavor to manage its finances in a more sensible manner than the way it is being done now, enabling it to balance the budget without resorting to treasury bonds and foreign grants. The system of treasury bonds commenced only in 1997 and only a few companies designated as primary dealers are allowed to participate, unlike in the case of treasury bills which could be purchased by the general public through commercial banks. It is not known how these companies were selected to provide loans to the government or how they acquired enormous amounts of money for this purpose.

The liberalization of the economy after 1977 and paying less attention to government regulations on procurements finally led to a situation where loans had to be raised at high interestrates through treasury bonds to balance the budget. With no control over spending foreign money which was spent freely (unlike in the pre-1977 era), government soon got into a situation where it had to raise more loans to pay back previous loans.

Government’s income could be increased substantially if it could stop corruption prevalent at income-earning departments like Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise. It is a well-known secret that currently, officials at these departments siphon out a good fraction of the revenue due to the government to their pockets. As suggested by the writer in a series of articles published in the Island some time back, government should widen the net for capturing more direct tax payers.

Government leaders must curtail its expenditure by eliminating waste and adopt austerity measures without trying to lead western life styles which the country cannot afford. It makes little sense to lead an affluent lifestyle on borrowed money. It is essential for those at the top to set an example.

Carrying out massive infrastructural projects on loans which the country cannot pay back is not development. Is it necessary for the ministers to travel only in super-luxury vehicles worth? Once the government stops waste, the need for treasury bonds will decline automatically and the primary dealers will vanish from the scene.

Bond scams: Central Bank, Public Debt Department and EPF

By Dr. G. Usvatte-aratchi, Economist-January 8, 2018, 9:13 pm 

Now that the committee he appointed to report on the events identified as the bond scams has been given to President Maithripala Srisiena, and in the reasonable belief that it will suffer the same fate as the report on the egregious Welikade Jail Murders, I venture to comment on the series of events collectively called the bond scams. (As I have not read the Report, the reader more familiar with events will pardon me if I get something more wrong than the authors of the Report.) The promises that the President made on New Year’s day are as good as the breath he wasted when making promises to the nation at the funeral of bhikkhu Maduluvave Sobhita.

Corrupt Deals Ltd. (CDL) was a primary dealer in the market for government debt instruments. As a primary dealer, it had the legitimate privilege of bidding for government paper that was issued by the Department of Public Debt. At the auction held in February 27, 2017 CDL tendered to buy a huge cachet of 30-year bonds. He bought them very cheap, enforcing capital losses and high rates of interest on the government and markets. As any bond dealer would, he sold these bonds he bought very cheap, very dear and inevitably made huge profits exceeding 11 billion rupees within the ensuing five- months. This is very simple and seemingly entirely legitimate. It is a run of the mill transaction in the bond market, provided there was no market manipulation.

There were market manipulations. There are distinctive features that mark out these transactions. The value of debt instruments that was on offer that morning was far in excess of what had been announced and from what the market had expected. No Primary Dealer except CDL was ready with funds to bid for that volume of debt. In the absence of competitive bids, CDL went laughing all the way to the bank. How was CDL able to be ready with funds to bid so huge a volume of debt? Why did not EPF, flush with cash, bid in competition and waited to buy the same bonds at higher prices?

Anyone familiar with capital markets would suspect insider trading, not very different from what Raj Rajaratnam, fittingly a man of Sri Lanka origin, perpetrated in the NewYork Stock Exchange. Insider trading (a case of asymmetric information)occurs when one party to a transaction in assets possesses information acquired by illegal or improper methods to bid for or offer to sell at prices and in volumes, which information others could not have obtained in fair manner. And under the laws of the United States and the State of New York, insider trading is a punishable offence.

Rajaratnam was tried in Federal Courts and was sentenced to 11-years in jail and fined some $60 million. On the face of it, there was the high probability of insider trading in Colombo and law enforcement officers only had to trace the trail of the flow of information. Things were made very easy for sleuths because there was a high official of the debt issuing office who happened to be close kin of a person who stood to benefit from the fortunes of the afore mentioned CDL. The slogging was in taking down depositions from witnesses, who themselves had transgressed the law, examining incriminating documents and reading transcripts of conversations over telephones on the deals. To an outsider, the lawyers and policemen had done a brilliant job (as reported in the media) collecting and presenting the evidence before the Committee. The other matters raised in the proceedings before the Committee and played upon by the media are matters related but different from the main consideration which I have shown in outline. (Ravi Karunanayake saga is one of them.)

Under clause 12(1) of the Monetary Law Act, ‘the Governor of the Central Bank shall be a person appointed…. by the Governor General (President),on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.’ Was the Prime Minister wise in selecting Mr. Jagmohan to the post of Chairman of the Monetary Board and Governor of the Central Bank? We can all be very clever after the event, but was there enough evidence to say that the appointee was unsuited for the job because of his competence and unquestioned integrity? What is the responsibility of the President who actually appointed Mr. Jagmohan to the office according to law? Why has he been held above criticism, when the Prime Minister has been roasted over coals? In my understanding of the law, the President is more culpable than the Prime Minister. (X can recommend Z to Y but Y must exercise due diligence in appointing Z to post P.) We need constantly to remind ourselves of Dr. Thomas Fuller’s dictum, ‘Be you never so high, the law is above you’. That Mr. Jagmohan was a national of another country cannot be a bar to his appointment. After all, the first governor of the Bank was an American and there was a Director of Economic Research in the 1960s who was a citizen of Canada. Recently, the Governor of the Central Bank in New Zealand and in England were not nationals of those two countries. I am not sure whether Rahguram Rajan, until recently Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, was a citizen of India or of US or both. Anand Panagariya, who was Economic Adviser to Prime Minister Modi for two years, is regularly a Professor of Economics at Columbia University. Several bright officers of the Central Bank of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) have been on invitation, de facto, governors of Central Banks in several other counties.

The Prime Minister was ill advised to appoint three lawyers to advise him on the financial irregularities that were then suspected. The Committee did a commendable job within their competence. But their competence was wholly inadequate to the task at hand. There should have been someone who understood financial markets and someone who was not allergic to numbers. Had he done so he would have come to possess information adequate to trigger him to act under clause 16 (e) of MLA: ‘The Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, remove the Governor….from office- if he has done any act or thing, which in the opinion of the Prime Minister, is of a fraudulent or illegal character or is manifestly opposed to the objects and interests of the Central Bank’. Although again we are speaking with information that came out much later, someone with a sharp mind and knowledge of capital markets would have been offended by a smelly rat. The Prime Minister’s judgment is severely in question and his advisers seem to have been dumb.

Astonishingly, the Monetary Board similarly seems to have been absolved of blame in flagrant disregard for the law. Clause 8 of MLA reads: ‘The Monetary Board of the Central Bank, in addition to determining the policies or measures authorized to be adopted or taken under this Act, be vested with the powers, duties, and functions of the Central Bank under this Act, and be generally responsible for the management, operations and administration of the bank.’ If there were improprieties, and worse, committed by the Central Bank including its Governor, the members of the Monetary Board are responsible for them in every way. Ignorant TV journalists have left them off the hook. I hope the Committee has not done the same mistake.

Who stole money from the Central Bank? The Editor of this newspaper on 6th January, wrote of ‘… those who robbed the Central Bank not once but twice….’. I can find no robbery at the Bank and obviously no robbers. There is no entry for such losses in the accounts of the Central Bank for 2015 and for 2016, Audited by AG H.M. Gamini Wijesinghe. The Central Bank was not a party to the transactions and it could not have either gained or lost money. These losses are figments of fevered imaginations. The Central Bank, though, lost all its capital of a name for eminent competence and high integrity, accumulated over a long years before 2005.

The Public Debt Department, as agent of government acting under the supervision of the Monetary Board, sold government bonds at ruinously low prices, which were well below the par value of the bonds. That was the first mighty loss. Thirty years later, tax payers will pay to bond holders the par value of each bond (say, rupees 10,000). DCL paid (say) Rs. 9,400 because it was the sole bidder at the auction. Then government sold Rs. 10 billion worth of bonds to receive Rs. 9.4 billion as sales proceeds. Tax payers (aka government) lost 600 million in that sale. Tax payers of this country may during the 30-year tenure of the bond annually transfer a part of their income to owners of these bonds. When bonds mature tax payers (aka government) will pay the par value of bonds to bond holders. Had the bonds been sold at prices closer to par value,the loss to tax payers over that long periodwould have been far less. (Cannot the government save the public from this fate by retiring this debt with a fresh issue to pay for it,committing the government to much lower rates of interest?). This fiasco creates a good opportunity for the Public Debt Department to return to its legitimate home, the Ministry of Finance. Its management by the Monetary Board often compels the Board to act ‘in manifest opposition to the objects and interests of the Central Bank’, the common cliché, conflict of interests.

The Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) receives money which is expected to stay with it for long periods of time, on average, perhaps,20-years. As such it is eager to buy long term government paper, in a capital market which has few long term assets worth buying. It was, at least, strange that EPF did not bid for a 30-year government bond to raise 10 billion rupees with a reasonable rate of interest. Now it is evident that they were kept blind to the auction with machinations to limit the supply to one primary dealer. As could have been predicted easily, EPF later came to the market to buy these bonds at prices higher than they may have paid had they been able to bid at first issue. The loss that EPF is purported to have suffered probably rises from the difference between the price of the bond that EPF actually paid to DCL and what EPFMAY HAVE PAID had they and other primary dealers had the opportunity to bid competitively at the primary auction. (Many bidders for the same quantity must cause the prices to rise and in this instance for interest rates to fall.) This process was not allowed to take place because of theillegal supply of information only to one primary dealer and to none other. These remarks apply, mutatis mutandis, to purported losses of the Mahapola Scholarship Fund and others.

The Employees’ Provident Fund Act (15 of1958), in clause 5, stipulated that the Monetary Board shall manage the Fund under terms elaborated in that clause. Neither in the main body of the Act nor in clause 47 on interpretation do the words ‘central bank’ appear ever. It seems reasonable to assume that Parliament did not want to mess up the activities of the Monetary Board in managing EPF with its other activities in managing the Central Bank. Parliament probably was well aware of the dangers of such messing up. But that is what the Monetary Board precisely did when they established a Department in the Central Bank to manage EPF. We do not have audits of the management of the Fund for the last fifty yearsbut this one casual test makes one suspect that EPF may not have been well managed by the Monetary Board. One must commend EPF bureaucrats though, for keeping costs of managing no higher than one percent of funds managed in contrast to ratios as high as 6 percent in some privately managed funds in other countries. Managing a large fund requires attitudes and skills very different from those of Central Bankers, business school types in contrast to university types. Isn’t it time we separated the two and allowed members of the Fund to manage its own funds?

To sum up. The losses of the Public Debt Department and EPF Department are not losses of the Central Bank. In making appointments to the post of Governor of the Central Bank the President and the Prime Minister must make thorough background checks and examine candidates for their knowledge of and familiarity with central banking and monetary theory and policy. R.S.Sayers and J.G. Crowther will do no more. (Instead, try reading the Journal of Monetary Economics.) During the forty years or so from 1980, the disciplines have changed sharply. A few years in one’s youth spent at the Central Bank is no recommendation for appointment to that position. The members of the Monetary Board must be held accountable for the management of the Central Bank as laid down in theAct. The Public Debt Department must be relocated to the Ministry of Finance. EPF can be managed by the Monetary Board as in the 1958 Act but not as a department in the Central Bank. The preferred solution is for EPF to cut its links to the Monetary Board to be managed by its own Board.

The case against DCL is essentially one of trading with the wrongful advantage of insider information. As I understand it, all profits so wrongfully earned is forfeit to the State. Besides, DCL must be punished to demonstrate to all that that practice always will be fraught with the high risk of fines, imprisonment and ignominy. If those connected with the scams have broken laws in their functioning in connection with matters that constitute the felony in question, they must be punished according to law.

The courts must punish according to law, all working for the Central Bank or DCL for breach of the relevant laws. All wealth accumulated illegally must forfeit to the State. It is up to the organizations that employ them to punish them separately according to accepted rules and regulations. At the end of it, the courts and the bar must ensure that they deliver a land mark judgement for everyone bent on mischief to see tall and fearsome, as in the Raj Rajaratnam case in US.

Deal-Politics Disastrous For Sinking Muslim Community

By Latheef Farook –January 9, 2018

The forthcoming local government elections once again exposes the political bankruptcy of Sri Lanka’s sinking Muslim community especially in the east. Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, the unfortunate outcome of national racist politics , came with the slogan of Islam and Unity, seem to have come to the end of the road.

The SLMC ruthlessly exploited religious slogans to hoodwink the people while unity disappeared following the death of SLMC founder Mr M.H.M.Ashrarf. Almost four decades after the establishment of SLMC the unfortunate state of affairs of the Muslims especially in the east is such that the main SLMC found shelter in the United National Party for   political survival, positions and perks.

The splinter groups often created by leaderships of major political parties to suit their agendas detriment to the interest of the Muslim community are busy looking for alliances for survival. With campaign for the forthcoming local government elections heating up political scene in the east seems to be chaotic with senior Muslim politicians shifting alliances, abandoning all principles, for positions and incentives.

 

The SLMC General Secretary Hassan Ali who has been with the party since early days finally told some home truths when he called last week to end the   culture of SLMC and its splinter groups   serving as agents of the major political parties- abandoning the rights and dignity of Muslim Community. He told the media that  once in the government they abandon burning issues of the community to ensure they do not lose their positions and perks.

Justifying his allegation Hassan Ali explained the problems faced by the Muslims   in the east since independence. He said that; The minority community’s main accusation has been that the majority community which comprised only 9.8 percent of the North-East population in 1946 increased to the present level of 25 percent solely due to colonized settlements. Demarcation of borders for districts also contributed to it.  Similarly the Muslim population which was 32.5 percent in the North-East during the signing of the Indo-Ceylon Peace Agreement of July 1987 has today been reduced to a mere 17 percent.

He added that during independence in 1948 the entire east starting from Trincomalee and Batticaloa to Pottuvil end was under Batticaloa district. The Sinhala population in the entire east then was around 4000.It was the time Ampara was under Sammanthurai district.

In 1961 a new Ampara district was created by joining adjacent areas such as Dehiatta Kanda, Padiyatalawa and Bintanna Pattu. Muslims suspect that this was a   move to prevent the emergence of a predominantly Muslim district in the east covering Kalmunai, Pottuvil, Sammanthurai, Mutur and some other areas. With the creation of new Ampara district and the opening of Gal Oya scheme Sinhala population recorded an increase of more than a 500 percent.

Since then encroachment of Muslim areas has been an ongoing problem. Some even estimate that Muslims lost around 60,000 acres of land due to manipulations by successive governments, both SLFP and UNP, in cooperation with the bureaucracy. They had done this under various pretexts such as archaeological areas.

 

When Pradeshiya Sabha (Local Government Unit – LGU) borders were demarcated in 1987, the Lahugala LGU which comprised just 7085 members of the majority community was allocated a 368.2 sq. mile area while the area allocated to the minority community comprising 19,831 members was only 103.9 sq.miles. The Wevagampattu LGU comprising 6585 majority community people was given 260 sq. miles while Sammanthuraipattu LGU comprising 40704 minority community people was given only 99 sq. miles.

At district levels too, the minority communities were discriminated against. Sixty six percent of the land area was allocated for 36 percent Sinhalese in Ampara District while 70 percent of land was allocated for 34 percent Sinhalese in the Trincomalee District.

Explaining the unwritten agenda of the successive governments Hassen Ali said that even today 74 percent of the population in the Ampara district remain Tamil speaking people. However to date there was no Muslim or Tamil appointed as government agent for this district. This has been the unwritten policy of all governments.

Added to this new local authority boundaries were created in 1987 without proper delimitation commission or consulting the Muslims of the area. In areas such as Lahugala and Panama where there were less Sinhalese more lands were given while in areas such as Pottuvil where there were more Muslim population but less lands were given.

Read More