Sirisena and Mahinda Amaraweera ‘sell’ Fisheries Corp. to mysterious Korean Co. -cogent evidence! Fishermen will have to drink poison !!

(Lanka-e-News - 21.Jan.2018, 12.45PM) Full details of a dubious  agreement signed by president Sirisena in collusion with his unofficial pet son ’loku putha’  Mahinda Amarawera the present minister of fisheries has come to light. This agreement  has been signed with a Korean Co. which provided service to the Fisheries ministry over a long period . Their  aim via this agreement is   to introduce unjust  laws which were not existent hitherto and by amending the existent laws create legal loopholes which will facilitate this massive scam . Though the sinister duo may gain , eventually it is  the local fisher folks who will have to lose everything and  drink poison in desperation.

Upon reading the details exposed by this report , one would be forced to wonder ,are these the traitorous rascals  (including the highest in the hierarchy) involved in this perfidy and conspiracy who are  making a big din on stage about their ‘clean and unalloyed patriotism.’

Amaraweera who tabled a cabinet paper on 2016-07-20 ,  on Pontus Ocean Holdings Co; Ltd . Korea, in relation to a launch of a  joint business venture between the Korean Co. and Fisheries Corporation under the name of Sagara Marine Resources (Pvt) Ltd. The UNP ministers gave the approval to this without probing into it and batting an eyelid because the president himself  gave his  blessings and wholehearted support to it. Usually a president of a country’s deal  is expected to be above board.

In any event at the time the cabinet paper was submitted on 2016 07-20 for approval , Pontus Ocean Holdings Co. was not a registered Co. in Korea. , and was registered only after the cabinet approval was obtained here, it is learnt. In other words  this is a calculated pre meditated fraud of the so called ‘clean patriots’ Sirisena –Mahinda Amaraweera duo. In addition , 'Boralessa' who calls himself as a local representative through the son of Amaraweera the unofficial son of the president has left no stone unturned to steer this deal through.

When a google search was done on Pontus Ocean Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., it revealed the Co. is a mystery surrounded  one and  has nothing to do with the Fisheries Industry. Though it is stated in one place it is a Korean supply Co, in the same page down it is indicated it is a Hong Kong Supply Co. Anyway those are collaborating  companies under Greenline Lanka Pvt. Ltd.Interestingly , it has only transacted a single deal  .Nevertheless , when a search was conducted for Greenline Lanka Pvt. Ltd. Co. there was  no information  available. Hence , no great rocket thinking  power is needed to figure out the racket of ‘Amaraweeras’ which is therefore  a money laundering manipulation and a money making ‘game’ 

Appointment of Directors by Amaraweera -most intriguing…

According to the draft of the memorandum  of association of this dubious joint venture aforementioned , (the draft can be read by clicking on the link hereunder) , the board of directors has been appointed in a most intriguing manner. Based on the draft the Fisheries Corporation has 51 % shares while the Korean Co. is owner of 49 % shares. But when constituting   the board of directors , four Directors of  the Korean Co. with voting rights , and three Sri Lankan directors of the Fisheries corporation with voting rights have been appointed. In addition two more Fisheries Corporation directors without voting rights have also been appointed .

This is an absolute camouflage with vetoing rights when decisions are being taken  vested in  the Korean Co. which has more directors with voting rights though it is portrayed the Fisheries Corporation directors are more in number. It is very evident even to the most obtuse, owing to this subterfuge , when decisions are being taken in the future , grave issues can proliferate.

Moreover,  there is no clear mention at all in the draft regarding distribution of profits.

Section 62 of the Fisheries Act makes it abundantly clear ,when shares pertaining to local fishing crafts are being distributed ,  greater percentage of shares shall be owned  by Lankans. To overcome this stumbling block a request was made by  the Korean Co. , to probe whether our fishing  crafts can  be registered as a foreign craft . But if  that happens , those fishing crafts cannot carry on fishing activities  in SL’s territorial economic zone. Such a  Permission to fish can be granted based on Law of the Sea article 62 , only when there is only an abundance of fish in the waters. 

Except in those  circumstances , the Korean Co. jointly with the Fisheries corporation using the crafts to enter the SL territorial economic zone to fish will be  illegal , and is tantamount to giving   a fatal blow to  the local fishermen. It has  not brought in  a single dollar , and the craft had been registered via lies and  deception. 

No single dollar; illegally registered craft  

Although it was said  this Korean investment will bring in US dollars 68,000,00 , so far neither  a single dollar has been received by the government overtly nor is there any indication the government will gain.

In order to show there has been an investment, a foreign craft has  already been brought into SL by them, and  because of the registration impediments here , it had been registered illegally with the NARA Institution as a research craft despite the fact it is not such a  craft.

Although during the period when only there is an  abundance of fish , the foreign fishing crafts have permission to enter the SL territorial  economic zone , based on our sovereign rights over the zone , a fee ought to be levied. This is however  neither mentioned in the Law of the Sea article  62, nor  in the Act authorizing fishing methods .  The Fisheries minister and the Korean Co. have crept through this legal loophole . This is an absolute injustice perpetrated against our fisher folks.

GM chased out 

When the General Manager of the Fisheries Corporation objected to this villainous agreement detrimental to national interests , he was chased out after mounting bogus charges against him by the chairman of the Corporation who is a bootlicking henchman of the Minister. The present chairman is a close pal of ex minister Wimal Weerawansa the notorious  fraudster, and is  chairman of CeY Nor foundation.

It is clearly deducible following these subterfuges , maneuvers and machinations it is the aim and objective of the Korean Co. to slowly , stealthily and surely take control of the Fisheries Corporation and its businesses. 

Minister Amaraweera who loudly announces our local resources  shall  not be allowed to be appropriated by foreign Companies has on the contrary demonstrated beyond  any doubt when participating in the meetings held in connection with the joint Korean venture  that he is absolutely determined to promote this villainous venture. His eagerness has  outrun his sureness of his legitimate duties towards the motherland.   Because  every Institution including the Attorney General’s department and  Investment board is opposing  this crooked project, those Institutions have  come in for heavy flak from president’s unofficial son Amaraweera.

Though Amaraweera always brags the Fisheries Corporation is making profit , the Corporation profits if any have been made out of the funds obtained from the treasury ,and  because of the workers who were called back after their going on  voluntary retirement , as a result of  which the expenses were  curtailed. When considering the amount of loans taken from the treasury on repayable basis  and to  be paid back  to the treasury , as well as the loans to be settled with the buyers  , it is apparent the Corporation has not made any profits.

The importance of knowing  the  tale  of Amaraweera…. 

Knowing the tale of  Mahinda Amaraweera will be helpful to the readers ….

Amaraweera  is essentially a bus conductor  .  During the period of Rajapakse ( famous for bringing in all the infamous characters into politics ) , he somehow clung on to  the cursed shawl of his to enter politics and contested  the Angunakola pelessa   local body and  used his caste to full advantage when launching on his political journey.

Amaraweera who was a bootlicker of not only Mahinda but even Namal ( in fact their shoes shone because of his licking and not because of Kiwi polish) , at the last presidential elections helped the corrupt Rajapakse brigand by not allowing Sirisena’s election rallies to  be held in his electorate. 

On 8 th January 2015 , cashing in on Sirisena’s characteristic  double faced  nature and hypocritical traits,  and coupling those  with his own cunning, he ingratiated himself into the favor of Maithripala . Soon after  Maithripala took  oaths as president and  even before he warmed his seat , Amaraweera the original bus conductor issued bus tickets free to pave the way for Miathripala to meet  the Rajapakses.  

It is well worth noting , it is none other than president’s own  advisor cum  national list M.P. Malith Jayatileke who said in his book ‘ January 8 th – what I witnessed,’ that Sirisena went in the vehicle of Amaraweera and met the Rajapakses . 

Thereafter , Amaraweera secured the posts of secretary , UPFA, , Fisheries minister and Mahaweli State minister from Maithri. He is now the mollycoddled ‘loku putha’ of the president. Hence there is no doubt, Maithripala’s full blessings are with Amaraweera in this conspiracy.

It is therefore the  duty of the  genuine pro good governance masses to come to the fore against these sly and stealthy maneuvers of this duo –president Maithri and ‘loku putha’ Amaraweera, and their conspiratorial project to dissipate and destroy  the local Fisheries Corporation through a Korean Co. which will inevitably compel the entire fishing community to consume poison. 

Herein is a photograph of the document which was exchanged to appoint directors favoring  the Korean Co.  ; and by clicking on the link below ,  the most intriguing draft of memorandum of  association for the joint venture between  Pontus Ocean Holdings Co. Ltd; and Fisheries Corporation can be downloaded. 

http://www.lankaenews.com/home/downloads/50/Sagara-Marine-Joint-Venture-Agreement.pdf

 

---------------------------
by     (2018-01-21 07:28:32)

Sri Lanka: The Government has failed us — Do we fail ourselves?

Mahinda Rajapaksa impeached the CJ who didn’t give the decision he wanted. Maithripala Sirisena accepted the Supreme Court’s ruling with as much good grace as possible. The difference between the two reactions is neither technical nor negligible.

by Tisaranee Gunasekara

“The travails of the mountains lie behind us.
Before us lie the travails of the plains.”
– Brecht (Observation)

( January 21, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Does a president’s responsibility to protect the nation empower him to impose travel restrictions on specific countries? In a case dubbed as ‘a major examination of presidential powers,’[i] the US Supreme Court is to consider the matter and give a ruling by June. If that ruling goes against Donald Trump, he will inundate the twitterscape with pre-dawn ravings. But there is no doubt he will abide by the ruling. He will not try to impeach the chief justice or threaten the judges in any way. He would probably love to, but he won’t because he can’t.

That is how democracy works: good laws, strong institutions and political leaders who abide by the limits, however unwillingly.

Sri Lanka experienced such a moment last week when Maithripala Sirisena sought a Supreme Court ruling on the duration of his presidential term. There was no doubt he wanted an extra year. The Supreme Court ruled that his presidential term, as per the 19th Amendment, is five years. How President Sirisena reacted to that ruling privately we have no idea. But in public he did nothing. He accepted the ruling and moved on.

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa found the entire saga rip-roaring funny. At a LG election rally for the newly formed Sri Lanka Peoples Party (SLPP), Mr. Rajapaksas (who also happens to be an ex-officio patron of the SLFP) defined the Supreme Court ruling as retribution for a sin Mr. Sirisena committed in this birth (Ditta dhamma vedaneeya kamma)[ii]. Whether the sin he alluded to was the sin of defeating him electorally or the sin of restoring Lankan democracy is unclear. In Mr. Rajapaksa’s book both deeds would be equally sinful, both meriting the direst punishment.

The upcoming local government election should have been about local issues and about electing the best representatives to manage local affairs. It could have been that had the election been held on time. But the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration, against all sense, kept on pushing back the election on various pretexts, until the Elections Commission decided to use some of the powers vested in it by the 19th Amendment. As a result of that unintelligent procrastination, the election is being held at the worst possible time for the government. That unfortunate timing and Mahinda Rajapaksa’s ‘Will to Power’ had turned the election into a de facto referendum on the government.

The UNP, rather than Mahinda Rajapaksa’s SLPP, is likely to come first in the LG poll. The SLPP will take votes away not from the UNP but from the SLFP. If Ranil Wickremesinghe did save the Rajapaksa family from prosecution, he would have done so on the calculation of becoming the main politico-electoral beneficiary of a Rajapaksa-led decapitation of the SLFP.  His gamble will work if the SLFP emerges a strong second and the SLPP is reduced to the third place. This outcome is highly unlikely, thanks to a series of factors, starting with high prices of rice and other consumer essentials, the Bond scam and the non-prosecution of the Rajapaksas.

A more likely outcome is a diminished victory for the UNP (in terms of total votes) with the SLPP nipping at its heels. If the SLPP emerges a strong second and the SLFP is reduced to the third place, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration will careen into a crisis from which it may never recover. Both Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe will be losers in such a situation. As pressure builds up on President Sirisena to reunify the SLFP and the SLPP and make Mahinda Rajapaksa the prime minister, Mr. Wickremesinghe might find himself out of a job first, perhaps a fitting retribution for saving the Rajapaksas from justice.

The LG poll will also be a test of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s claim that the country is waiting to return him to power. An absolute majority of Lankans voted for the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration in 2015 because they believed in the promise of a vastly better future. Disillusioned by the government’s tendency to go back on its pledges, some of those voters may want a return to the past. That is the nature of democracy. But before the past is repeated, it makes sense to remember it, not the way the Rajapaksas render it, but the way it actually was.

19th Amendment and 18th Amendment; Bond Scam and MiG Deal

The 18th Amendment, which scrapped presidential term-limits while enhancing presidential powers, was rammed through the cabinet, the judiciary and the parliament in just ten days. Mahinda Rajapaksa had no popular mandate to enact the amendment. During presidential and parliamentary elections of 2010, he promised to abolish the executive presidency, not make it even stronger than it was. The 18th Amendment was in direct violation of that pledge. Copies of the Amendment were not released to the public until it was a done deal. The Amendment was railroaded through the cabinet on August 30th2010, approved by the Supreme Court on September 7th and passed in parliament on September 8th.

The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake approved the amendment in just 24 hours. By that time the judiciary, like the parliament, had become subservient to the President and his family. CJ Bandaranayake had headed the benches that rejected Gen. Fonseka’s petition for bail, gave a free passage to the Expropriations Bill and rejected petitions against Leadership Training for university students in army camps. In a classified cable (revealed by Wikileaks), the US Ambassador claimed that Dr. Bandaranayake was a ‘Rajapaksa loyalist.’

Being a ‘Rajapaksa loyalist’ meant doing the Rajapaksa bidding not most of the time, but all the time, even where it was manifestly anti-constitutional. When the CJ made the cardinal error of not giving a free pass to the Divineguma Bill – tailor-made to enhance Basil Rajapaksa’s powers – she was hounded of her job through an illegal impeachment. When the Appeal Court tried to intervene in the process, using its constitutionally granted authority, President Rajapaksa openly threatened the judges, reminding them that “all powers regarding leave matters pertaining to Supreme Court judges and their foreign visits etc. and the approval thereof will now by default be vested with him as the Executive.”[iii]

Mahinda Rajapaksa impeached the CJ who didn’t give the decision he wanted. Maithripala Sirisena accepted the Supreme Court’s ruling with as much good grace as possible. The difference between the two reactions is neither technical nor negligible.

Ranil Wickremesinghe wanted to sweep the bond scam under a carpet of amnesia. He tried to make it happen. He failed. There is a considerable chance that the alleged culprits would be brought before the courts and tried for their crimes. That is another difference between then and now. Corruption is alive and well, but it cannot be hidden; and occasionally it might even be punished. Impunity has not been done away with completely, but it is no longer a fact of life.

This week, Colombo magistrate Lanka Jayaratne gave an order to freeze some assets belonging to Udayanga Weeratunga, allegedly the prime-mover in the controversial MiG deal, together with his first cousin Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. When details of that deal were revealed by the Sunday Times and the Sunday Leader in late 2006 and 2007, parliamentarians Mangala Samaraweera and Sripathy Sooriyarachchi made a complaint to the Bribery Commission. No investigation was ever carried out. Instead Gotabhaya Rajapaksa filed action against the Sunday Leader, thereby preventing the story from being covered.[iv]

Lasantha Wickremetunga was murdered, the Sunday Leader was bought by a Rajapaksa confidant and the paper rendered Gotabhaya Rajapaksa an abject apology. But Mr. Rajapaksa did not withdraw the case, and he gave his evidence on May 22, 2014. His cross-examination by the counsel for defence (and TNA parliamentarian) MA Sumanthiren started on May 27th2014.

When Ravi Karunanayake and Ranil Wickremesinghe appeared before the Bond Commission, hundreds of media personnel gathered outside shouting questions. When Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was cross examined, no media personnel gathered outside the court premises. The only ones who tried to get in were the BBC correspondents. Two senior cops barred their way and informed them, “Nobody in their right minds would come here. No other media had come to cover this because they know the consequences.”[v] And not a word appeared in the media bout Mr. Sumanthiran’s questions and Mr. Rajapaksa’s answers. The media kept mum, because ‘they knew the consequences,’ all too well.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration is corrupt, incompetent and clueless, but the return of Rajapaksa Rule would mean the return of a time when impunity was the norm and even a rugby referee couldn’t give a decision displeasing to rugby-playing Rajapaksa sons without risking bodily harm. Maithripala Sirisena is a weak and a brittle president, but Gotabhaya Rajapaksa would be an infinitely worse one, a dictatorial racist, a deadly cross between Benito Mussolini and Donald Trump. Ranil Wickremesinghe has turned himself into non/anti-Mr. Clean with his indefensible defence of the two Arjunas, but with Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister we will have more (not less) corruption and absolutely no space even to complain about it.

Flawed Democracy = Flawed but Democratic

Sri Lanka is facing the prospect of retrogressing to the Rajapaksa past because Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe betrayed the trust of the 6.2 million Lankans.

If Ranil Wickremesinghe handled the bond scam differently, he could have been confident of not just winning the LG polls, but also doing so massively.

Last week, Mr. Sirisena sprang into outraged action when Minister Mangala Samaraweera issued a gazette cancelling a law banning women from buying or selling alcohol. Had he displayed one half of that speed and single-mindedness in dealing with the issue of rice and coconut prices or the drought (which has victimised 2 million Lankans) or the still ongoing fertiliser shortage, his SLFP would have been vying with the UNP for the first place instead of facing the ignominy of becoming a poor third. But for almost three years he ignored the economic plight of a majority of Lankan people. He did not place the welfare of ordinary Lankans over the super-profits of the rice-miller mafia (which allegedly includes his brother). Had he acted fast and determinedly to prevent the skyrocketing of rice prices, the cost-of-living problem would not have become the political millstone it is today. By failing to do so, he disappointed and alienated SLFP’s core-voters – the rural/suburban poor and middle classes – turning them into easy pickings for the Rajapaksas.

If Ranil Wickremesinghe handled the bond scam differently, he could have been confident of not just winning the LG polls, but also doing so massively. His laughable attempts to deny the existence of any wrongdoing, his unwillingness to remove Ravi Karunanayake from deputy leadership even after the Monarch Penthouse scandal came to light and his unconditional defence of Arjuna Mahendran had disgusted and alienated key components of the UNP’s core support base – the urban middle and upper-middle classes and the business community.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration has lost not just its moral compass but also its basic commonsense. The positives it has achieved are few in comparison to the multitude of forgotten and broken promises. But those few positives mark the difference between a country that is the private fiefdom of a single family and a country which is a flawed democracy. Corruption continues to be rife, but the bond scam report gives hope that at least some of the corrupt will be punished. Incompetence is monumental, but there is space to criticise it without fear. The promise to come up with a political solution to the ethnic problem has been forgotten, but there is far less official racism. What is needed is to protect and build on these achievements. The bad must be acknowledged as bad. But it makes no sense to replace the bad with the worse.

Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe had failed us. The question is, do we fail ourselves too, and allow the infinitely worse past to return to our common detriment?

[i] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-rule-on-trumps-powers-to-ban-foreign-travelers/2018/01/19/9e6e1242-fc90-11e7-8f66-2df0b94bb98a_story.html?utm_term=.ef739a30f80b

[ii] http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/What-happened-to-me-happened-to-Maithri-as-well-MR-144000.html

[iii] Daily News – 8.1.2013

[iv][iv] http://www.frontpage.lk/page/MiG-Deal-Rajapaksas-Paid-US-10-Million-To-A-Ghost-Company-No-Company-Called-Bellimissa-Interpol-Confirmed/4655

http://www.thesundayleader.lk/archive/20070902/spotlight.htm

[v] http://www.nidahasa.com/news/news.php?go=fullnews&newsid=1325

Some ‘call-of-nature’, this!

by N Sathiya Moorthy-January 21, 2018, 9:50 pm 

Give it to Cabinet spokesman and Health Minister, Rajitha Senaratne, to demean the high office of the nation’s Presidency than already! He could have explained away that President Maithiripala Sirisena was feeling unwell, or had gone to make or attend an urgent personal or overseas call that he had either forgotten or put off. It was enough if the Cabinet spokesman claimed that the ‘call of duty’, the ‘call of the nation’ demanded the President’s presence in an ante room for a private conversation or consultation.

Though questions would have been raised as to what that ‘call of the nation’ could have been, yet, it could have been considered and declared ‘top secret’ and let the matter rest there. But for Minister Rajitha to declare in a televised media conference that the President went only to attend the ‘call of nature’ when Sirisena was known to have actually walked out of a Cabinet meeting that he was supposedly presiding over, should take the cake – and at the same very saddening.

Rajitha’s conduct reflects the kind of contempt that his own senior ministers – this one, among his closest of aides – take the office of the President and the incumbent, so very casually, if not outright contempt. The latter was reserved by and for UNP-coalition parliamentarian, S M Marikkar, whose ‘pickpocket’ reference to Sirisena is ‘defamatory’ to say the least. It is sad that even after the perceived patch-up, which Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe initiated on the spot, to get Sirisena back to the Cabinet meeting his party is talking only about directions to UNP second-line not to talk ill of the President, but not anything about any possible disciplinary action against the errant MP.

You cannot blame the UNP leadership leave aside the likes of Marikkar, who is only the latest in the list to say unsavoury things about the incumbent, which are unacceptable in reference to the Presidency. Reports have it that President Sirisena himself came to the Cabinet meeting armed with a tape-recorder, indicating that he was recording his speech, so that those that did not (want to) listen then and there, could do so later, if they wished.

The President’s Secretariat is not known to have denied the news reports – whether his walking out of the Cabinet, or his carrying a tape-recorder into the meeting. It is sad that it has come to such a pass and passé that the President, or anyone else, should feel compelled to have his statement recorded, obviously apprehending different versions getting out onto the media, starting with the social media. Incidentally, his walk-out from the Cabinet meeting appeared first in the social media, and much later in the traditional media.

The more serious question is about the ‘confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings’, so as to facilitate a free and frank discussion. Here, the Head of State, who also continues to chair Cabinet meetings even under the much-touted 19-A should be flouting such basic norms, despite his long innings as a senior Minister in previous governments should raise uncomfortable questions that are also about issues of propriety and questions of possibilities.

Eating the word

Some of Sirisena’s SLFP ministerial colleagues in the Government have for long been talking about his contesting the presidential polls the next time too. State Minister of Finance, Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena, is the latest one to repeat it, this time at an official weekly media briefing of the party, which generally should have had the boss’ nod ahead.

In the normal course, this should not have mattered at all, as it is only natural for the incumbent to consider contesting for a second term, if only to ensure the continuity of his policies and the implementation of his programmes, initiated in the first term. In the case of Sirisena, however, by seeking a second term, he would be eating his own pre-poll word from Elections-2015, when he declared that he would most definitely not seek a second term.

At the time, Candidate Sirisena was seeking to distinguish (!) himself from incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who through 18-A had changed the conventional rules of the game, removed the two-term upper-limit and was ‘avariciously’ contesting for a third term, too. If Sirisena’s camp now says that the re-election hints are only aimed at keeping the coalition house in order, if only to ensure that no one around treated his presidency as a ‘lame-duck’, it was the kind of arguments that the Rajapaksas too proffered while piloting 18-A.

If President Sirisena wanted to contest a second term, no problem in it, as long as the party of which he is also the president clears his candidacy – with or without contest. It has also been customary in such cases in the country to let the incumbent decide in the matter, and let him contest a second term, if he so desired and felt even more confident.

TNA’s R Sampanthan was right when he referred to Rajapaksa’s 18-A and the incumbent’s later-day decision to contest for a third term, when he said that whatever the constitutional provision in this regard, amended or as it existed, at the end of the day, the people of Sri Lanka had to vote him, for Mahinda R to continue in office. Sampanthan proved even more prophetic (though hidden when expressed first) as Mahinda Rajapaksa ended up losing the elections, also thanks to the TNA’s ‘Tamil vote-bank’.

‘Mischievous’ move

In context, President Sirisena’s decision to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion about the length of his term after 19-A had curtailed it to five years from original six years, should be deemed ‘mischievous’ an ‘over-ambitious’. The question, obviously motivated, was in the air even when Parliament and also the nation were debating 19-A. It however got a quiet and decent burial then and there.

Now for President Sirisena himself to resurrect the argument could only be deemed as seeking to circumvent the spirit of the Constitution, or 19-A, as if the legislative intent was otherwise, Parliament would have very unequivocally specified the same, and exempted incumbent’s first term at the very least from the ‘five-year rule’ through specified provisos.

It is anybody’s guess what Sirisena was seeking to achieve by wanting to fish in the troubled waters that he and his UNP partner in the coalition government have muddied, possibly beyond redemption and restoration. If nothing else, the Sri Lankan rule has been not to rectify the mistakes of the past and of the predecessor(s), but only to take it as a bench-mark and take if forward – or, is it backward – even more.

Despite their pre-poll promises to the contrary and the aspiration and anticipation of their traditional and not-so-traditional backers, this duo-leadership is nothing more than what others before them had been, including and starting with the Rajapaksa(s) that they dethroned. The promised ‘yahapalanaya’ can now do with some more of the ‘yahapalanaya’ – or, can it?

Jest, not gesture

People do not take campaign promises seriously. It was so even in Elections-2015, when sections that had wanted incumbent Rajapaksa out, voted in Sirisena – whatever their reason and justification. It is doubtful if they would have done otherwise had it been any other candidate in Sirisena’s place. This is not to dispute the ‘shock value’ attending on Sirisena’s candidacy.

Yet, whatever promises that he and his UNP campaigners had given then, their alliance government has kept only as promises through the three-plus years of their rule-less rule. Now, on the campaign trail for the LG polls, watched more inside the country than by the outside, Sirisena has declared that he would quit office after punishing all corrupt persons in politics – a promise much like one to count the sand grains on Colombo’s Galle Face Green.

Sirisena has also promised to walk the streets of the nation, with all those that fight corruption – all those that are not in power and hope not to be in power, which is what politics and corruption are all about, and what containing and curbing them requires, parliamentarians to begin with, power-brokers from among them for starters. Who knows, what next in the course of the current campaign trail, what words of wisdom Sirisena, or Ranil, or Rajapaksa would offer the nation – words that would sound hollow to the point of being taken for jest, not even a gesture anymore!

(The writer is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation, the multi-disciplinary Indian public-policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. Email: sathiyam54@gmail.com)

Bond scam: Dappula sidelined from instituting legal action

 

2018-01-21

Senior Additional Solicitor General Dappula de Livera, who investigated the Central Bank bond scam along with others, had been sidelined from initiating legal action based on recommendations by the Presidential Commission regarding the fraud, sources said.

Despite him being the senior-most-official in the Criminal Division of the Attorney General’s Department, he had not been assigned to the task of proceeding with legal action as recommended by the Commission in its report, the source said.

Instead, Additional Solicitor General Murdu Fernando, who is attached to the Civil Division, has been assigned to it.

Alongside, President’s Counsel Yasantha Kodagoda and Priyantha Napana and others who played a major role in the investigation of the bond scam through the Presidential Commission, have been sidelined from instituting legal action against the frauds mentioned in the report, the source said. (Ranjith Pathmasiri)

Now that Bond Commission too has said it, Govt. cannot postpone the reform of Central Bank any more

 Monday, 22 January 2018

Resurrecting an old pledge

The Deputy Minister of National Policy and Economic Affairs, Dr. Harsha de Silva, commonly known as Harsha, is reported to have announced the engagement of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by the Government to amend the present Monetary Law Act (MLA) (available at: http://www.ft.lk/front-page/IMF-to-assist-in-revising-monetary-laws--Harsha/44-647288).

Now that Bond Commission too has said it, Govt. cannot postpone the reform of Central Bank any more.docx by Thavam on Scribd

A reflection on accountability, march hares and madness

• Sunday, January 21, 2018

An interesting pro-accountability exercise took place in Sri Lanka this week which went largely unnoticed due to political distractions.

These doltish distractions ranged from a ‘withdrawal of a withdrawal of’ a long forgotten excise notification forbidding women to buy liquor to ominous grandstanding by leaders of the coalition government even as details of the Central Bank bond scam came to light with the release of the Commission of Inquiry report.

The heavy ironies of the law

In what is perhaps the most riveting use of its authority since its establishment decades ago, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption (CIABOC) filed charges in the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court against former Chief Justice and former Attorney General Mohan Peiris, Court of Appeal Judge A.H.M.D. Nawaz and former LECO Chairman M.M.C. Ferdinando for offences falling under Section 70 of the Bribery Act (as amended).

The merits of the case will not be gone into here. But quite apart from the heavy irony of a former Chief Justice and a sitting Appeal Court judge being charged in the Magistrate’s Court for corruption, the substance of the charge is interesting. These were in connection with an investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) pertaining to ‘certain financial irregularities’ which had occurred in the Lanka Electricity Co. Pvt Ltd (LECO) during the Rajapaksa Presidency. Reportedly, two committees appointed to look into the misappropriation of funds at LECO amounting to Rs.260 million had recommended the institution of legal action against perpetrators under the Penal Code for misappropriation and under the Bribery Act for corruption charges.

Contrary to the recommendations made by the two committees, former Attorney General at the time Mohan Peiris and Deputy Solicitor General A.H.M.D. Nawaz had recommended not to institute criminal investigations against the perpetrators, thus conferring a wrongful or unlawful benefit and favour or advantage to the perpetrators contrary to law.

A provocative use of the Bribery Act

Section 70 of the Bribery Act was brought in by an amendment in 1994 to collective jubilation but true to form, allowed to lapse largely unutilized in later decades. This may be the first time that this provision has been put to such provocative use. This observation is subject to the evident caution that charges of the utmost seriousness such as these must be buttressed by adequate evidentiary material to call for penal consequences. As a matter of strict law, the allegations against the two state law officers are of a penal nature. The evidentiary material in support thereof must, of necessity, go beyond claims of the improper use of discretion in wielding statutory powers.

Where the use of discretion is concerned of course, the Sri Lankan law has been plagued for decades by the Office of the Attorney General being treated with unwarranted magnanimity by judges. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Attorney-General’s powers are neither absolute nor unfettered and where exercise of the same amounts to a constitutional violation, that exercise can be reviewed (Victor Ivan v. Sarath Silva, Attorney General, [1998] 1 Sri LR, 340). The power to file (or not file) an indictment was declared in that case to be a discretionary power subject to judicial review. But in this instance and others, judges have traditionally applied a high standard to decide if the discretion of the Attorney General was ‘unreasonably’ wielded.

A certain amount of latitude must be given in such cases. However treating decisions taken by the Attorney General much like the proverbial ‘holy cow’ is detrimental to the Rule of Law and the accountability of the State. In public law as in criminal law, these old notions must be replaced by modern progressive thinking in many jurisdictions that the primary state law officer of the land must be subjected to public scrutiny. Efforts to use the law to compel such accountability must be welcomed provided however that the legal basis for the same is thoroughly and meticulously established.

Sexism and the absence of logic

And now, to digress from the aspiringly sublime to the patently ridiculous, March madness came early this year to Sri Lanka’s Minister of Sports and the Minister of Health as those who witnessed their painful struggles on national television to explain the Government’s policy change on reversing an archaic ban on women buying liquor within the premises of a tavern, may instantly agree. Calling these two ministerial worthies ‘mad as March hares’ may be insulting to the skittish March hare itself. But their explanations, issued amidst silly giggles, shows precisely why the unity alliance is subjected to increasing ridicule due to its confused and contradictory policies.

For instance, one assertion was that this ‘withdrawal of a withdrawal of’ the gender discriminatory excise notification was to protect the ‘purity’ of the country’s village damsels. If this is their goal, the two Ministers might be advised to direct their energies to stop the slavery of Sri Lankan female domestic workers in the Middle East who are starved, abused, battered and sometimes killed by their owners. Or it may be useful to reform policies and practice to better tackle exponentially high incidents of rape and sexual harassment.

There are some who protest that the law in Western countries should not be the standard for the reason that Western ‘ethics’ are different from the ‘culture’ observed in this serendipitous isle. Others say that ‘despite the law’ in those countries forbidding discrimination etc, the practice is different. These gentlemen must be less gently schooled to understand the point that there is no ‘despite the law.’ The law is precisely the point.

The law cannot permit discrimination

As a school child would know, discriminatory regulations, notifications and rules are contrary to the constitutional guarantee to equality. Distinguishing between the law and ‘practice’ in ‘sinful’ Western countries in other contexts (such as race relations) to illustrate a flawed argument that a regulation can be discriminatory in this country per se is asinine. It is equally so to justify discrimination on the basis of ‘social culture.’ Decisions handed down by the Supreme Court to that effect are many.

That being said, the law and political strategy are two vastly different creatures. Was it really necessary to project a shamefully sexist ban into national debate (leading to chuckles around the world moreover) at this time of strained political tempers and pre-election heat? This gazette (mis)adventure by the Minister of Finance might have been more appropriate at a different time altogether. That is if indeed, withdrawing a retrogressive and barely implemented excise notification was so high on the Government’s list of priorities while high corruption goes unscathed and thievish political rogues unendingly grin from ear to ear over a local government election which has local governance as the least of its priorities?

Truly Sri Lanka is the most poignant example of that immortal warning, ‘whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.’

Priests, doctors and the State: The agony of the masses 

 2018-01-22

Media headlines in recent months in Sri Lanka have concentrated heavily on the political role of Buddhist monks, agitations of government medical officers against the establishment of a private medical college and the increasing failure of the State to address many pressing social issues.  
These three matters are by no means unconnected. In fact, all three are the products of a process of social and political change that unfolded over the last several decades.  
As is well known, despite Leftist and Liberal misgivings about the continuing connection between the State and the Buddhist establishment, successive Governments after independence have tended to accept it, either willingly or unwillingly.  
In more recent years, not just political leaders, but even senior state officials, having assumed duties of their new positions have routinely visited the high priests of the Buddhist order, tacitly accepting the need to have their counsel and blessings to conduct their official duties. Yet, Sri Lanka is not a theocracy and the political leaders often have taken decisions that do not always conform to religious precepts. But, on some contentious issues, the influence of the Buddhist establishment has prevented political leaders from taking timely and necessary measures to resolve them. The most important one is the national question. Given the strong link between popular Buddhism and Sinhala nationalism, many Buddhist monks and laity resist any attempt to tamper with the existing constitutional provisions dealing with the special status accorded to Buddhism.  
This resistance to constitutional reforms is also extended to cover the issues connected with the relative standing of ethnic communities within the political structure of the country.  
Extensive devolution of power to subnational units is resisted because it is presumed to be based on the idea of a more inclusive State. Given the fact that Sinhala Buddhist nationalism has been a major factor shaping public policies in the post- independence Sri Lanka, it is not difficult to understand the above resistance.  
What is noteworthy is that many of the post-independence public policies have privileged the dominant ethnic community often at the expense of the others.  
On the other hand, turning to the medical doctors who have continued to resist private medical education in the country, through disruptive trade union agitations, the main issue involved is intricately connected to the emergent social class structure and the post-independence State. The state-led development model adopted after independence in Sri Lanka stifled the growth of the private and non- profit sectors and created an increasing dependence on the part of the upwardly mobile segments of the population on public resources for education, stable employment and other sources of livelihood such as land.  
So, any attempt to create greater space for private capital in the economy and the social sectors like education has been resisted by the members of the lower middle class dependent on the state for their privileges.  
Political parties, student groups and Government medical officers who by and large represent the underprivileged yet upwardly mobile segments of Sri Lankan society have been able to prevent the establishment of a private medical college since the early 1980s.  
Such a college would have brought to an end the almost monopolistic rights to local medical education that the underprivileged students have enjoyed for decades. This is in spite of the fact that the healthcare providers in the country are no longer confined to public health institutions and the private health sector has emerged as a highly significant source of healthcare not just for the rich but also for an increasing proportion of the not so rich.  

• Buddhist monks, agitations of Government medical officers and the increasing failure of the State to address many pressing social issues

• These three matters are by no means unconnected

• Political parties, student groups and Government medical officers who by and large represent the underprivileged yet upwardly mobile segments of Sri Lankan society have been able to prevent the establishment of a private medical college

• These politicians, Provincial Councils and local bodies, roam around in their jurisdictions offering instant solutions to problems at an individual level such as jobs, transfers, school admissions, food parcels, credit, wheelchairs, roofing sheets and land

It is against the above background that we need to analyse the dysfunctional nature of the state in managing public affairs in the country today. Sri Lankan State has failed to adopt a rational approach to public policy making due to the persisting or even growing influence of constituencies that have been accommodated by a populist State, and these include politically active Buddhist priests, medical professionals who have originated from dependent lower middle-class backgrounds and the diverse aspirants to political office whose only source of subsistence and wealth has been populist politics.  
The populist politicians by and large do not see politics as a way of dealing with existential problems of the ordinary masses through rational public policies and effective state institutions. Instead, they see these problems as opportunities for them to get public attention and offer 
piecemeal solutions.  
Many examples can be cited here as illustrative examples but poverty alleviation is a classic case in point. Political fortunes of many, self-seeking, populist politicians have been built on this issue over several decades. When State institutions are micro-managed to offer ad hoc solutions to long-standing economic and social issues, patron-client politics comes to the fore, making political leaders at all levels the key sources of relief to many ordinary people faced with all sorts of problems.  
These politicians, instead of discussing long-term, durable solutions to diverse economic and social issues in fora as the parliament, Provincial Councils and local bodies, roam around in their jurisdictions offering instant solutions to problems at an individual level such as jobs, transfers, school admissions, food parcels, credit, wheelchairs, roofing sheets and land.  
It is against the above background that we need to understand the chronic failure of the Sri Lankan State to find durable solutions to long-standing political, social and economic issues, making the situation in the country almost hopeless, unstable and volatile in recent years. The continuing deterioration of state institutions and the persisting inertia of the public service have been the result, leading to the worsening of conditions in many sectors such as education, research, environment, public transport, public health and social security. Yet, many populist politicians continue to dominate the media, and many journalists continue to hold their microphones to them so that they can continue to mislead the hapless masses by spreading the diabolical myth that they have solutions to the problems that we are faced with. 
It seems that there are many gullible people who continue to believe them. On the other hand, the country still has a window of opportunity to lead the country on a more constructive path towards sustainable development, national unity and social justice.  
This is thanks to the political change that took place about three years ago. If we could build national consensus among enlightened members of the public, public servants, civil society organisations, professionals, intellectuals, progressive politicians and other groups such as youths and university students on the need to take the country forward on the basis of sound state policies and interventions, it would be possible to prevent a downward slide to a State of sectarian violence, arbitrary rule and anarchy again.