Compromise and consensus good for Democracy

2018-01-31

Through consultation, compromise and consensus – key factors for democracy and public accountability – Speaker Karu Jayasuriya announced yesterday that a special session of Parliament would be held on February 6 to hold the widely-awaited debate on two bombshell reports. These reports had been handed over to President Maithripala Sirisena by the Commission which probed the Central Bank’s alleged bond scams from February 2015 to March 2016 and the Commission which probed allegations of serious frauds and corruption during the former Rajapaksa regime.
 
The Speaker’s announcement came after a hurriedly summoned meeting of party leaders at the Parliamentary complex yesterday. Report said the party leaders’ meeting ended without a decision being finalized and that the Speaker would announce the date after consulting Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who, in terms of the Constitution, has the authority to call a special session of Parliament. 

On Wednesday January 24, the President had handed over to Parliament the lengthy reports of the two Commissions. Party leaders had then by a majority decision, decided to have the debate on February 19 and 20 – after the February 10 elections to 341 Municipal, Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas. But President Sirisena – speaking out powerfully at election rallies during the past few weeks -- challenged the main parties to hold the debate before the February 10 elections so that the people could know who had plundered public funds running into thousands of billions of rupees. The Prime Minister responded to the President’s appeal by announcing, again at an election rally, that he had told the Speaker to hold the debate on February 8. But another major legal problem arose. 

The wide-powered Elections Commission Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya -- highly acclaimed for strictly implementing election laws to ensure a free and fair poll on February 10 -- said he was not happy about the decision to hold a Parliamentary debate on February 8. According to election laws, all campaigning has to stop by midnight on February 7 so that February 8 and 9 could give the people time to reflect and decide on whom or which party they should vote for. This came amid speculation that the Elections Commission might postpone the February 10 polls if the parliamentary debate took place on February 8. It was in this context that the Speaker invited the Elections Commission Chairman also to attend yesterday’s party leaders meeting. 

Earlier this month, the President telecast a summary of the nearly 1,400 page report, annexures and recommendations of the Bond Commission which probed the alleged scams. The Commission has made serious charges against the Central Bank’s former Governor Arjuna Mahendranand his son-in-lawArjun Aloysiuswhose company Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) is alleged to have used unethical if not illegal means to make a huge profit of about Rs. 11.1 billion from the bond issues. On January 24 the Central Bank froze the bank accounts of PTL and twenty seven associated companies. The Bond Commission has also made charges against former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake and other UNP members. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that serious action would be taken against UNP members if they were found guilty when these cases were brought before courts of law. 
On Monday, President Sirisena -- waging a do-or-die battle not only for the local councils but also against corruption and especially corrupt politicians -- summoned a meeting of top officials to expedite the cases highlighted in the Bond Commission Report and the Report of the Commission which probed serious acts of fraud and corruption. Among those who attended the meeting were the Attorney General, the Central Bank Governor and the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC). At a public meeting later the President lamented that during the past twenty three years the CIABOC has successfully prosecuted only four cases of bribery or corruption and he hoped the Commission would act more effectively in the future. 
According to UNP leaders, the Commission which probed serious acts of fraud and corruption has highlighted thirty four major cases against the former regime’s VIP politicians, top officials and others. Whatever the date of the debate, we believe the people’s hope is that those who plundered billions in public money would be brought to justice and the money recovered from them.

Sri Lanka president resorts to hate speech against rights activists

BY KITHSIRI WIJESINGHE-30 JANUARY 2018 

Bringing back chilling memories of a period when dissenting voices were shamed as traitors and hunted down, the president of Sri Lanka has accused rights activists of being 'supporters of Tamil Tigers', while admitting his involvement in delaying justice on criminal violations.

In a special meeting with media heads, President Maithripala Sirisena branded human rights organisations that expose details of ongoing violations in the country as LTTE sympathisers.

His anger was particularly levelled at activists who provided the UN rights body with documented evidence of ongoing torture, abductions, sexual violence and military intimidation.

“These people have gone to Geneva and told the human rights council that serious violations have been committed this year too,” said President Maithripala Sirisena.

“There are several non-governmental organisations (NGO) sympathetic to the LTTE, which make damaging statements in Geneva to the international. As far as I am aware our country does not have such a bad record.”

Myanmar and Sri Lanka

The president claimed that leaders from powerful states have hailed Sri Lanka alongside Myanmar as a model country that has restored democracy.

“When I met UN officials and state leaders in 2015-2016, they told me that only two countries that can be shown as prime examples to the world in restoring democracy, upholding freedom and human rights. They are Sri Lanka and Myanmar."

However, Myanmar has failed to maintain its good record.

“In 2017 September when I met them at the UN, they told me that only Sri Lanka has that status today.”

Therefore, in 2017 Sri Lanka was granted an extension of two years to fulfil its commitments on accountability and justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the final phase of its war against Tamil Tigers in 2009.

President Sirisena described such crimes as “things that happened earlier”.

“If there are issues about things that happened earlier, we have an opportunity to take the necessary steps.”

Activists who campaigned for accountability and upholding the rule of law, during the tenure of President Mahinda Rajapaksa ousted in 2015, were persecuted by the regime as Tamil Tiger supporters.

Many who managed to survive, including members of JDS had to leave the country.

Illegal interference

Addressing media heads, President Sirisena also admitted that he had intervened to delay justice in many cases implicating leaders of the former regime.

His advice 

CHANDRAPALA KUMARAGE

to the police chief and the prime minister was not to file cases “that would be a waste” against former defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and other alleged perpetrators including members of the military.

According to him several investigations have concluded by 2016.

“The attorney general sent all the files to the inspector general of police. I told them not to file cases that would be a waste, before getting them scrutinized by other senior lawyers.”

President Sirisena’s intervention has been heavily criticized as illegal by senior human rights lawyers who highlight that the president has no authority to overrule the attorney general (AG).

“The AG is the state prosecutor who has full authority on filing a case,” attorney at law Chandrapala Kumarage told JDS.

“There is no legal procedure that allows external lawyers to re-examine a recommendation by the AG to file a case on a crime investigation.”

Chandrapala Kumarage emphasized that the police chief was also wrong to hand over the files to the president.

“The president is not the prosecuting authority. This is serious.”

At home and abroad, Sri Lankan government leaders claim that the country’s judiciary is independent since it adopted the 19th amendment to the constitution in 2015, which aims to restrict powers of the executive president.

© JDS

Sinhala Newspaper Industry In Turmoil

January 30, 2018

The closing down of the second newspaper in a month on the heels of several other closures, an editorial coup and a stop-start-stop-again of another newspaper has thrown the Sinhala newspaper industry into turmoil.

The ‘Janayugaya’ was shut down prompting the staff to take the matter up in the Labour Tribunal. The newspaper, owned by Arjun Aloysius, the man at the centre of the Central Bank bond scam and handled on his behalf by Thushara Gooneratne and Upul Joseph Fernando ran into financial difficulties following Aloysius’ bank accounts being frozen.

Earlier this month the Sunday broadsheet ‘Sathhanda’ was also closed down. The paper, funded by the General Secretary of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and Minister of Agriculture Duminda Dissanayake, also had financial problems with advertising revenue plummeting following rumours that Dissanayake might cross over to the United National Party in the event the SLFP fares poorly at the forthcoming local government elections. Ruwan Ferdinandes, close political associate of Minister of Finance and Media Mangala Samaraweera was also an important figure in this newspaper.

‘Sathhanda’ was headed by well-known political and cultural commentator Deepthi Kumara Gunaratne. According to Sathhanda sources, the paper is likely to be revived later this year with the support of fresh funding sources.

Meanwhile Rivira Newspapers Pvt Ltd., which closed down its English publication, ‘The Nation’ in December and struggled to print the daily Rivira, which didn’t hit the stands on certain days of the week, has stopped printing both the daily and Sunday papers.

 

According to Rivira sources, there has been a change in both the management and the editorial offices. Former CEO, Chula Ratwatte, is back at the helm, indicating that Nilanka Rajapaksha, who held controlling shares in the company has been sidelined. Nayanaka Ranwella and Chandana Kariyawasam, editors of the Sunday and daily newspapers respectively have been removed. They have been replaced by Tissa Ravindra Perera and Ramesh Werellegama.

In another shake-up, former strongman at the Ravaya, the controversial Victor Ivan, has orchestrated a coup to remove K.W. Janaranjana. Wimalanath Weeraratne, the only Ravaya jouranalist who accepted both laptops and interest free one million loans from Mahinda Rajapaksa, returns to the Ravaya this time as Editor following stints at Irudina (also now defunct as is its sister paper in English ‘The Sunday Leader’) and Sathhanda. However, according to sources, he is just a figurehead with Ivan calling the shots.

Read More

As UN Review Sri Lanka - TGTE Submits a Memo Highlighting Continued Persecution of Tamils & Urges UN Monitors Deployed

TGTE Urges UN to Deploy UN Human Rights Monitors to Ensure Tamil’s Safety

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, November 13, 2017 /EINPresswire.com/ --

As the United Nations - Universal Periodic Review (UPR) - begins it's review of Sri Lanka's human rights record, Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE) submitted a memo highlighting continued persecution of Tamils and urge the UN Human Rights Council to deploy UN Human Rights Monitors in Tamil areas to ensure Tamil's safety and to refer Sri Lanka to UN General Assembly, recommending UN Security Council to refer Sri Lanka to International Criminal Court (ICC).

Main points in the Memo are: 

EINPresswire-415343750-as-un-review-sri-lanka-tgte-submits-a-memo-highlighting-continued-persecution-of-tam... by Thavam on Scribd

WELIKADA PRISON MASSACRE: CID TELLS COURT THAT EIGHT SELECTED DETAINEES WERE SHOT DEAD

30/01/2018

The CID notified Colombo Additional Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake yesterday that investigations revealed that Police Inspector Rangajeewa and two others had entered the Welikada Prison ​on ​the night of the incident,dressed in civil clothes,selected a group of prisoners and had taken them to another location.

This was with regard to investigations being conducted on the riots that took place at the Welikada Prison in 2012 during a search for illegal arms wh​ich resulted in the deaths of​ 27 inmates​.

The CID revealed in Court that eight of the detainees had been taken and shot dead, which was a crime according to Paragraph 32 of the Penal Code.

The eight prisoners who were gunned down were ​M​alinda Nilendra alias Malan, Nirmala Atapattu, Moh​a​med Wijaya Rohana alias Gundu Mama, Chintha​​mani ​M​ohottilage Thushara Chandana alias Kalu Thushara, Ponna Kapila alias Andrapulige Jothipala, Harsha Sri Keerthi Perera alias Manju Sri, Ma​a​li Susantha alias Raigamage Susantha Perera and Devamalalage Malith Sameera Perera alias Konda Amila.

The CID told Court that investigations had revealed that based on the evidence of witnesses, after the Army had entered the Welikada prison later that night and brought the situation under control, a group of prisoners had been picked out and later shot.

On November 9,2012 a search operation was launched at the Welikada Prison in search of illegal items by the STF, Prison intelligence and prison guards.

As prisoners started protesting, a riot broke out. On July 18, 2017 investigations were handed over to the CID on the orders of the IGP.

In connection with the incident, the then Western Province Senior DIG Anura Senanayake had arrived at the prison and on the orders of the then Army Commander two armoured vehicles had also been brought to the prison and during this riot 27 inmates had been killed, the CID told Court.

However, they had also revealed in Court that on that night around 12.00 midnight the prisoners had broken the prison armoury and used the weapons to attack the Security Forces. In the exchange of gun fire, two of the prisoners who had tried to escape had been shot by the STF. The two had sustained injuries and upon admission to hospital had died. The two prisoners are Ranaweerapatabendige Leslie and Liyanarachchige Anura. The STF had handed over a T56 firearm and ammunition found at the spot to the Borella Police.

The CID had concluded the investigation and notified the Court that the file was sent to the AG. The CID also requested Court permission to submit the weapons and ammunition taken into custody to the Government Analyst and call for a report.

Taking into consideration the evidence presented before him, the Magistrate ordered ​that ​the weapons be sent to the Government Analyst and called for a report​ on the matter. ​

Siranjanee Kumari​ / DN

Alcohol Ban and Feminist Conundrums

By Faizer Shaheid-2018-01-30

The recent move to revoke Excise Notification No. 02/2018, under the Excise Ordinance, has sparked quite a conundrum in respect of the human rights law in the country. The strong human rights movement has been up in arms following the botch and has strongly criticised President Maithripala Sirisena for it. However, there have been various angles to this debate each of which have emanated from the masses.

As a backdrop, it is worthwhile considering that President Sirisena has done a world of good to the women of this country together with Minister of Provincial Councils and Local Government, Faiszer Musthapha, by allocating a 25% mandatory quota for women in the Local Government Elections. While this collective good has been largely disregarded by the feminist movement, the reinstatement of the alcohol ban has sparked outrage.

The quota system and collective good

Fielding women at the Local Government Election will enhance the voice of women nationally and help women raise their voices through the democratic process. Perhaps the results may not be witnessed immediately, but in the long run, their struggles will have national leaders at the helm to champion their cause.

Women constitute 52% of the Sri Lankan population, and yet they have been underrepresented at national, provincial, and local government levels. A total of 60 women have managed to enter Parliament since universal franchise was introduced. An explicitly under whelming figure indeed.

The Mahinda Rajapaksa Government attempted to rectify this by enacting Local Authorities Election (Amendment) Act, No. 22 of 2012. The legislation used the word 'may' in its attempt to guarantee 25% quota for women and youth.

The incumbent government introduced further amendments, not only to make the 25% quota mandatory, but sought to ensure that all loopholes were covered.

The quota system has been met with outrage too, although conveniently dismissed by the feminist movement. The arguments against the quota system are based on the right of equality too, the 'equality of opportunity' to be precise. The concept of equality of opportunity requires that each person nominated as a candidate must be formally open and allocated through meritocratic ideals.

However, a quota system would mean that unworthy candidates may be fielded while deserving candidates may be left out.

The most common question heard in respect of the quota system has been, "Why vote for women, when 52% of women do not vote for women?"

The other issue concerns the future. If and when a day comes where women outperform men at a given election, there will be no provision in law to guarantee a mandatory representation of men at an election. Kenya has enforced the quota system through its law with due consideration of these questions. What Kenya possesses is a provision in the Constitution which has been popularly referred to as the 'gender principle.' Under this quota system, the majority gender in Parliament can be no more than two-thirds of Parliament. Sri Lanka should have considered Kenya's example so as to prevent the principle of equality.

The issues are valid indeed. However, the feminist movement has remained strangely mum in respect of these questions. They remain silent, unable to find an answer, and yet choose to absorb the wholesome benefit they derive from it.

The alcohol ban

The revocation of the Excise Notification has acquired far more publicity than the far more important electoral quota system. It has received a plethora of conjectures and even managed to conceal the Bond Scam Report.

A popular social media activist had posed the question, why raise such tantrums for alcohol? Many had suggested that it would have been more meaningful to ban alcohol as a whole. However, banning alcohol would have been bad for business, and even worse for tourism. The alcohol industry has lured many tourists who would bask in the golden sunshine and drown in the holiness of the enchanting bottle.

The law is indeed discriminatory without a doubt. It was a result of an Excise Notification which precedes the Constitution, but had never been enforced strictly. Not many were aware of these prohibitions until Minister of Finance and Mass Media, Mangala Samaraweera sought to rectify the discrepancies that existed. This happened on 10 January this year.

The new Excise Notification removed the ban on the sale of liquor 'within the premises of a tavern.' The Oxford Dictionary defines a 'tavern' as 'an establishment for the sale of beer and other drinks to be consumed on the premises, sometimes also serving food.' Other definitions are of similar nature. Therefore, the prohibition does not cover places that do not constitute a tavern.

However, only six days following Excise Notification No. 02/2018, the Cabinet of Ministers decided to revoke it and once again enforce the ban that existed prior to the Excise Notification.

The standing of the Cabinet decision

The Cabinet decision has been up for debate, with many persons calling it unconstitutional. Eleven women filed a Fundamental Rights Petition in the Supreme Court on the grounds of equality. Article 126 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any case relating to fundamental rights in respect of executive or administrative action.

While a lot is left for the Supreme Court to determine, it is in my humble opinion that the case is likely to succeed.

The position prior to the 10 January Excise Notification was valid in law as it preceded the Constitution of 1978. Article 16 permits all written laws that were enforced prior to the Constitution to continue as law regardless of any discriminatory provisions.However, any subsequent bill can be challenged in the Supreme Court up to one week after publishing in the Order Paper according to Article 121 (1) of the Constitution.

The revocation could not be contested under Article 121, as an Excise Notification is not a bill that is presented in the Order Paper.

However, the issuance of Excise Notifications is the responsibility of those in Government. Each member of the Cabinet of Ministers falls under the Executive Wing. Therefore, the issuance of the Excise Notification and revocation of it form part of the responsibilities of the Executive.

Being so, the Excise Notification issued on 10 January had amended the previous position making it current. Therefore, any revocation on the basis of returning to the previous position can be construed as being in the form of fresh executive action. Hence, the revocation can be subjected to a fundamental rights review.

The problem however, is whether nullifying the Excise Notification does indeed constitute an executive action violating the fundamental rights. To be clearer, there does not appear to be any action on the part of the executive, except to nullify the Excise Notification which would then expose people to a pre-existing Excise Notification.

It is therefore left to the Supreme Court to determine whether the nullification of an Excise Notification is to be construed as a fresh amendment.

The equality principle

While the argument of most feminists in respect of this case has been on the grounds of equality, the issue is only trivial when compared to many others. Feminists have tried to project the issue as an issue of prohibition of women to purchase a commodity. Even drugs are commodities, yet they remain prohibited. Alcohol remains a commodity, just like cigarettes, which possess attributes that are harmful to human health.

Feminists have raised the issue as one that affects the right to equality. The right to equality according to Article 12 (4) of the Constitution suggests that all persons are equal before the law and that no discrimination shall be inflicted on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth, or any similar grounds.

Article 12 (4) goes on to state that the right to equality cannot prevent any law, subordinate legislation or executive action for the advancement of women, children and disabled persons. This exception can be invoked by the government as a defence should it choose to. President Sirisena has already spoken about the harmful elements should women be permitted to purchase alcohol.

Regardless of how justifiable or ridiculous he may have sounded, the exception is valid in this situation.

A lot remains for the Supreme Court to consider and determine. The Supreme Court determination may also prove to be a landmark judgement in respect of the interpretation of Article 12 (4) of the Constitution. It will have to weigh the odds and issue its verdict within the span of two months as required by Article 126 (5).

Conclusion

Discriminatory practices are abundant, whether it is in government or in day to day life. Gender based discrimination is as serious as class based discrimination and discrimination on every other ground. However, feminists have had a strong voice echoing from every corner. The problem, however, arises when feminists only try to project their voice for trivial and negligible matters such as this alcohol ban. Even if the ban persists, it will only affect those consuming in a tavern. Even still, the Supreme Court has plenty to determine in respect of this case.

Feminists in Sri Lanka have in general ignored their male counterparts when considering the right of equality. They have conveniently chosen to ignore how the laws on rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence have been drafted in favour of women, while ignoring some of the predicaments faced by men. This is understandable, because feminism advocates only women's rights and not necessarily the right of equality. However, raising trivial matters while undermining the more important matters such as the quota system for women raises the question whether feminism is heading in the right direction.

The writer is a Political Analyst and an independent researcher of laws. He holds a postgraduate degree in the field of Human Rights and Democratization from the University of Colombo and an undergraduate degree in Law from the University of Northumbria, United Kingdom.
(faizer@live.com)

Bond Scam Report President’s trump card against UNP? But did he act prematurely?

  

“Being deceitful gets you nowhere and telling half-truths will always backfire on you! Be careful who you hurt, it could ruin your life.”
 ~ Quotes and Thoughts

---

• Sirisena may have committed a political blunder that might entail more severe consequences to himself and his party
•  UNP, the political party that was principally responsible for his victory in 2015
• MR made monumental blunder by opting to hold Presidential polls before it was due
• Though DS, Dudley born to wealth, local elite class, emerged as selfless political leaders

---

2018-01-31

The Bond-scam Report is the trump card any politician would like to have against his opponents. In a wildly chaotic political scenario, the Bond-scam Report was released by its authors, not to the public or Parliament, but to President Maithripala Sirisena. In rushing to make political capital out of a financial scam of severe consequence to his own government, Sirisena may have committed a political blunder that might entail more severe consequences to himself and his party, Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP). If it is true, the answer to that question requires careful consideration.
President Sirisena, after receiving the so-called Bond-scam report from the Presidential Inquiry team, decided to make a statement relating to the findings of the Report, without any assistance from the lawyers who would have advised him to be more careful when attempting to gain any advantage over his coalition partner, United National Party (UNP), the political party that was principally responsible for his victory in 2015. However, he may have been advised by some lawyers whose primary aim was to create a political turmoil instead of making amends to bring about a harmonious coexistence between the UNP and SLFP.

Playing politics with a report that could have political consequences is the prerogative of the party that is billed to gain such advantages. Yet, one has to go beyond the local government elections in which context these moves and countermoves are being contemplated and extended towards a satisfactory conclusion. Any politician who plays ‘Politricks’ with an explosive issue after coming to power, especially against the backdrop of a coalition-governing structure, does it at the risk of losing credibility in the long-term footings. Whatever the substance of a Report that has been the outcome of a Special Presidential Inquiry, addressing publicly on an un-debated part or the whole of the said Report by any political leader who happens to be the person who has exclusive access to the Report, is not fair nor is it wise. The parliamentarians of the UNP, including the Prime Minister, who were not informed of this public statement by President Sirisena, might feel quite hopeless and doomed about this. That is the crucial blunder that the President may have committed, if he has done so. 

However, the veracity of the assumption that what President committed was, in fact, a blunder, can be confirmed or denied, only in the event the SLFP and its contestants do well at the forthcoming local government elections. Many blunders have been committed by even great leaders. Mahinda Rajapaksa, albeit he does not belong to the ‘great leaders’ category, made a monumental blunder by opting to hold Presidential Election before it was due. Expressing his views, before the Bond-scam Report was released to Parliament, falls into the classification of ‘jumping the gun’. Political moves and countermoves are, more often than not, made on instincts of leaders whose allegiance to power they hold overshadows long-term effects of such decisions. The clever ones make calculated decisions which would have either suppressing effects on the people under whose name those decisions are purported to be made or benefiting results on both the country at large and its leaders. 
Such clever ones, Sri Lanka had. Among them DS Senanayake and Dudley Senanayake loom large. Bother these leaders; father and son; though born to wealth and the local elite class, emerged as selfless political leaders who made timely decisions without any concern or care for personal loss or gain. If their badge was class and dignity, their inner craving was service of their people. Never resorting to using political power to enrich themselves and abuse it to punish their rivals, they made decisions of policy and programs, whether considered right or wrong by their peers, to suit the needs of the hour. Both believed in capitalistic economic structures and philosophies that had a human face and social justice. Some of their programs may have failed in the face of mighty opposition launched by their respective opposition gangs at the time, but never could any person point a finger of corruption and personal degeneracy as is manifestly visible in most of the politicians of today.

The difference between the father DS and son Dudley was, whereas DS could read the pulse of the people fairly well, Dudley was woefully deficient in that art and craft. The only other leader who could be mentioned with DS and Dudley is another leader of the UNP, JR Jayewardene. JR had a scientific approach to politics. His mastery of mathematical calculations in politics, sometimes, dictated his policy and philosophy. A greater student of history than DS and Dudley, JR made his political calculations with the patience of a crafty tiger approaching a kill of an unprepared antelope. But when it came to reading the pulse of the people, especially the most underprivileged class, none could match R. Premadasa, as his world was different. However, his elemental desire to serve the déclassé was overpowered by an avaricious need for permanency in power - an unforgiving creed of all narcissistic authoritarians.

Against such a disjointed yet tradition-rich backdrop of historical facts, Ranil Wickremasinghe, the leader of the UNP which was earlier led by DS, Dudley, JR and Premadasa, is confronted with a dilemma. How can he respond to the public criticisms by his own President, who is in power mainly because more than 80% of the votes were delivered by his party, the UNP. Observation of aloofness and decorum at this juncture is very much in need. Post-independence history reveals that all coalition governments suffer splits in three to four years. SWRD Bandaranaike’s Mahajana Eksath Peramuna regime, UNP/FP (Federal Party) government, Sirimavo-led coalition in the mid-70s, all had no more than a shelf-life of four years. It is the nature of political dynamics. 

The marriage between Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremasinghe ended up in an uncomfortable living-together between the two most dominating political entities in modern Sri Lanka. UNP and SLFP are the two ultimate rivals in today’s political show-ground. While the UNP had been out of power since 1994, the SLFP has been in the unenviable status being in power, barring a short time in between 2001 to 2003, ever since, if one considers them to be an equal partner in the current government.

The average UNP supporter would estimate and gauge the intent and motivation behind the public utterances of the President only in that light. That again is the reason why I posed the question at the very outset of this column whether Maithripala Sirisena used his trump card in this game of political bargaining too soon. The UNP and its Ministers, in this short run of three years may have committed many a mistake; they may have been deficient in transparency and accountability which elements of government President Sirisena wants established and sustained. But the criminal corruption committed by the Rajapaksa regime is far too wide and more deplorable.

Nevertheless, such lofty ideals and ideas like transparency and accountability may not have penetrated into the thinking and response of the average UNP supporter/voter. Rotting away in the Opposition benches for twenty long years is a good enough reason for them to safeguard the electoral gains they made both in Presidential and Parliament Elections in 2015. That alone is good enough to drive them to the polling booth on February 10, 2018. On the other hand the voter fatigue would set in against the SLFP which has been in power for more than two decades. All these elements would have their own inner propensities to lead a fairly manageable situation into a chaotic crisis. 

If the current impasse reaches a critical mass, breaking down of a carefully put-together coalition is inevitable. Many a politician might end up without portfolios and new faces would replace them. A crisis of unmanageable proportion is no alternative to an inscrutable convergence of political parties which hold diametrically opposite views. However unstable, the present coalition should not be bartered for vitriol of short-term value. When the pillars fall, the structure and its roof would collapse in no time. That won’t leave any room or time for anyone, big or small, right or wrong or good or bad to escape. The collapsing pile will bury whatever is underneath it. That is the unkind truth about coalition governments. After the collapse of each coalition-government, the Opposition came to power. In 1960, 1970 and in 1977 it happened. History doesn’t tell lies. It only reveals them. We all will have to turn our searchlights inwards. 

In ‘The Discovery of India’, Nehru writes thus: “A civilization decays much more from inner failure than from external attack. It may fail because in a sense it has worked itself out and has nothing more to offer…”My earnest wish is that the current coalition government has not reached that frontier.

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com 

Hold debate on two commission reports before 7th – JVP

January 30, 2018 by

“We ask the debate on the two Commission reports should be held before 7th February. We are not concerned about President’s thug talks. He could use his executive power to convene the Parliament. The President had convened Parliament using his executive powers during the Meethotamulla catastrophe even when the Prime Minister was not in the country at the time. As such, we propose to the President to convene the Parliament without making bogus challenges.

People should be made aware of the things in the reports. There wouldn’t be enough time for these matters to go to the people if the debate is held on the 8th and the 9th. The debate should be held before the 7th so that people could know what’s in the report,” said the Information Secretary of the JVP Vijitha Herath speaking at a press conference held at the head office of the JVP at Pelawatta yesterday (29th).

He said, “The reports on the bond commission and the Presidential Commission to Inquire and Investigate into Serious Acts of Fraud and Corruption (PRECIFAC) were presented to Parliament on the 23rd. We asked for a debate on the two reports. Other parties in the opposition too asked for a debate. At the party leaders meeting held on the 22nd, we said the debate should be held before 10th February. However, Lakshman Kiriella rejected it. At the party leaders’ meeting held on the 24th, we again called for a debate on both reports. However, the government rejected having the debate before 10th February. When Lakshman Kiriella rejected having the debates before the 10th Ministers Mahinda Samarasinghe and Nimal Siripala de Silva were present. Meanwhile, the President challenged to have the debate on the bond report before the 10th. The President further emphasized that the thefts of the gang of robbers should be exposed. We wrote to the Speaker again based on this statement of the President requesting for a party leaders’ meeting to decide on the debate.

Later, the government had stated the 8th and 9th would be assigned to the debate. However, the Commissioner of elections has said if the debate is held on those two days the election will have to be postponed. He has said publishing the reports on the debate by the media would have an impact on the election. We, of the JVP, as the opposition, ask that the debate should be held before 7th February.

We are not concerned about President’s thug talks. He could use his executive power to convene the Parliament. The President had convened Parliament using his executive powers during the Meethotamulla catastrophe even when the Prime Minister was not in the country at the time. As such, we propose to the President to convene the Parliament without making bogus challenges.

He could use his executive powers to convene the parliament. People should be made aware of the things in the reports. There wouldn’t be enough time for these matters to go to the people if the debate is held on the 8th and the 9th. The debate should be held before the 7th so that people could know what’s in the report.

There are 946 pages in the bond commission report. There are 206 annexures. The total number of pages is 1152. The President in his special statement said there were 1257 pages. There is a difference of more than 100 pages in the one the President talked about in his special statement and the one that was presented to Parliament. We have questioned regarding this. The Speaker said according to the explanations of the Attorney General and Presidential Secretariat there is no difference in the number of pages. As such we proposed to summon the Secretary to the President to Parliament to get an explanation. However, the President has invited party leaders today (29th) at 9.00 a.m. to discuss regarding this. There is nothing to discuss. If there is a difference in the number of pages the President should explain it to the people. If there is a mistake it should be corrected. If the pages in the reports have been placed apart for legal purposes the people should know it.

Another report as important as the bond commission report has been handed over to the President recently. It is the report of the Presidential Commission to Inquire and Investigate into Serious Acts of Fraud and Corruption (PRECIFAC). It includes investigation reports of 34 incidents. Most of these reports are on investigations that had been completed in 2016. An immediate inquiry should be carried out on them. For the report of PRECIFAC too is equal in size and weight as the bond commission report. Both these groups are thieves. An immediate debate too should be held. These 34 reports should not be allowed to be covered up by the bond commission report. There are also many investigations carried out by the FCID and the Bribery Commission. These inquiries too should be completed. However, all inquiries have been halted.

The individuals connected with the incidents relevant to PRECIFAC are with the President. There is an investigation report on former Minister of Fisheries Rajitha Senaratna. It was handed over to the President in October 2015. The investigation report against Anura Vidanegama regarding lands in Mahiyanganaya was handed over to the President in April 2016. He is now the Mahiyangana organizer for the President’s party. The report on illegal propaganda activities of Mahinda Rajapaksa during the presidential election was handed over to the President on 28th April 2016. The investigation report on Chilaw – Kurunegala Plantation Company was handed over in August 2016. Jagath Pushpakumara responsible for this crime is with the President at present. The report on Rakna Lanka was handed over on 1st September 2016. The investigation report on former Chief Minister S.M. Ranjith was handed over on 27th October 2006. The report on Coconut Research Institute at Lunuwila was handed over in 2016.

The report on Srilankan Airlines Catering Service was handed over in October 2017. Then Minister was Priyankara Jayaratna. The President is talking about appointing a new commission when already matters have been revealed. The report on the Transport Commission was handed over in January 2017. The report on frauds and corruption by former Minister Basil Rajapaksa was handed over in June 2017. The report on the ‘Karadiya Mangalya’ in Hambanthota was given to the President in 2016.

The loss to the Fisheries Corporation is about Rs. 90 million. The loss to ITN is Rs.235 million. The loss to Chilaw Plantation Company and employees of Rakna Lankadeploying for the presidential election campaign is Rs. 700 million. The loss at SriLankan Catering Company is Rs. 30 million. The loss at National Rupavahini Corporation due to using it for Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa’s election propaganda is Rs. 375 million. The loss due to illegal dealings in the National Youth Services Council is Rs. 20 million. Those who were involved in these illegal dealings are with Maithri group as well. Indika Nalin Jayawickreme who stole from the funds allocated to build latrines for ‘Dayata Kirula’ exhibition at Ampara is a candidate from Mr Maithripala Sirisena’s faction. Among the accused are Wimal Weerawansa, Jayantha Samaraweera, Mohammed Mussamil, Piyasiri Wijenayaka, Priyanka Jayaratna, Padma Udaya Shantha. Some of them are with Mr Maithripala Sirisena.

When Mr Basil Rajapaksa was the Minister he had used 11 vehicles in addition to the 3 official vehicles. The total number of vehicles is 14. In addition to 7 VIP security personnel, he had 64 from the Navy and 84 from the army for his security. It was also revealed that female naval officers were deployed to fix the saree for Basil’s wife. Investigations should be carried out regarding these crimes. The Speaker said the annexure of the Presidential Commission reports has to be carried in a wheelbarrow.

The investigations regarding findings of both these Commissions should be expedited. What we said about both these groups being rogues is correct. As such, a Parliamentary debate is necessary regarding both these reports. The things about both these reports could be revealed only in such a debate. We ask the President to wield his sword instead of coming out with empty talk. If Mahinda and Maithri factions combined these facts would not come to light. No decisions were taken despite the reports had been handed over a long time ago as they expected to join forces. The President did not punish the thieves with the whip nor will he cut with his sword.


Meanwhile, the President has told at a meeting that he could form an SLFP government if 52 MPs in the opposition would support him. The President talks about forming a government with rogues. While shouting that those in the joint opposition are rogues he talks about forming a government with them. Those who should be punished are invited to form a government. Even today he has formed a government with rogues and he invites rogues to form another government. This President’s thug talk is only during an election. This process of thieves getting together to form government should be changed. Both these gangs of robbers should be defeated at once at the forthcoming election. The responsibility of doing it is with the people.”

SriLankan Airlines: ‘Bugger Off’ Gracefully Or Be ‘Sacked’ – Director Board To Decide CEO Ratwatte’s Fate

January 30, 2018

SriLankan Airlines CEO Suren Ratwatte who is currently holidaying in Melbourne Australia is to tender his resignation before the 2nd of February 2018, Colombo Telegraph reliably learns.

Earlier when the Board of Directors of SriLankan Airlines had convened on the 25th of January 2018, they had unanimously agreed that the services of CEO Ratwatte should be terminated. Their decision had been conveyed to CEO Ratwatte and he was verbally asked to resign last week.

However instead of informing of his decision CEO Ratwatte took wing to Melbourne Australia.
The Board of Directors who are scheduled to meet once again on the 2nd of February 2018 will now decide on an exit package which they will implement by the end of February 2018, if in the event CEO Ratwatte does not tender his resignation.

 

Colombo Telegraph reliably learns that if CEO Ratwatte does not resign, he will be sacked.
Ratwatte is the brother of Charitha Ratwatte a close confidante and current advisor to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe

The Sunday Times newspaper in its headlined article titled “SriLankan Board votes to sack CEO Ratwatte” published on 28th January 2018 went on to state “However, the Sunday Times learns that Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has said that a ‘caretaker board of directors’ had no power to take such action. He said the removal of the CEO would be a matter for the Minister in charge of the airline, Kabir Hashim to decide. There was also a Ministerial Committee and a separate Restructuring Committee of the airline that needed to be consulted”.

Sources close to the Prime Minister’s office when contacted said “The above statement published in the Sunday Times is incorrect. The Board of Directors has every right to sack the CEO of SriLankan Airlines. This is not a ‘caretaker’ Board of Directors, but a fully-fledged Board appointed over two years ago. They have every right to decide whats good for the airline”.

A very close associate of Chairman Ajith Dias speaking to Colombo Telegraph said “The Board of Directors has decided to give Suren Ratwatte the opportunity of resigning. This is the noble way of asking him to serve his three month notice period prior to departing. He would then stand to be paid his wages during his notice period which would be approximately Rs 9 million. He also has the opportunity then to seek employment elsewhere. If in the event he is terminated it does not look too good for him. After all he made a decision to leave behind a very lucrative package at Emirates Airline where he was flying the A380 as a Captain and opt for a lower wage when joining the national carrier”.

 

Meanwhile last December, employees of the national carrier had begun to despise the presence of CEO Ratwatte in office.

The airline’s Alliance of Unions that represents every employee sent in a letter to the Board of Directors and copied President Maithripala Sirisena and Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe seeking his removal. This was after employees began to lose faith and trust in his competence, decision making abilities and and most of all his abuse of power.

Read More

How to crash an airline – slaughter and slaying of SriLankan

Wednesday, 31 January 2018

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a major issue at hand. We’ve lost power in both of our engines and are on free fall. Keep your seat-belt fastened and brace for impact.”

It’s not just SriLankan Airlines that’s in the red requiring immediate resuscitation but the nation’s economy as well. It should have reached the stars after the battle was won in 2009. It seems God did not confer such great blessings on Mother Lanka. Or were the citizens just cheated, deceived and taken on a huge ride where billions if not trillions of rupees just got evaporated?

Anyway, the nation is in a dilemma, exponentially increasing issues. They seem to cascade. Only responses are meaningless rhetoric, characteristic hyperbole and downright balderdash. The jolly citizen Silva from the island paradise shrieks “ohama yang, ohama yang”.

It’s outrageously ironical that at a time when the global airline industry continues to grow with projected global revenues expected to exceed a trillion dollars our own “cash cow” with all her inherently radiant beauty, dazzling features and great attributes as a unique marketable product remains calamitously struck, wantonly abused, egregiously misused and the entity converted to cacophonous bagnio. SriLankan Airlines has become a notorious synonym for blatant nepotism and a hot place for political “droppings” of all hues.

Reminiscent of a typical village setting in South India where invitees preparing for a social event in the city hire a bus and load all and sundry for the journey. Some even bring poultry, others dare with the four-legged. This is exactly how the National Airline has turned out to be. Treated and managed especially by the previous regime in the most despicable manner. Obscene salaries disproportionate to performance. Hiring and firing of CEOs analogous to changing of undergarments, not to mention political rewards for party loyalists courtesy of SriLankan Airlines.

Then there is the ugly spectacle of the Emirates-appointed Chief Executive of SriLankan Airlines Peter Hill. He had his work permit revoked following a dispute with the former Sri Lankan President. It all started when Hill refused to bump 35 passengers from a full London-Colombo flight to make way for Sri Lanka’s President and his jumbo entourage. The rest is history.

The disreputable panderers to make the rotting more interesting increased the number of birds and created another brand, another airline. Filled it with sybarites and profligates to advance its decrepitude and moribundity. Politically-connected septuagenarians, paramours of VIPs, female acolytes of youth-wing political parties and general loafing factotums found unhindered refuge in the bordello. If this was not enough, flights were diverted to pick up friends of politicians and VIPs. Surely the canine species too got royal treatment from the airline. Its signature ‘You’re our world’ was indeed inclusive and expansive. The debilitating scourge well lubricated with taxpayer’s funds.

Doomed to crash

 SriLankan Airlines, the flag carrier of Sri Lanka and a member of the oneworld alliance, was doomed to crash from the very inception. Launched in 1979 as Air Lanka, successors to the original Sri Lankan Flag carrier Air Ceylon, it never actually took off due to politics and politicians of “Aasikland” – a rare breed indeed. She just kept plummeting to earth, only supported by timely interventions to prolong the inevitable.

Following acquisition in 1998 by Emirates hopes were re-ignited. A re-branded jet flying low over Colombo Galle Face was really something. I remember that day quite vividly. Like a kid watched the aircraft pass me. Its livery emboldening, partnership solid. It was heart soothing.

As a hard-core marketer and a firm believer in its business philosophy I thought the worst was certainly over for the airline. How woefully wrong was I?

Intoxicated with power and exuding disdain and heedlessness, the previous regime didn’t care two hoots. It had to do what it had to do. A treasure trove converted to a s**t-hole – to borrow a term from the “great” Donald Trump. It’s no surprise why the earlier tagline – ‘Taste of Paradise’ – had to go. A little bird whispers that dwellers of paradise had disowned the airline and kept a distance whenever the “dhandu monara” got closer, “Appachhia ganda” seemed to have been the stentorian exclamation.

The airline business

The airline business is not transportation business, certainly not. Such optics are inherently detrimental and constitutes a gnawing myopia. It’s service, hospitality and more importantly experience. The accent is on how to evolve and efficiently manage the evolution. Every member of the airline fraternity strives to out beat the other by providing a pleasant and outstanding experience and being rewarded with higher customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Success is not overnight. It takes years of hard work, commitment and tenacity. This is why the management needs support from governments and not unsolicited interventions. They are a drain on precious and scarce resources. If the complex business mantra of managing an airline is easily replicable, tomorrow Zimbabwe could purchase an Airbus 380 superjumbo and catapult itself to a number one position.

That’s not how it works. It starts with a brand that’s strategically developed. It does not work in a lacuna but in relation to competition and in a clearly identified space. In this regard what Sri Lanka has in terms of product attributes is far superior to either Singapore, Dubai or Qatar but thanks to our politicians we lost it all and maybe lost it for good.

Brand identity

A brand is a complex amalgam. It represents meaning through a process of multi-dimensional action. Main function of a brand is to create distinction and clarity in an extremely busy marketplace. One should be able to differentiate the offering clearly from the competition. The manifestation of the brand must resonate well with the target audience. A beating drum that pulses through how you and your employees make decisions, interact with one another, and deliver on your promise.

This brand identity must be cleverly, persuasively and decisively communicated and customer/s must see reciprocal consonance not dissonance. Your brand is not one but all of the above, working together constantly to form a cohesive whole. It’s much more than swapping out the logo on the homepage. ‘Marketing from the Inside Out’ means thinking strategically and holistically about identity and purpose.

Take the iconic Singapore Airlines (SIA) and its long and enduring journey. Training, training and training takes a service to real tangible heights. This is the success of SIA. This is the core – the service, not easily replicated. Service levels are so highly systematised at SIA it tells its male and female cabin crew and airport staff how to cut their hair, what color makeup to wear, how many teeth to show in a smile, when not to smile, how to make even the plebeians in economy feel like they are getting great personal service, etc. This is what is known as going to the length, breadth and depth of an ecosystem.

Also SIA prides itself in the advantage of a politics-free top management. SriLankan Airlines can learn a lot from this. Service that is unparalleled, whether cabin crew or ground staff. Flights rarely delayed. The refresh paper towel is unique, its redolence patented.

Good food and with choice, importance to local menus and cuisine. Choice of international brand of beverages. SIA maintains a young fleet and works with close coordination with the Singapore Tourism Board in attracting millions of tourists.

In 2016 the Emirates Group announced its 28th consecutive year of profit and steady business expansion. The Dubai-based aviation group ended the financial year (to 31 March 2016) with record profits of $2.2 billion up 50% year on year, despite global economic and political challenges. Emirates Airline’s total passenger and cargo capacity reached 56.4 billion ATKMs (Available Ton Kilometres), cementing its position as the world’s largest international airline.

Even India which opened its economy long after Sri Lanka did has put its house in order vis-à-vis the airline industry. Post liberalisation has paid dividend after the initial correction. Deregulation seem to be working.

“It’s your captain again we’ve managed to get power in one of our engines but instead of proceeding to Colombo we’re diverting the flight to Mumbai to pick up a cat for a VVIP. Enjoy our traditional hospitality in the meantime.”

Funds spent for Rajapaksa memorial not indicated in annual reports

DA Rajapaksa Foundation Owes SLRDC Rs 47 Million For Rajapaksa Memorial

 

Camelia Nathaniel-Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Investigations have revealed that the funds spent for the construction of the D.A. Rajapaksa Memorial and Museum by the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation & Development Corporation (SLLRDC) was not indicated in the 2013, 2014 and 2015 annual reports of the Rajapaksa Memorial, Educational, Cultural and Social Services Foundation as current liabilities.

This was revealed in the evidence of the Land Reclamation and Development Corporation Deputy General Manager (Finance) J.A. Pushpakumara, based on the advice of the Attorney General on whether the funds spent on the construction of the D.A.Rajapaksa Memorial and Museum was indicated in the Land Reclamation and Development Corporation annual reports of 2013, 2014 and 2015.

The reason that the funds spent were not indicated in the records was that according to the Board Paper No. HSD-3714 submitted by the then Land Reclamation and Development Corporation Chairman Harshan de Silva, to the Board of Directors dated February 21, 2014, the Board of Directors had agreed to recover the funds spent on the construction of the D.A. Rajapaksa Memorial and Museum through staging of musical shows and other events, it was revealed.

Hence, based on that decision, no specific person or organisation was named for the recovery of the funds spent, and according to the annual reports of 2014 and 2015 of the Land Reclamation and Development Corporation it is indicated as sales expenditure and not indicated as a sum owed to the company, Pushpakumara’s statement revealed.

It was also revealed that the said Board Paper had been approved by the then Board of Directors of the Land Reclamation and Development Corporation and its former Chairman Liyana Arachchige Prasad Harshan de Silva, Gamaethiralalage Badra Undulawathie Kamaladasa, Sudammika Kevinda Attigala, Saman Kumara Abraham Galapatti and Murukku Devage Mahinda Saliya.

Meanwhile, at the time the Land Reclamation and Development Corporation was under the Urban Development Authority and prior to implementation of decisions taken by the director board, it was required to obtain the approval of the Defence Secretary. Accordingly, as per the order of Circular No. MOD/SEC/PA/01/[115], a concise report of the decision taken by the Land Reclamation and Development Corporation board of directors of board paper no. HSD-3714, was handed over to the then Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

His signature on the said document is proof that he had seen the concise report and had deliberately granted approval knowing very well that it was a construction based on his family’s private needs.

However, although it was determined to recover the monies spent on the D.A. Rajapaksa memorial by staging fund raising events, there was no proper plan or mechanism for the recovery of these funds.

On August 04, 2015 subsequent to a request made by the Land Reclamation and Development Corporation General Manager Mallika Senadgeera, a part payment of Rs. 25 million was paid, it was revealed. But by that time the FCID had already commenced investigations and initiated legal action.

It was also revealed that the Rajapaksa Memorial, Educational, Cultural and Social Services Foundation which was established under Parliament Act No.23 of 1998 with the intention of carrying out social service activities.

Its Chairman was MP Chamal Rajapaksa, Deputy Chairmen former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and D.E.W. Gunasekara, Secretary Uthpalawarna Wijesinghe, Treasurer Lalith Chandradasa and other members were Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and several others. Although it was investigated as to whether the Rajapakse Memorial, Educational, Cultural and Social Services Foundation had entered into an agreement with the Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, no information was found regarding such an agreement.

Meanwhile, although it is required that this foundation carries out an audit annually, no such audit was carried out. Therefore, the FCID has also commenced an investigation on how the Rajapaksa Memorial, Educational, Cultural and Social Services Foundation had earned money. 

Violence against women in Britain Legal system needs major overhaul

By Emma Batha-2018-01-30

Violence against women and girls is 'endemic' in Britain and the legal system needs a major overhaul in order to protect them, experts said on Tuesday.

A report by the Fawcett Society, a leading women's rights charity, called for misogyny to be made a hate crime and urged tougher laws around sexual harassment, domestic violence, equal pay and employment rights.

It also called for 'up-skirting,' taking photos surreptitiously up women's skirts, to be made an offence.
The charity commissioned a review of sex discrimination laws amid concerns that protections enshrined in European Union law could be eroded or weakened when Britain leaves the bloc.

Retired High Court Judge Laura Cox, who led the review, said they had received "deeply disturbing" evidence of increasing levels of violence, abuse and harassment against women.The report found half of women had suffered sexual harassment at work and nearly two-thirds in a public place. One in five had experienced sexual assault.

It highlighted evidence of a blame culture with 38 per cent of men saying a woman was totally or partially to blame if she was assaulted after going out at night in a short skirt and getting drunk. A third of women agreed.

The report also called for a review on the admissibility of evidence on a victim's sexual history in rape trials.

"What we see is a deeply misogynistic culture where harassment and abuse are endemic and normalised coupled with a legal system that lets women down because in many cases it doesn't provide access to justice," Fawcett Society Chief Executive Sam Smethers said in a statement.

The report also said progress on closing the pay gap had stalled and a lack of transparency prevented women from challenging unequal pay.

The issue was highlighted this month when the BBC's China correspondent Carrie Gracie quit after revealing that she was earning far less than senior male colleagues.

The experts also recommended extending protection from pregnancy discrimination to six months after maternity leave ends, saying many pregnant women and working mothers were being pressured into leaving their jobs.

Lawmaker Maria Miller, who chairs Parliament's Women and Equalities Committee, said the report showed there was still "significant work to be done" on pay, family-friendly working rights and sexual harassment.

She called for "a revolution in the workplace" to ensure fairness for women, men and their families.
The committee recently launched an inquiry into sexual harassment in public places.

Slovenia to recognize Palestinian state next month — TV report

Luxembourg, Ireland, Belgium also reportedly gearing up to follow suit, while French is said to be pushing for EU free trade deal with PA

Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar arrives for an EU summit at the Europa building in Brussels on December 14, 2017 (AP Photo/ Olivier Matthys)

By RAPHAEL AHREN and SUE SURKES-21 January 2018

The moves follow US President Donald Trump’s December recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and plan to move the US Embassy to the city from Tel Aviv.

Trump said his declaration reflected reality on the ground, and was not intended to prejudge any future arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians regarding the disputed city, though he later said it had taken Jerusalem off the table. Welcomed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and leaders across most of the Israeli political spectrum, the move caused an uproar throughout the Muslim world and was panned by the United Nations, the European Union, and many European countries.

US President Donald Trump signing a proclamation that the US government will formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, at the White House in Washington, DC, December 6, 2017. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images via JTA)

Last month, Slovenian Parliament Speaker Milan Brglez told Palestinian Ambassador Salah Abdel-Shafi that Slovenia’s recognition of a Palestinian state was “not in doubt,” but just a question of timing.

Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar said at the time that although all three Slovenian coalition parties had voted in favor of recognition, his country should wait until a group of EU member states decided to act together.

The Slovenian government decided to move ahead on plans to recognize a Palestinian state a week ago, the Channel 10 report said. It said that a vote on recognition was expected to be held by the Slovenian parliament’s foreign affairs committee on January 31, followed by a vote of the full parliament in February.

The Slovenian ambassador in Tel Aviv, Barbara Sušnik, told The Times of Israel that the issue of recognizing Palestinian statehood has been pending in the country’s parliament since 2014, and is only now coming to a vote.

President Reuven Rivlin with the Ambassador of Slovenia, Barbara Susnik, November 2015 (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

She confirmed that the foreign affairs committee will vote on the matter on January 31. If the committee votes in favor of recognizing Palestine, the issue will be brought to a vote in the full plenary of the Parliament.

As opposed to many other Western democracies, it is Slovenia’s legislative branch, not its executive, which has the last word on foreign policy matters such as recognizing states.

Sušnik said it was difficult to predict how the parliamentarians would vote, but hinted that there was a good chance they would seek to assert the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

“The elected representatives of the people will decide the way they decide. It’s their decision,” she said. “For the people of Slovenia, the principle of self-determination of nations is very important, because that is how Slovenia became independent 26 years ago, when we exercised the right to self-determination. All nations have the right to self-determination.”

Sušnik stressed that a possible recognition of Palestine should not be seen as a move hostile to Israel. “We established friendly relations with Israel more than 25 years ago, and we appreciate them a lot,” she said. “We’re committed to good relations with Israel. Our embassy in Tel Aviv was opened in the summer of 1994, right after diplomatic relations were established. Unfortunately, Israel never opened an embassy in Slovenia.”

The Channel 10 report said that Israel’s Foreign Ministry has been trying to recruit Slovenian lawmakers to oppose the move, although expectations are low that the process can be stopped.

According to the report, Luxembourg’s foreign minister called several days ago for a group of European countries to come together and recognize a Palestinian state, and is reportedly trying to convince France to lead the initiative. Ireland’s foreign minister, who recently visited Israel, conveyed at the time that his country was seriously considering recognizing a state of Palestine, the report said. It also named Ireland and Belgium as countries that could soon recognize Palestinian statehood.

Palestinians protest against the US for withholding $65 million from Palestinian aid programs, in front of the UN Relief and Works Agency offices in the Nusseirat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip, January 17, 2018. (AP Photo/Adel Hana)

Channel 10 quoted a senior Israeli official as saying, “Our position is that recognition of a Palestinian state, which is not within the framework of an agreement, harms the chance of achieving peace and even pushes it further away.”

The French newspaper Le Monde, meanwhile, reported on Sunday that France is trying to upgrade the Palestinian Authority’s status at the European Union, stopping short of full recognition of a Palestinian state.

The French are reportedly pushing for an EU free trade agreement with the Palestinians, similar to the one signed with Israel.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to arrive in Brussels on Monday, where he will meet with the foreign ministers of the Union’s 28 countries. The issue of recognition of a Palestinian state is expected to be at the top of the agenda for the talks.

After Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in December, the Palestinian leadership declared Washington could no longer fulfill the historic and central role in the peace process it has held for over two decades.

Last week, the Central Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PCC) — the second-highest decision-making body for Palestinians — ratified that the US had “lost its eligibility to function as a mediator and sponsor of the peace process” until it reverses the Jerusalem decision.

President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas delivers a speech at the European Union Parliament in Brussels on June 23, 2016. (AFP PHOTO / JOHN THYS)

Sweden was the first western European country to recognize Palestine, in October 2014.

In December 2014, in a symbolic move not binding on government policy, French lawmakers voted in favor of recognizing Palestine as a state, following similar moves in Britain and Spain, as European countries tried to restart the stalled Middle East peace process. Italy followed suit in 2015.