Sri Lanka: 70 years after Independence

As a system for choosing leaders, it fares poorly but citizens can remove the really bad ones. This is the most important, maybe even the only real check that citizens have on power.

by Ravi Ratnasabapathy- Feb 2, 2018

( February 2, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Sri Lanka achieved ‘independence’ seventy years ago. What does this mean? What we achieved was self-government – the ability to elect our own rulers; but as a society did we become freer? We are no longer administered by rulers appointed from afar but is the citizenry free?

Representative, constitutional democracy is the best means known for keeping rulers accountable. Contrary to popular belief its real benefit is in removing bad leaders, not in choosing good ones.

To get elected politicians may lie or may make meaningless appeals to emotion, only a handful truly understand the problems or have real intent on solving them. Citizens have to sift truth and assess ability with minimal information. There is no way to know how a politician will perform once elected.

As a system for choosing leaders, it fares poorly but citizens can remove the really bad ones. This is the most important, maybe even the only real check that citizens have on power.

Thus while democracy is an improvement on colonialism, it does have its limits. Power remains in the hands of fallible human beings but at least the bad can be booted out. It is a good way to make a few big decisions-once elected the politician has little concern with the citizen until the next election-but it is best to leave smaller ones in the hands of citizens themselves.

What matters in daily life is personal freedom.

Freedom is about not being limited by in ones actions by threats, coercion or interference of others – specifically, other individuals or institutions, such as government or religious bodies. The only good reason to interfere with people’s freedom is to prevent them doing or threatening actual harm to others.

Freedom is guaranteed by laws that restrain the power to interfere in people’s lives. The role of Government is to uphold the rule of law. As Francisco de Paula Santander (1792-1840), Colombian soldier and statesman said “Weapons have given you independence. Laws will give you freedom”.

Colonial laws

Sri Lanka has no bill of rights and we inherited some colonial laws that intrude into personal freedom.

For example, articles 365 and 365A of the Penal Code are widely considered to criminalise homosexuality and are used to arrest, detain, harass, intimidate, blackmail and shame. The Vagrant’s Ordinance is used to harass, arrest and detain sex-workers, and is also used to criminalise the poor, mentally ill, disabled and other vulnerable people. Abortion is illegal except to save the life of the mother. Half the population, women, are discriminated in the Thesawalami, Kandyan and Muslim laws.

These are questions of morals, customs and ethics, things that concern individual citizens. It is individuals who must tussle with these issues, not the law. In any case the law should apply equally to everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion or language.

We may well detest other people’s morality, religion, political views or lifestyle. We may worry that they are harming their health but these are not valid reasons to interfere in the lives of others. Minors should be protected but consenting adults should be left in peace.

Any regulation should focus on limiting public harm, not protecting morality. Strict laws on drunk driving, prohibition on sale of alcohol to minors or limiting public smoking may make sense but the recent foray of state policy, through punitive taxation and restrictive laws to stop the consumption of alcohol and tobacco is wrong.

There are licenses and taxes that most countries impose but they must be reasonable. The fact that some people disapprove of something is no reason to restrain others. The goal of taxation should be the raising of revenue, not punishment.

It is a fact that individuals disagree on things. What is the interest of one is not necessarily of the other. When one is called to give up some freedom for society what happens in reality is the sacrifice of one set of interests to another, there is no real common interest.

Self interest of politicians, officials

When the state makes laws, a choice will be made over many conflicting sets of interests-a choice in which only one side can win. The process of lawmaking is tainted by the self- interest of politicians, officials and lobbyists. It can lead to minority groups being exploited and their liberties curbed.

Therefore the passing of laws, especially those that curb rights should only be resorted to only when strictly necessary. Calls to curb or ban activities must be viewed sceptically. For example, why is horse racing banned in Sri Lanka? This may not be an important example but the problem is ‘mission-creep’ restrictions start innocuously but then keep expanding.

If freedom is to be restricted it should be up to those who want to do so to show why this is both necessary and sufficiently beneficial to warrant it. Election success does not license the winning majority to treat other people exactly as it chooses.

The philosopher John Locke listed life, liberty and property as basic freedoms: people have a right to live, to do as they please (provided they do not infringe the equal right of others) and to enjoy all that they own.

Locke’s concept of property was not limited to land, he claimed people had property in their own lives, bodies and labour. They deserved to own the things that they had spent personal effort in creating and ownership should be secure under the law.

Sri Lanka’s emergency regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act granted the authorities sweeping powers of search, arrest, and detention, which have led to arbitrary detention, torture, and enforced disappearances. The Government has been widely criticised for abuses against political opponents and innocents, particularly minorities who claim to have been targeted purely on suspicion.

These laws remain even nine years after the end of the war. For at least some, the right to life could be under threat. The right to property has also been under attack.

Land, houses and businesses were expropriated by law. Laws were passed limiting what property citizens could own and how they could use it. For example, land classified as paddy land can only be used for paddy, not other crops or purposes. Restrictions apply to the sale of tea, rubber and coconut land. Never mind that people may no longer want to farm or have other needs, such as housing. The colonials also confiscated land but there is no need to repeat the error.

Land reforms

Whether the exercise even benefited society is doubtful, certainly Sri Lanka never became rich as a result.

Land reforms, ostensibly to help the poor, weakened a fundamental pillar of freedom-the right to hold what we own. Once personal property is no longer sacrosanct a precedent is set for future abuse: witness the complaints of the poor evicted from their homes in Colombo or the plight of some of the displaced in the conflict zone, denied access to their land. Laws enacted to reengineer society for the betterment of the weak have created the conditions for their oppression.

Money, lawfully earned cannot be used as we wish. Exchange Controls, introduced in 1953, later expanded and later partially reversed dictate how we spend our own money. At one time it was impossible to travel abroad, spend on overseas education or buy anything imported unless deemed “essential” by the state. Thankfully some rules have been relaxed but try sending money to relatives overseas (for medical or other reasons) or remit the proceeds of property sales and we face obstacles. Are these trivial issues? Perhaps, but even so why? Colonial Ceylon had no restrictions but independent Sri Lanka does. Problems of mismanagement of finances by the Government translate to restrictions on citizens.

If citizens, even if displaced or poor, feel their rights are infringed they should be able to seek justice through the courts. Few seem to try. The system of justice has corroded. The courts exist and the police exist but are they independent enough to uphold and enforce the law? Can an ordinary person hope to win in court against a politician?

A new regime is in power, when they celebrate independence they must reflect on the state of personal freedom.

The purpose of Government should be to expand freedom, not restrict it.

New constitution

A new constitution can help protect natural justice: enshrine the due process of the legal system, ensure equal treatment; and define a personal sphere into which legislation and officialdom can never intrude.

They must recognise that people’s beliefs, lifestyle or morals vary. There is no common agreement on what is acceptable, unacceptable, tolerable or intolerable. As long as no harm is done to others the state should not intervene in such matters, legislation that permits this should be rolled back.

The independence and integrity of the system of justice must be restored.

The Government intervenes heavily in the economy, its motives driven by corruption and the protection of special interests. They benefit a few to the detriment of the many. Fiscal prudence must be restored and cuts made to the size and scope of Government spending.

This regime was elected on mandate of good governance, so they should use the mandate to restore the personal freedom of the citizenry in all spheres of life

Changing Political Culture From The Bottom Up: Role Of The Middle Class

By Siri Gamage –February 1, 2018

In recent weeks, there has been much talk again about the political culture and the need to reform it if the country is to move forward. A seminar organised recently by a group called Inception of Change (vena saka Arambuma) at Maharagama had this theme as a key point. Bond Commission report or at least excerpts are out in the public domain and there is considerable airtime and media attention drawn into it. Political stages are being erected throughout the country for esteemed politicians of various colours to empty their stomach on routine performances adhering to party lines in front of eager audiences waiting to get a glimpse of their favourite national leaders after they moved to Colombo to act on their behalf. Some get mesmerised by the sight of most modern and luxurious vehicles they travel back to the localities in the backdrop of exploding cracker sounds- the rewards that elected parliamentarians get for their hard work. Some in the audiences get enthused by the loud attacks against those on opposite sides and discourses on righteousness, social justice, human rights, development and progress, anti corruption, how they saved country – even though proving purity on Corruption ground has become increasingly difficult lately. Amidst all these background dramas, noises and political ceremonies, some wonder what really is happening underneath Sri Lanka’s political landscape? 

In my view, it is high time that we reflect on why the country has not been able to generate a progressive political party free from corruption and truly seek to offer service to the people based on altruism rather than self-interest from the middle class that embodies considerable talent, wisdom, foresight, drive and ambition? In this article I offer some thoughts.

Many commentators have recently pointed out the failures of two mainstream political parties over the 70 years since gaining independence and expressed frustration for the lack of a progressive alternative. One reason for adopting such ‘a pessimistic attitude’ is the continuing foreign debt syndrome. Another is the lack of concrete and visible legal action against those who have plundered public coffers during the previous regime and the present one, though the attorney general and other law enforcement agencies contemplate such action, we are told. A third reason is the plight of the common man and woman in terms of cost of living whether they are in urban areas or the countryside. A fourth reason is the lack of credible action on reconciliation and associated matters including the new constitution making. On positive side, peace prevails, freedom of expression is available, extra judicial killings, harassment, and white van disappearances have subsided, and the populist-dictatorial tendency that existed before has declined. However, the promise to do away with the executive Presidential system by the current President seems to be on the back burner.

Commentators are using yahapalanaya or good governance and promises made during last national elections by party leaders as a yardstick to measure current doings and undoings of the national government. For the average Sri Lankan, this is not a problem of this or that democracy, old or new model. For them, it is a matter of how to correct the course on ground practically rather than political theory. Thus it is important to dwell on the composition of middle class and its role in a movement for course correction by way of a new progressive party or some such outfit.

The Middle Class –LMC and UMC

The middle class comprises of two layers or fractions. One is lower middle class (LMC) and the other upper middle class (UMC). Strictly speaking, we could consider JVP and Peratugamee Pakshaya or Frontline party etc. as progressive political parties that seek to improve the conditions of existence for those segments of society that are disempowered by the existing economic, political and social systems. Their political strategy seems to be to work in a bottom up manner. LMC includes workers, peasants, policemen and soldiers, school teachers and clerks without land and other wealth, carpenters, masons, labourers, fishermen etc. Nava Sama Samaja Pakshaya led by Bahu also falls into the category of a progressive party though some question its support for the yahapalanaya government? This is a charge levelled against JVP also.

During Dr. Newton Gunasinghe’s time, there was an Institute for Workers and Peasants to study and promote the welfare of these neglected social strata. Newton was Sri Lanka’s foremost Marxist activist anthropologist who obtained his PhD from the university of Sussex but passed away some decades ago prematurely. Some upper middle class intellectuals who supported the movement led by Rev Sobitha prior to last Presidential elections are supporting the JVP at the Local Government elections. This is a new trend.

Read More

A new Constitution is a sine qua non

2018-02-02

The country has been plagued by a civil conflict for more than three decades and the conflict destroyed the very fabric of Sri Lankan society. Sri Lanka has been a country with a Buddhist majority. The Sinhalese and they were the guardians of Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

Unfortunately, sections of the population are still harping on the constitutional position of Buddhism where the text of the Constitution says that the State must accord highest preference to Buddhism. What is this supposed to mean?

Does it mean the State must allocate more money or uphold Buddhist principles and ethics in its policy toward people? If that is so, then State policy must be in accordance with the four sublime states of Buddhism viz. love and loving kindness (Metta), Compassion (Karuna), sympathetic joy (Mudita) and Equanimity (Upekkha). The million dollar question is are we missing woods for trees here in Sri Lanka with stiff resistance to the constitutional reforms from a section of the population with ultra-nationalistic sentiments.

The people of this country seem to have forgotten the war which had dragged on for nearly three decades. It destroyed our economy and it destroyed the social fabric of our society. One turned against the other and looked at other citizens with suspicion and it brought about a massive destruction both in terms of socioeconomic and cultural diversity of Sri Lanka. We spent massive amounts of money to buy arms and ammunition and had to maintain a huge Army to defend the country and its territorial integrity. The Armed Forces had to make mammoth sacrifices and the country may have lost around 30,000 young men over a period of three decades. The author does not have the official figures, but would imagine so. According to Professor G.L. Peiris, Prabhakaran is responsible for 180,000 deaths. Entire families have been wiped out and thousands have been wounded.

The scale of the conflict is unimaginable and it had a devastating effect on the Tamil population as well. Tamils had to bear the brunt of the war. Bombs were dropped from the air in Colombo by the LTTE Air Wing and it terrified Colombo, and in the Vanni by the Sri Lanka Air Force to crush LTTE fortifications. Thanks to our daring soldiers, terrorism was crushed and now everybody enjoys the peace dividend. Some politicians are claiming credit for war victory for political ends. Are we not supposed to ponder a while as to why the crisis cropped up and what drove the Tamils to take up arms? Are we not going to root out the political issue that had bedevilled the Tamil population and leave room for yet another bloody war? The late Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, who was an architect of the 1972 Constitution, in a speech delivered at Marga Institute in 1986, quoted what Velupillai Prabhakaran had said.

Prabhakaran had stated that the LTTE had to take up arms because the 1972 Republican Constitution had done away with minority rights. There was an express provision in the 1972 Constitution, Section 29 which had given guarantees to minorities that their rights would not be diluted over the rights of the majority. Yet, another Constitution was promulgated soon after President Jayewardene came to power in 1978. He did not devise as revolutionary and democratic a mechanism as had been done by the late Sirimavo Bandaranaike through a Constitutional Assembly. She had sought a mandate to create such a Constitutional Assembly, whereas President Jayewardene chose to make use of his steamroller majority in Parliament, but it did not provide any solution to the problem. As far as the current exercise is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that those who vehemently opposed the presidential system then, have now turned into great defenders of the presidential system which they opposed for political expediency. What sort of political hypocrites has Sri Lanka produced over the years?

New Constitution could resolve ethnic problems

The new Constitution would certainly bring about a new political culture and dispensation in Sri Lanka. One must take a hard and closer look at South African experience, they too were at each other's throats. Blacks and whites were fighting each other and that conflict dragged on for many decades, but what happened at the end, political pragmatism prevailed over petty politics and Mandela and de Klerk struck a deal and as a result of that the guns fell silent. Political sanity got entrenched in the South African society and people realized that violence would not provide answers to their problems, but through intelligent discussions through engagement of all stakeholders. In 1994, South Africans managed to promulgate a new Constitution in which all citizens were guaranteed dignity. The contribution made by Archbishop Tutu, being the Head of the Church, was commendable.

Sri Lanka lost a golden opportunity

The war victory in Sri Lanka in 2009 has been blackened by certain unlawful events which seem to have been perpetrated by a handful of Armed Forces personnel. That has destroyed the good image of Sri Lanka and Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka in one of his newspaper articles, at that time, branded the then government as a "rogue government" and externally the country was known as a "rogue regime." One can conveniently imagine that the adverse media reports were emanating from within and from outside.

These tended to create a certain perception among the international community that Sri Lanka was a lawless country and its Judiciary is unable to uphold the rule of law and dispense justice equitably. The Chief Justice was seen partaking in an Avurudhu Festival and eating Milk Rice at 'Carlton' Residence (the Former President's residence) and it sent the wrong message to overseas audiences. That could very well be the reason the international community kept insisting on having foreign judges to oversee war crimes prosecutions. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission, ideally along the lines of the South African experience, would resolve this problem once and for all. This is the only mechanism to shut foreign interference in our country. A new Constitution would certainly provide a new political dispensation and all communities would then live in dignity and social cohesion could be anticipated. The Former President, Mahinda Rajapaksa had a good chance of turning the country around after the war victory, but he relied heavily on building up his own image and he don a crown.

Unitary and federal form of Constitution

It is unlikely that the government would ever give into a separatist lobby group calling for a federal form of government that would result in conflicts with the Muslim population in the Eastern Province who had demanded for a separate administrative unit.

What the country needs now is extensive devolution of power and Sri Lanka must remain a Unitary State. However, the real definition of a Unitary State has been diluted to a certain extent, especially in the United Kingdom, where we draw constitutional parallels. However, the Constitutional Assembly had come up with an Interim Report in which it had articulated new words such as 'indivisible' which are meant to consolidate the unitary character of the Constitution. Words like 'indivisible' are much stronger and unambiguous and would curtail any attempt to divide the country. It is advisable for Mahanayaka Theras to delve deep into the whole gamut of constitutional making in a much more holistic way rather than concentrating only on the status of Buddhism.

No government would dare touch such controversial issues and it would be suicidal for the government in hustings. It would be a waste of time harping on the same issue over and over again. In case Mahanayaka Theras decide not to support the government in its efforts, it would be recorded in our history that a solution could not be found because Mahanayaka Theras objected to it.
This is the last chance to introduce a new Constitution and silence the critics of Sri Lanka forever.

Corruption is so endemic in society

No one would disagree that corruption is well entrenched in our society. It would be an uphill task to eradicate corruption root and branch. What we should do now is to ensure that a new Constitution should provide adequate checks and balances so that transparency in government tenders/transactions can be checked by the citizens. The Committee of the Constitutional Assembly had looked into public finance and had made some radical proposals. These proposals must now be studied by experts. In the US, public officials are summoned before the Congressional Committees and they are taken to task over malpractices and indecisions. This is the culture we must introduce in Sri Lanka. Face the nation or lose the face. The President and the Prime Minister have so far displayed political maturity and discipline and hopefully the lower strata of the politicians would emulate the leaders. Only then can Sri Lanka get rid of corruption or at least bring about some semblance of sanity.
About the author:

The writer is the Convener of the Constitutional Law Association of Sri Lanka, Director/CEO of the Governors Consulting Group Private Limited, and former General Manager of the European Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka. He holds an LLM in International Commercial Law and a Postgraduate Diploma in Diplomacy and World Affairs.

Is Sri Lanka on course for a lost decade?

Author: Janeen Fernando, Verité-2 February 2018

19 May 2019 will mark 10 years since the civil war in Sri Lanka ended with the complete annihilation of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Post-civil war Sri Lanka has been a story of missed opportunities. Former president Mahinda Rajapaksa utilised his post-civil war popularity among the Sinhalese majority to amend the Constitution to strengthen the presidency and remove term limits. His ‘illiberal peacebuilding’ approach focussed on rebuilding infrastructure in the Tamil-dominated north with no sustained attempts at dealing with the war’s causes, or with its consequences (such as disappearances and displacement from landholdings). Meanwhile, Sri Lanka’s Muslims were increasingly under attack from the Buddhist extremist groups that had gained prominence during Rajapaksa’s first presidential term.

Rajapaksa’s second term unintentionally created a groundswell for two major reforms. The Sinhalese majority demanded reforms that fought abuses of power and corruption. Minority Tamils and Muslims demanded greater security and equal (or at least less unequal) citizenship. These twin demands were expressed in the electorate voting in Maithripala Sirisena in 2015 and rejecting Rajapaksa’s unprecedented bid for a third term as president.

Sirisena’s election brought a unique window of opportunity to forge a lasting political solution to Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict, since he had been elected by a grand coalition of divergent political forces. Sirisena was from the same party as Rajapaksa — the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) — but was backed by the party’s chief rival, the United National Party (UNP), which was and is led by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Sirisena was also backed by the political parties representing Muslims and by the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which is the dominant party among northern Tamils.

Overnight, Sri Lanka moved from an increasingly authoritarian trajectory to a broad ruling coalition with a popular mandate to deliver greater pluralism and ‘good governance’. A government featuring the leaders of Sri Lanka’s two dominant political parties (along with approval from the TNA) represented the strongest post-civil war elite political consensus that was capable of delivering sustainable peace. This consensus had the potential not only to muster a two-thirds supermajority in the Parliament, but also crucially to champion a national referendum on a new constitution.

However, this promising alignment has not led to rapid reform. Sirisena’s flagship reform project — the introduction of a new constitution — has not moved past an ‘interim report’ of recommendations by a parliamentary steering committee. The report shows limited agreement between the UNP and the SLFP on key issues such as the fate of the executive presidency, the abolition of which formed the cornerstone of Sirisena’s electoral promises. The proposed constitution also contains elements that have historically proved unpopular in the Sinhalese electorate, such as greater power sharing with the provinces in the Tamil-dominated north.

Rather than being its core strength, today the ‘National Unity Government’ led by Sirisena and Wickremesinghe has continued to suffer from internal political competition as the two parties attempt to distinguish themselves from one another while remaining in a coalition. The government has also been mired in a series of debacles ranging from corruption allegations and administrative mismanagement to natural disasters. Among the Sinhalese majority, inaction on corruption is seen as a central failure. Among the Tamil minority, frustration over slow progress on constitutional reform has been directed not only at the government but also at the TNA’s leadership. Muslims worry about resurgent religious violence.

The void in political opposition left by the two largest parties forming a grand coalition has been filled by former president Rajapaksa and his dissident ‘Joint Opposition’, which is comprised of a faction of the SLFP as well as several minor parties. In terms of parliamentary strength, the Joint Opposition is currently larger than Sirisena’s SLFP faction. It takes a Sinhalese nationalist position, and attacks the constitutional reform project as a ‘betrayal of the war victory’.

As the government becomes more unpopular, competition and enmity within the grand coalition has intensified. By the 2020 parliamentary elections, the two parties may need to go their separate ways or they risk making room for a third force.

Today, concerns over political futures overshadow any discussions on constitutional reform. Long-delayed local council elections, scheduled for 10 February 2018, have further undermined consensus with Sirisena and the SLFP hinting at ending the alliance, citing corruption allegations directed at the UNP as a key concern. The UNP and the SLFP enter an electoral competition as political rivals for the first time since forming the coalition while also contending with a new party backed by Rajapaksa’s Joint Opposition. Amid this new competition, the Joint Opposition is increasing pressure on Sirisena to ‘not betray the SLFP’ through his continued alliance with the UNP. Sirisena’s own supporters have called for ‘uniting the party’.

The TNA also appears to be paying the price for the government’s slow progress. Tamil media outlets routinely attack the party for compromising on Tamil demands and supporting ‘Sinhalese’ governments. Should the government abandon constitutional reform, the TNA may begin to lose ground to their previously electorally unsuccessful and more strongly Tamil nationalist rivals.

Sirisena’s election victory offered a unique platform for building consensus to bring about a political settlement to Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. The erosion of the government’s popularity coupled with impact of electoral competition now makes consensus-based constitutional reform more difficult.

Hence, the survival of the constitutional reform process in 2018 may depend more on the political calculus of the different parties, particularly the UNP and the SLFP. Should the parties find a mutually beneficial way forward or view the reform process as essential to reviving lost popularity, the ability to muster parliamentary support will remain.

Should the process be abandoned, an alignment as seen in 2015 is not likely to emerge in the next political cycle. Then, the likelihood of a post-civil war political settlement will grow ever more distant and cement Sri Lanka’s first decade after the war as a long decade for bringing about a durable peace settlement.

Janeen Fernando is the senior political analyst at Verité Research. The views expressed in this article are his own.

This article is part of an EAF special feature series on 2017 in review and the year ahead.

AG confirms President’s trillion rupee loan claim

but differs on period at issue, and lending sources

by Shamindra Ferdinando-February 2, 2018, 11:10 pm 

Close on the heels of President Maithripala Sirisena’s controversial claim that foreign loans amounting to Rs. 9 trillion that had been procured during the Rajapaksa administration (2006-2014) couldn’t be accounted for, a comprehensive study undertaken by the Auditor General’s Department has confirmed the staggering figure. However, the period at issue as well as ‘funding sources’ are inaccurate, The Island learns.

Parliament is expected to receive a comprehensive AG’s Department report on the status of government debt before the Feb. 10 local government polls.

Well informed sources told The Island that contrary to President Sirisena’s statement, Rs. 10 trillion had been borrowed from both foreign and domestic lenders and of that amount two trillion had been obtained before the Nov. 2005 presidential polls. The borrowed money included funds raised in domestic market by way of treasury bonds and treasury bills.

President Sirisena on Jan. 26 told a gathering of media representatives at the President’s House that the national economy was in peril due to massive foreign loans taken during the Rajapaksa administration. The President said that of the nine trillion borrowed only one trillion had been accounted for.

Ajith Nivard Cabraal, who was Governor of the Central Bank during the period at issue, contradicted President Sirisena’s statement within hours it was made. Cabraal told The Island: "Although the

President may have made this irresponsible statement to sling mud at the previous regime as he regularly does, I do not think he realizes the grave danger that he is imposing on our economy with media releases of this nature."

Sources said the AG’s report was likely to be sent to Parliament on Monday (Feb.5). Asked whether the report would be released online and likely to be debated in parliament, sources said that as the AG’s findings also dealt with the issuance of treasury bonds and treasury bills during that period, the parliament couldn’t ignore it when Bond Commission report would be debated in parliament on Feb.6.

Authoritative sources said that the Central Bank had always resisted the AG though it was subjected to state auditing process. Sources recalled how Central Bank fiercely defied AG’s efforts to secure access to documents in the wake of treasury bond scams involving the Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) before the Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) intervened on behalf of the AG.

Sources said that unprecedented drastic measures would be required to arrest the rapidly deteriorating situation. The AG’s report would detail the situation vis a vis foreign and domestic loans, they said.

 Recently, former CBSL Governor Cabraal and former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) told a media briefing at Ramada that Sri Lanka’s largest annual tender is for the sale of government securities, treasury bonds and treasury bills amounting to approximately Rs. 2,000 billion .

Sources said Parliament as the ultimate authority accountable for public finances could examine the debt crisis and the Bond Commission report.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya’s Office on Thursday said that the February 06 debate on Bond Commission and PRECIFAC reports could be later extended to another day or two. The parliament will meet again on Feb 19.

Sources said that the actual public debt could be even more than Rs. 10 trillion. Responding to another query, sources said that the actual situation could be even worse than President Sirisena’s assertion. Sources acknowledged that the forthcoming report could certainly place major political parties at an embarrassing position.

The large scale borrowings had been utilised to bridge the ever expanding budget deficit for want of a prudent national economic policy and tax reforms, they said.

Arjuna Mahendran, Arjun Aloysius, Kasun Palisena named suspects of Bond investigations

Friday, February 2, 2018 

Former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran, Perpetual Treasuries (PT) Director Arjun Aloysius and PT CEO Kasun Palisena were named as suspects of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) inquiry into Bond issue by the Colombo Fort Magistrate, today.

The Colombo Fort Magistrate named the above mentioned suspects in accordance to the first ever ‘B Report’ filed by the CID.

Furthermore, Arjuna Mahendran was notified to appear before the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) to record a statement before February 15, by the Colombo Fort Magistrate.

‘Bondgate’ Report – ‘Watergate’ Without Nixon?

By Amrit Muttukumaru –February 1, 2018

The report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) into the Treasury Bond scam is like the curate’s egg good and bad in parts. It had already laid the ground work at the investigative stage by its glaring partiality to the Prime Minister to give a preview of what was to follow in its report. In this respect the PCoI has been consistent!

The bottom line are its RECOMMENDATIONS. In this respect there is an evident MISMATCH between what transpired at the investigations which the PCoI has by and large covered and its recommendations particularly in regard to the PM where the commissioners have failed to connect the dots which were staring in the face.

It has rightly faulted inter alia, former CBSL Governor – Arjuna Mahendran, PTL virtual owner – Arjun Aloysius, PTL CEO – Kasun Palisena, former Minister of Finance – Ravi Karunanayake and “relevant officers of the CBSL and the EPF”.

 

While faulting former PABC (Pan Asia Bank) Chairman – Nimal Perera, a gaping hole in the report is the ‘pussyfooting’ on the Bank of Ceylon giving Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) access to Billions of Rupees almost instantly which enabled PTL with the aid of “inside information” to make a ‘killing’ in the secondary Bond market at the further expense of state institutions which included the hard earned savings of workers in the EPF. Chairman, Bank of Ceylon – Ronald Perera is a long standing member of the influential UNP Working Committee.

Crucial issues of governance incidental to the alleged bond scam thrown up by witnesses at the Bond Commission which include possible tax evasion, money laundering and PEPs (Politically Exposed Persons) being directors of banks are hardly on the radar.

In the context of what follows below, it is strange there is no recommendation whatsoever in regard to the PM. In fact to the best of my knowledge ‘PM’ or ‘Prime Minister’ have no mention in the ‘recommendations’!

PM’s Involvement & Contradictions

1) ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST’ is the CRUX of the Bond scam.

 

Arjuna Mahendran – a foreign national was handpicked for the position of Governor, Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) by the Prime Minister although aware that his son-in-law, Arjun Aloysius – virtuallyowned/controlled PTL (Perpetual Treasuries Limited) – a Primary Dealer.

2) For reasons best known to the PCoI it did not PURSUE the PM’s affirmation in his affidavit “Upon the formation of the new Government in January 2015 there was a general consensus within the Government that Mr Mahendran should be appointed to the post of Governor of CBSL.”

No less a person than Cabinet Co–Spokesperson and Minister of Health Dr. Rajitha Senaratne has contradicted the claim of “general consensus”:

“Senaratne said he had opposed the appointment of former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran to the position at the time. “I warned that it would tarnish the government’s image,” the minister said.”

3) The PCoI has mentioned only “In passing” that the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) which is the issuing agency for Treasury Bonds which normally falls under the Ministry of Finance was brought under the purview of the PM. The PCoI did not question the PM on the rationale for this change.

4) The PM continued to have Mahendran as CBSL Governor although aware that Mahendran had reneged on his ‘assurance’ to him that his son-in-law (Arjun Aloysius) will sever all links with PTL PRIOR to his appointment as CBSL Governor.

The PCoI while stating “We consider that, the confidence which the Hon. Prime Minister states he placed in the assurances given to him by Mr. Mahendran, was misplaced. We are of the view that, the more prudent course of action would have been for the Hon. Prime Minister to have independently verified whether Mr. Mahendran was, in fact, honouring the assurances he gave the Hon. Prime Minister. We regret that, the Hon. Prime Minister did not take that course of action.” has curiously failed to question the PM on the rationale for this “confidence”.

5) At the Bond Commission when the PM was asked whether he was aware that (i) “Holding Companies of Perpetual Treasuries Ltd were Perpetual Capital Holdings (Pvt) Ltd and Perpetual Capital (Pvt) Ltd?”(ii) “Mr. Aloysius continued to be a Director and Shareholder of these two Holding Companies even after January 2015?” he pleaded ignorance.

Read More

Gota's revision petition dismissed

 Lakmal Sooriyagoda-Friday, February 2, 2018 

The Colombo High Court turned down a request made by former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and seven others to be released from a corruption case filed by the Bribery Commission over Avant-Garde incident, today.

Former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and seven others filed a revision petition in the Colombo High Court challenging Colombo Chief Magistrate's decision to refuse preliminary objections raised by them regarding the Avant-Garde corruption case on January 27.

The Bribery Commission filed a corruption case against former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and seven others for allegedly causing a Rs.11.4 billion unlawful loss to the government when giving permission to Avant-Garde Maritime Services to operate a floating armory.

Corruption case: Revision petition filed by Keheliya dismissed

Lakmal Sooriyagoda-Tuesday, January 30, 2018

A revision petition filed by former Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and two others challenging Magistrate’s Court decision to proceed with a corruption case was yesterday dismissed by the Colombo High Court.

Former Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and two others are accused of causing an unlawful loss to the government after purchasing 600 of GI pipes using Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation’s (SLRC) funds during the previous Presidential Election.

High Court Judge Gihan Kulatunga dismissed the petition citing there is no legal basis to proceed with the application. On a previous occasion, the Magistrate's court decided to turn down the preliminary objections raised by the accused challenging the maintainability of the charge sheets. The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption had filed charges against former Minister Rambukwella, former SLRC Director General Chandrapala Liyanage and former SLRC Chairman Wimal Rubasinghe under section 70 of the Bribery Act.

The Bribery Commission alleged that three accused in the case had incurred a Rs.990,000 loss to the SLRC by unnecessarily purchasing 600 of GI pipes on or around December 2, 2014.

Senior State Counsel Asad Navavi appeared for the Attorney General. Counsel Niroshan Siriwardena appeared for the former Minister.

INDEPENDENCE DAY MESSAGE: TNA CALLS ON ALL POLITICAL PARTIES & LEADERS TO COOPERATE TO ADOPT A NEW CONSTITUTION

R. Sampanthan.-02/02/2018

With gratitude to our forefathers who fought for independence, I issue this message on 70th Independence Day of our Country.

We are at a crucial juncture of our history as we celebrate seventy years of Independence. As a country, we have not been able to enjoy the true benefits of the independence in the past.

As a result of the unresolved national question, we have faced the lack of peace and harmony and development of the country. The ethnic issue has widened the gap between communities and has caused distrust and disunity amongst our people.

The country as a whole is still struggling to come out of the adverse impact of the armed struggle. As we look back at the past seventy years our losses outweigh our gains. Our failure in genuinely addressing the national question has left us far behind in economic development and prosperity in the region.

The past has left us with more events of grief and sadness than happiness and joy. But we cannot allow the past to be repeated. We must unite as people of one country, and it is only possible when people are treated with dignity and self-respect.

Therefore, I urge all political parties and leaders to cooperate to adopt a new Constitution. A Constitution that will genuinely address the root causes of the conflict and preserve the dignity of every citizen of this country. We must come together to find a lasting solution through a new Constitution, the supreme law of the country.

My appeal to the leaders and the people of this country is to come together to find a reasonable and acceptable political solution, which will have an enormous impact in rebuilding our shattered economy and in bringing lasting peace and harmony amongst our people.

Let us not miss the opportunity before us to create a better future for our country and its people.
R. Sampanthan MP

Leader of the Opposition – Parliament of Sri Lanka

Leader – Tamil National Alliance

70 Years Of Independence: A Balance Sheet

By Ameer Ali –February 2, 2018

Freedom adds more value to the freed when it is taken from the master instead of given by him. While India fought and won its freedom Sri Lanka received it in a platter. When the British, the then super power, discovered oil under the sands of Persia and the Arabian Desert, and when Winston Churchill decided to switch British naval power from coal to oil, India lost its economic and strategic value and even became a financial liability. Gandhi’s demand for independence and Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan turned into mob violence and bloodshed. The British were in a mighty hurry to cut and run. India won its freedom and along with it Jinnah won his Pakistan. With India, the jewel in the crown, gone, of what use to the British was Ceylon? Thus, independence was a gift to the island without any struggle. This may be one of the reasons why the nation’s post-independence leaders became so lackadaisical towards and non-committal to build up the spirit of nationalism to unite all communities in the country but allowed it to be fractured into competing ethnic nationalisms and provincialism.  This mismanagement of the country’s pluralism is the most glaring and enduring item on the debit side of Sri Lanka’s national balance sheet after seventy years of independence.

On the credit side, the country can indeed feel proud of its economic transformation from an open export economy narrowly dependent on three planation crops on the eve of independence to a more diversified export-import economy thereafter. The sectoral composition of GDP in 2015 shows that agriculture has declined to around 8% while industry and service have increased to 26% and 57% respectively, depicting a trend common to other economies in similar stage of development. Although the published unemployment and inflation rates have to be accepted with some reservation because of questionable methodologies of estimating them these rates are however, not at worrying levels. The informal sector is absorbing significant numbers of otherwise openly unemployed.

On the social side, 74.9 years of life expectancy and 93.2% of average literacy rate are commendable achievements on any comparison. However, the quality of our educational institutions particularly at the tertiary level, the deterioration of the public environment, and sky rocketing cost of medical treatment do bound to impact those rates negatively. Education to drive out illiteracy is one thing but educating to enhance the nation’s skill stock is another. It is in the latter that the balance sheet shows gaps. 

 

On the economic front, the country’s national debt based on IMF, Eurostat and CIA data stood at 77.1% of GDP in 2016, increasing from 76% in 2015 which is a worrying sign. The burden of servicing this debt will be passed on to the next generation of innocent Sri Lankans. A substantial part of this debt was the financial cost of fighting an unwanted civil war engendered by the mismanagement referred to earlier.

The credit side of the balance sheet is further devalued by the economic and social cost of corruption that is now endemic in the country. The bond scam saga in which the Central Bank Governor and leading members of the government are alleged to have been involved demonstrates that corruption has been institutionalised. The only way to arrest this evil is to bring the corruptors to books and punish them without fear or favour. The wealth accumulated illegally and through corruption must be confiscated and credited to the treasury. To do that, the judiciary must be independent and rule of law should be upheld. Here again there is a lot to be desired in the current political environment. When ministers, their deputies and even politicians at regional levels behave like warlords and treat their electorates as petty fiefdoms what hope is there for honesty to prevail in public administration and for ordinary people to get their grievances redressed?       

An even more serious item on the debit side of the balance sheet is the erosion of the country’s sovereignty. This again is the ultimate cost of the civil war which made the rulers to look desperately for assistance even from a devil as long as they could achieve victory in a war with their own people. Those shylocks who provided this assistance are now demanding the pound of flesh. That flesh is the increasing foreign control over chunks of Sri Lanka’s commanding heights. Given this situation can one really claim that the country is independent? As a result of the civil war, the country, having been pushed into the vortex of a geopolitical swirl in the Indian Ocean, is paying a very high price for its political stupidity. 

Read More

A National Day Reflection

On the Road

- 

By Bishop Duleep de Chickera-February 2, 2018, 9:20 pm 

A young man on a motorcycle

A little blue piece of something fell off a motorcycle. A young man on another motorcycle stopped and reversed while the traffic on a very busy road slowly ground to a halt. Two wheelers, three wheelers, four wheelers, ten wheelers; they all stopped and watched. No one horned as we usually do for the slightest reason. Something solemn was unfolding on the hot tarred road.

After some skilful manoeuvring, the little blue piece of something was reunited with the couple and the baby on the other motorcycle. A sense of human solidarity descended as the hearts of tired and otherwise impatient motorists warmed to this act of human kindness.

I wish we had tooted our horns in appreciation. But it was too late. The moment passed as quickly as the anonymous young man sped away.

May those who have eyes to see, see and ears to hear, hear.

A Small little man in a middle

vehicle

Ten minutes ahead, we were suddenly blasted off our legitimate use of the same road. Menacing sirens and gloved hands waving out of recklessly swerving vehicles demanded the road for themselves. As motorists gave way, a fourth bully robbed us of the adjoining lane, adamant on moving parallel with the middle vehicle. The rest of us, two wheelers, three wheelers, four wheelers and ten wheelers, responsible for placing that small little man in the middle vehicle, somehow sorted ourselves out on an imagined lane that was not there.

This of course was not the way it began.We were told the road belonged to us and that it was their job as servants of the people to clear the obstacles and take us to our destination.

But small little men who suddenly find themselves in large seats, surrounded by walls of muscle, easily take a U turn. Hopelessly incompetent and unable to make a difference in the lives of those who trusted them, they resort to making a difference for themselves and their own.Unable to deliver, they acquire. This is the unchanging headline.

In this U turn game, the colour of caps, make little difference. All colours are on one side; the taking side. The blame gameis simply a cover up. This is why, come what may at election time, each ensures that all end up in a middle vehicle.

May those who have eyes to see, see and ears to hear, hear.

A people on the road

No matter what constitutions and election promises say, freedom is a force and a feeling that gains momentum among people. It is nurtured and spread when we stop to pick up the little blue things for each other. No one can take this away from us. Not even the small little men in the middle vehicle speeding to places and events that accelerate further chaos.

If the picking up gathers momentum we will be able to claim the road equally and for all. But this will not last. After a while we will forget the U turning tendency and seat small little men all over again in the menacing middle vehicles.

Freedom goes and comes, is lost and won, stolen and retrieved. It is lost when we grow gullible and forget; won when we are vigilant and remember. This is the lesson of history; and history is one long lesson on human nature.

May those who have eyes to see, see and ears to hear, hear.

With Peace and Blessings to all