Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

US soldier gets world's first penis and scrotum transplant

Dr Andrew Lee and other members of the surgical team
Dr Andrew Lee (second from left) and his team at Johns Hopkins University
BBC
23 April 2018
A team of US doctors has successfully carried out the world's first total transplant of a penis and scrotum.
Surgeons at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, performed the operation on a soldier who had been wounded by a bomb in Afghanistan.
They used a penis, scrotum and partial abdominal wall transplanted from a deceased donor.
They say the soldier should be able to regain sexual function, which is impossible with penis reconstructions.
The team of 11 surgeons performed the transplant over 14 hours on 26 March.
It is the first surgery on a combat veteran injured on duty and the first to transplant a complete section of tissue including the scrotum and surrounding abdominal area.
Doctors said the donor testicles were not transplanted, due to ethical considerations.
"While extremity amputations are visible and resultant disability obvious," said Dr WP Andrew Lee, head of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Johns Hopkins University, during a telebriefing on Monday, "some war injuries are hidden and their impact not widely appreciated by others."
Dr Lee called genitalia wounds an "unspoken injury of war".
"In a 2014 symposium co-sponsored by Johns Hopkins titled 'Intimacy After Injury', we heard from the spouses, families, and caregivers of these wounded warriors about the devastating impact of genitourinary injuries on their identity, self-esteem and intimate relationships," he said.
The soldier, who wishes to remain anonymous, said in a statement released by the university: "When I first woke up, I felt finally more normal like finally I'm okay now."
His injury was the result of stepping on a hidden bomb in Afghanistan.
In medical terms, the surgery is called a vascularised composite allotransplantation - which is all to say that the process involves transplanting skin, bone, muscles, tendons and blood vessels.
The Johns Hopkins Genital Transplant Program, which funded the surgery, has initially focused on post-traumatic cases, particularly injured soldiers, as their wounds generally make conventional options impossible.
Experts from the surgical team expect the soldier will be fully recovered in six to 12 months.
Dr Rick Redett, clinical director of the genitourinary transplant programme, said that the soldier is recovering well and is expected to be discharged from hospital this week.
"It is our hope that such a life enhancing transplant will allow him to regain urinary and sexual function and lead a more normal life," Dr Redett said. "It is also our goal to offer the procedure in the future to other suitable patients."
The transplant team also said that the university has approved 60 genital transplant surgeries as a part of the programme.
The first penis transplant in the US was in 2016 at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
In 2014, South African surgeons performed the world's first successful penis transplant.

Monday, April 23, 2018

Two days after ‘release’, Sri Lankan Army blocks access to lands in Vali North

Barriers erected by the Army
22Apr 2018
HomeThe Sri Lankan Army has re-seized some lands in Valikamam North that were released to their owners earlier this month.
Just two days after releasing around 683 acres from the 28-year occupation of the ’high security zone’, Sri Lankan soldiers blocked off access and reoccupied lands in Thaiyiddi South - Unthuvathai, and the area surrounding the Vellaivaikkal Vairavar temple.
Part of the land that has been seized again includes a suspected arsenal which was discovered in the released area of Thaiyiddi. (above)
The Tamil landowners had expressed concern about the continued presence of army checkpoints and guard posts around the released lands, and questioned the permanence and conditionality of the release.
Sign in Sinhalese

10 dead, 15 hurt as van mows down pedestrians along Yonge St.; suspect named

Alleged driver of the vehicle is Alek Minassian, according to a police source.


Suspect appears to yell, "Kill me" and "Shoot me in the head" at Toronto officer in arrest video.





Read More

Abolition of executive presidency has become viable


article_image
By Jehan Perera- 

The JVP is proposing a 20th Amendment to the constitution which will centre around the abolition of the executive presidency. This follows on the crisis in governance that culminated in the no-confidence motion in parliament against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. The background to this was the open manifestation of a power struggle between President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, which highlighted the problem of having dual centres of executive power. On the one hand, the President who is directly elected by the people enjoys the position of head of state and head of government. On the other hand, the Prime Minister who has the support of the majority in parliament is also vested with executive powers.

The possibility of conflict between the President and prime Minister increases when they are from different political parties, as at present. The previous occasion such a situation arose was during the period 2001 to 2004 when President Chandrika Kumaratunga and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe were compelled to enter into a cohabitation arrangement due to people’s mandates being received by them at two separate elections. On that occasion too, the relationship was never smooth and always conflictual, and culminated in the sudden dismissal of the Wickremesinghe government in 2004 by the President. On this occasion, President Sirisena was prevented from sacking Prime Minister Wickremesinghe due to the 19th Amendment which took away this presidential power.

The recurrence of the problem of dual power whenever the President and Prime Minister are from two different parties points to the need to reform the system. The present system only works smoothly when the President and Prime Minister are from the same party. The problem of conflict arises when the President and Prime minister are from different parties, and there is no line of authority. Since 1978, when the executive presidential system was first instituted, the longer period has been where both the President and Prime Minister were from the same party. In such a situation, the position of the Prime Minister was largely one of being a figure head. When he was Prime Minister to President J R Jayewardene, Ranasinghe Premadasa once quipped that he was no better than a peon. This was not due to any weakness on his part, but due to the nature of his office.

OPPORTUNE MOMENT

The merits and demerits of the executive presidential system of government have been debated since its amalgamation with the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy in 1978. The abolition of the executive presidency has been promised at every presidential election since 1982. But on every occasion the winning candidate who had earlier promised to abolish the system has ended up reneging on the promise made and instead utilizing the powers of the presidency to the maximum. They have also sought to further strengthen the position they have enjoyed, such as by the 18th Amendment to the constitution passed during the period of the last president which gave him the opportunity to contest the presidency an unlimited number of times.

At the presidential election of 2015, one of the key promises made was to abolish the presidential system and to revert back to the parliamentary system. It is to the credit of President Sirisena that he made an initial effort to fulfill that promise. But there were powerful forces within the government that held in favour of the presidency, on the grounds that a fragmented polity required a centralizing power, and therefore did not permit its abolition. Behind the opposition to abolishing the presidency was, and remains, the personal desire of many who believe that they might one day ascend to that position. Therefore, President Sirisena did the next best thing and reduced the powers of the presidency. He reinstated the two-term limitation, took away the presidency’s powers of unilateral appointment to key state institutions, and also shared powers of government with the Prime Minister.

At the present time there is a correspondence between the needs of the country and the interests of the three main political leaders in the country. There is a sense of drift in all areas of governance. The dual system of power has failed in general. The only exception is the opening of space for dissent, which has been provided in full measure. However, the utilization of this space by groups such as trade unions and university students and ethnic nationalists, who are opposed to the government, and manipulated by the political opposition, has added to the general lack of direction that prevails in the country’s political and economic life. This has had negative consequences on the country’s development prospects, with Sri Lanka being close to the bottom of South Asian countries in terms of its growth rate.

It is in this context that the JVP is planning to present its proposal to abolish the executive presidency as the 20th Amendment to the Constitution when the new Parliamentary sessions commence on May 8. The chances of success this time around, at getting rid of the executive presidency are better than ever before. President Sirisena, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and former President Rajapaksa who leads the opposition to the government all have an interest in an alternative to the popularly elected presidency. This correspondence of interests is unlikely to occur again so if the presidential system is to be abolished or changed substantially, this is the best time. The JVP proposal for a 20th Amendment is therefore a response to a need at the present time.

SELF INTEREST

The clearest case of self interest in the abolishing of the executive presidency is that of former President Rajapaksa. The 19th Amendment has blocked anyone who has been President twice from contesting in the hope of a third term. This has meant the exclusion of the former President, who has contested and won two previous presidential elections, from contesting yet again to get to the highest political position. At best he will have to support one of his political allies to become the president, but the experience of President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe in managing their relationship will not be a reassuring one to the former President. Therefore, his best option would be an abolition of the executive presidency which will offer him the opportunity to wield total executive powers as a Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe too has an interest in seeking to abolish the directly elected executive presidency. This is because it is a position that can most easily be won by charismatic and nationalist politicians who can make emotional and irrational appeals to the hearts and minds of the masses of voters. These are not campaign modes that Prime Minister Wickremesinghe favours. His appeal is to the intelligentsia, which Sri Lanka is only a small minority, though in 2005 he came within a hair’s breadth of winning the presidential election, and was only thwarted by the LTTE-imposed boycott of northern Tamil voters. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is more likely to build a coalition of political parties, especially the ethnic minority parties, which will secure a parliamentary majority in which he will have the leading place.

President Sirisena too has an interest in finding an alternative to a presidency that is obtained after a popular election. In 2015, he won due to the votes of UNP supporters, but his conduct towards the Prime Minister in the recent past has alienated them and the split in the SLFP will deny him their votes as well. The best option for the President would be a president who is elected by parliament, as in India. But whereas the presidency in India is mostly symbolic, taking into account the specific conditions in Sri Lanka, the President may be given additional powers. Indications are that President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe are in the process of negotiating with each other about how best to restore their relationship. If that task is accomplished, it will be possible for the executive presidency as it presently exists to be changed substantially if not abolished in its present form.

14 unions to defy ban on May 1 rallies

The Sunday Times Sri LankaSunday, April 22, 2018


Some local trade unions, backed by a global trade union body, are bracing for a confrontation with the authorities after deciding to go ahead with May 1 rallies and celebrations despite the Government changing the date of May Day to May 7. Backing the local unions is the Geneva-based IndustriALL Global Union which on Friday fired letters to President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, urging them to remove restrictions on holding May 1 rallies.
Since May 1 falls during the Vesak week, the Government at the request of the Mahanayakes has declared May 7 as the official May Day holiday for celebrations, while May 1 will be a normal working day. Protesting unions said that changing this traditional International Labour Day, marked in Sri Lanka since 1956, was akin to changing one’s birthday!
IndustriALL Global Union General Secretary Valter Sanches, in his letter urged the two leaders to reverse the decision, and grant permission, through the Colombo Municipal Council, for May Day rallies to be held in public parks on May 1. He also said the union, “stands in solidarity with its affiliates in Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan trade union movement in their struggle to protect the rights of workers, including their democratic right to commemorate May Day on the 1st of May”.
On Thursday, a group of 14 unions said they were going ahead with May 1 celebrations and also expressed disappointment that the Government had unilaterally decided on the change of date without consulting the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC), a point also reiterated in the IndustriALL letters. The NLAC is a state-managed body with representatives from the Government, trade unions and the private sector.
Local unions said that for workers and unions, May Day had important historical significance and workers around the world celebrated it on May 1.
IndustriALL Global Union represents 50 million workers in the mining, energy and manufacturing sectors in 140 countries, including Sri Lanka, and has also been actively involved in the lobbying for the restoration of GSP+ concessions to Sri Lanka.
Meanwhile, the Free Trade Zones & General Services Employees Union claims private sector workers who fall under the Shop and Office Employees Act and the Wages Board Ordinance are at risk of having to work on both May 1 and May 7.
The union’s Joint Secretary, Anton Marcus, claimed that the Labour Ministry needed to publish a separate gazette regarding the change of the May Day holiday from May 1 to May 7. This has not happened so far, resulting in employers giving their own interpretations as to whether May Day is in fact a holiday for the private sector. Already, some factories have put up notices, informing workers that May 1 was a compulsory work day. With no gazette out to declare May 7 a holiday for the private sector, employers could also claim that it was not a holiday for the sector, the trade unionist said.
However, Labour Ministry Secretary Nimal Saranatissa said there was no need for a separate gazette. The Ministry has already gazetted holidays for workers and it is the Ministry of Home Affairs which gazettes on which date the holiday falls, he said. “We have already declared May Day as a holiday. Even though the date has changed, under the Holidays Act, May Day is still a mercantile holiday. So, the change of date has no effect. Employers must give a paid holiday to their workers on May 7,” he said.

Sri Lankan officers involved in human rights abuses identified in new ITJP report

File photograph: STF troops in Jaffna. Oct 2017.: Sri Lankan troops prepare for deployment to Lebanon earllier this year.

File photograph: STF troops in Jaffna. Oct 2017.

Home23Apr 2018

A ground-breaking report from the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) has identified 56 individuals in Sri Lanka’s notorious Special Task Force (STF) who should not be deployed as UN peacekeepers, including an officer currently serving in Africa accused of involvement in extrajudicial killings.

The report is “based primarily on the testimony of Sinhalese security force witnesses” many of whom were involved in abductions themselves. The witnesses have supplied ITJP with names of commanding officers, alongside photographs, map coordinates and “detailed sketches of torture sites,” said the organisation. Former Tamil paramilitaries allied to the Karuna, Iniyabharathy and Pilliyan factions who worked alongside Sri Lankan security forces also provided testimony and evidence.It details how STF officers abducted, tortured and executed Tamils, conducted false flag operations to deceive ceasefire monitors and committed sexual violence.

One STF troop described the abductions his team carried out in Colombo as “like a horror film”. Others details horrific incidents of deliberating making Tamil civilians dig in heavily mined areas knowing that they would be killed or eating a meal and drinking arrack whilst they burnt bodies of Tamil victims. “The violations described in this report speak to an amoral attitude to the taking of life and to human dignity, and where dehumanisation has become institutionalised,” said the ITJP. “Shockingly, those responsible for the violations have been rewarded post-war by successive governments in Sri Lanka.”

“One STF officer who appears currently to be serving in a UN peacekeeping mission in Africa is alleged to have ordered summary executions of Tamils in the East of Sri Lanka in 2006-7,” said ITJP’s Executive Director, Yasmin Sooka. “This shows the UN is still clearly failing in its obligation when it comes to the vetting of Sri Lankans for peacekeeping.”                                     
                         
The ITJP submitted a list of 56 names of STF officers involved in abuses, including one currently serving in Africa, alongside detailed information on secret torture sites to the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping (DPKO), the Department of Field Support (DFS), the Conduct and Discipline Unit (CDU) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

A history of rights violations
The report comes as controversy over Sri Lanka’s deployment of troops in UN peacekeeping missions continued this month. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has slammed the Sri Lankan military for deploying peacekeepers to take part in a UN mission in Lebanon, before human rights vetting of military personnel could be completed.
Sri Lankan troops, asides from being accused of committing a long history of rights violations on the island, have also been found to have committed sexual violence whilst as peacekeepers. At least 100 members of Sri Lanka’s peacekeeping mission were implicated in a child sex abuse ring in Haiti whilst being deployed in Haiti.
“Not one individual has spent time behind bars for allegedly raping children,” said ITJP on the allegations of systematic child sexual exploitation in Haiti.
Despite the lack of prosecutions, Sri Lankan soldiers continue to be allowed to participate in UN missions. The continued involvement of Sri Lankan troops in peacekeeping missions is an “endorsement that recognizes our professionalism at international level,” boasted the commander of Sri Lanka’s army in December.
“Police commandos are now being sent abroad as UN peacekeepers and they should be subjected to the same stringent vetting criteria as the military”, said Ms Sooka.
British trained troops
The Special Task Force has also come under scrutiny this month, as Police Scotland came out in defence of a training contract with Sri Lanka for the STF, despite continued concerns over the use of torture by security forces. In December, undercover footage provided by Yardstick films revealed deep ties between Scotland’s police force and STF.
Overall, 3,500 Sri Lankan police have reportedly been trained by the Scottish Police Academy since 2007 the report noted.
“I can’t understand how the STF slipped through the net if you look at the annex we compiled of human rights reports by our colleagues that name the STF again and again over three decades in connection with grave violations of human rights,”continued Ms. Sooka. “And yet STF officers are being rewarded with peacekeeping jobs.”
The rights violations allegedly committed by the STF have been well documented and stretch back decades, a point emphasised by Frances Harrison, a human rights activist with the ITJP.
Speaking to the Tamil Guardian,  she said that the report “builds on decades of work by the UN and other human rights groups - Amnesty in particular but also several in Sri Lanka who have painstakingly noted all the allegations against the STF - which we list in the annex”.
“If you just read the annex you would wonder why this unit is being sent for peacekeeping duty, let alone what’s in the report itself.”
‘Institutionalised and systemic’
“This is the first time the ITJP has published testimony from Sinhalese witnesses and participants in some of the violations,” said the ITJP. “It has taken many years for even a handful of insider witnesses to emerge.”
“Those who were involved in crimes during the war have now risen to leadership positions within the STF. As a result, no amount of training will remedy this culture of impunity for grave violations which is institutionalised and systemic.”
“It’s important to remember it isn’t just a handful of military intelligence operatives who did all these abductions - and not just journalists who are the victims,” added Ms Harrison. “This report shows the involvement of STF in abduction and we already know members of the navy and TID have been involved. “
“We’ve gone way beyond the idea that it’s a few rotten apples responsible for all the violations. It’s not humanly possible.”
“A serious vetting procedure to screen out alleged perpetrators is the bare minimum,” the report concludes.
“For the victims, vetting is a long way from justice but it sends a message of hope that there will one day be a reckoning for the past.”
See the full text of the report here.

SORAYA DEEN- 

One of the greatest challenges facing Sri Lanka today is to restore its image in the realm of human rights. There’s not a day that goes by without the media highlighting war crimes, the lament of families of missing persons, arbitrary land acquisition, impunity, police brutality, ethnic and racial abuse to name a few. It is true that rights are violated every day around the world and Sri Lanka is not alone in this respect.
As reported in the Guardian, “Last year the United Nations said it had found evidence strongly indicating that war crimes were committed in Sri Lanka in the closing phases of its civil war, and called for the establishment of a special court to investigate individuals responsible for the worst atrocities. Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said it described horrific abuses including torture, executions, and forced disappearances by security forces.”
Of the many alleged atrocities and violations currently being investigated, addressed and redressed by multiple sources, the mission of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) is a critical one. It is critical because we are not dealing with facts and figures, reparation and reinstatement alone. We are dealing with death and loss, a topic that is relevant to us all, and yet is painful and unpleasant to talk about.
Of utmost urgency therefore is that Sri Lanka must acknowledge the responsibility of the government to swiftly and severely deal with these violations and provide for restorative justice to victims and families that have come forward. Those of us working in the field of peace and restorative justice know well the adage, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Death, Loss and Trauma
Everyone knows the universality of death. We also experience a common kind of grief where the circumstances of the loss are similar. However individual grief is as unique as the person experiencing it. No one can completely comprehend the grief of another. I believe we can safely conclude that traumatic death, especially violent death and unresolved disappearances, can lead to increased distress.
Wortman & Latack (2015) describe traumatic death as follows –
“A death is considered traumatic if it occurs without warning; if it is untimely; if it involves violence; if there is damage to the loved one’s body; if it was caused by a perpetrator with the intent to harm; if the survivor regards the death as preventable; if the survivor believes that the loved one suffered; or if the survivor regards the death, or manner of death, as unfair and unjust.”
The relatives of missing persons who are seeking to know the circumstances in which such persons went missing and the fate and whereabouts of such missing persons must be treated as a special category. These victims have two battles to fight. They must learn and know how to cope with trauma and grief. Every day they step into an extremely delicate emotional state, utterly lost in the bleak realities of trauma, grief, life and loneliness, more deeply looking for belonging, comfort and reassurance.
Investigating this loss of life must be given a high priority by the OMP. It is not only the devastating impact such death and disappearances have on families and communities, but also because groups that have not had the full recourse to the law and justice, are more likely to preach hatred and intolerance and can re-plant the seed of terrorism here in our country.
Great Beginnings
The Office on Missing Persons Act, No. 14 of 2016 was established to provide appropriate mechanisms for the tracing of missing persons, and to clarify the circumstances in which such persons went missing, their fate and to protect the rights and interests of missing persons and their relatives whilst identifying proper avenues of redress to which such missing persons or their relatives may have recourse.”
The Act though well intended lacks strong legal provisions for prevention and accountability. As much will be continued to be said and much will continue to evolve, the hard work at hand, must move forward with great speed and momentum.
We must acknowledge that, much has been done in the past, by the Government in terms of fact finding, developing case specific studies and theory, working with survivors, legislative advocacy, communication with partners and stakeholders.
But have these programs delivered the desired results? Has there been consistency? Has it yielded long term success? What has been the strategy, or is there a strategy to proactively face emerging challenges on the horizon?
We must also acknowledge that, much has also been undone by successive governments where domestic investigations and inquiries have been ineffective and recommendations by credible authorities went largely unimplemented.
Every Enemy is Someone you Don’t Know
Investigating human rights violations and preventing such in the future requires the OMP to maintain at its center a psychological campaign. One that is genuinely well geared to win hearts and minds of the families of the victims. Appoint a public advocate, I also say a chief compassionate officer, who will be in charge with representing the interests of the families of the missing persons.
Crucial is that, this advocate live, listen and learn from the people in the margins. Because “The margin” is not a place of weakness or self- depreciation, but rather a place pulsating with critical activity, that is alive with argument, controversy and creative discourse..”
It is here that breakthroughs will take place in terms of knowing the maladministrations or the violations. It is here that true understanding the needs and feelings of the families will take place, it is here that grievances and misgivings, genuine connections and rapport can be established.
Winning Hearts and Minds
Decades after death and loss, is justice possible? Can the very people in law enforcement who fought the war and ended the war be held responsible or will they be granted immunity?
It is never too late to hold people accountable. We must all know of the slogan, “Impunity then is impunity now.” 70 years after the Second World War criminals are being prosecuted. The OMP must set up some justice mechanism, quasi courts, truth commissions to at least investigate some severe cases of breach. What was the policy in using violence? What did they do? Can there be atonement by way of facing the families and accepting responsibility? Can the perpetrators build a house for the victims or tend the gardens of the victims’ families? We must creatively explore these possibilities. If we fail to do so, we will add salt to the wounds. And we will forget, neglect and abandon our commitment to serve justice as a community.
The OMP must mobilise strategic leadership within the groups. Break the cycle to prevent disgruntled and disappointed sub groups rising from within the main groups. Assimilate the hopeful majority who are open and seeking transformation. Persuade, motivate and inspire the families to make a paradigm shift.
Deliberately create an environment of safety, healing and empowerment that ultimately assists the victims and their families to make sense of their experience and move toward healing.
Remain sensitive to trauma history because most of the time trauma is denied, ignored or shrouded in secrecy.
Open and maintain robust and open lines of communication because there will be much debate and discussion that can eventually be healthy for both camps.
In brief every attempt should be made to engage not alienate.
Facilitator of the AFF, (Affected Families Forum – who are seeking representation at the OMP), Ranjith Perera – Points out that in South Africa, while the process of reconciliation and amnesty had taken place along with the involvement of the perpetrators and the victimised, in Sri Lanka it was not the case.
“The affected must be taken in and listened to. Politicians cannot represent them. Right now, in the absence of the affected, groups are talking on behalf of them. The affected are not happy with the process, which is problematic,”
He also said that around 90% of the affected families do not know what the OMP is about while the balance has not even heard about it. “The Government has not gone to the grassroots level, reached out through village officials and made them understand,”
If not now, when? If not you, who? 
It is true that the situation in Sri Lanka is unique and different. In that, we suffered a crippling 26-year civil war pitting government forces against violent Tamil separatists of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The series of bloody battles obscured the lines and often the rules of engagement.
But now the war is done. Our strength must never be measured by the fact that we ended a war. Our strength must be measured by how we came together to make peace and promote justice.
A new era has dawned in Sri Lanka. Are we ready to seize this moment in history? How do we want to be remembered as individuals? How should we be remembered as a nation? Active citizenship begins with the envisioning of the desired outcomes, and a conscious application of spiritual principles.
What is important is not what happened or what they did, what is important is what we do now for those who have lost their loved ones. How can we show we care? As Cicero would say, “The life of the dead and missing is placed in the memory of the living.”
The dead cannot cry out for justice, it the duty of us who are living to do so on their behalf.

20-A won’t help promote federalism – JVP


article_image
By Saman Indrajith-

None should harbour any unfounded fears on the JVP’s proposed amendments to the Constitution as they would not strip the President of his powers on matters related to the Provincial Councils, says the JVP.

JVP Propaganda Secretary MP Vijitha Herath told The Island that some sections of society had sought to view his party’s proposals to amend the constitution as an attempt to weaken the executive presidency to enable a federal solution to the national problem. "Our proposals would not deprive the presidency of any of the powers that position holds with regard to the provincial councils. The presidential powers over the provincial councils would remain as in the case of the 13th amendment to the Constitution," he said.

"On the other hand the amendments that we are planning to be introduced would come only to effect during the times of the next President, not during the times of the incumbent president’s period. So, it is wrong for our critics to claim that we are planning to bring about these amendments at this juncture to promote the process of separatism."

The amendments prepared by a panel of experts would be handed over to the Secretary General of Parliament during the first parliamentary sitting week of May, MP Herath said. "They would undergo formative and linguistic changes at the Legal Draftsman’s Department and once the completed set of amendments come back, our party leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake will present it to the House as a private member’s motion."

MP Herath said that his party would hold talks with President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Opposition Leader R Sampanthan, Joint Opposition leader former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and other leaders of parties in Parliament on the contents of the amendment.

JVP Leader Dissanayaka said that his party had planned to present the 20th amendment to Parliament as a private members’ motion on April 19, but it had been delayed as President Sirisena prorogued Parliamentary in a bid to settle the internal conflict of the SLFP.

Dissanayaka said President Sirisena had come to power, promising to abolish the executive presidency, but had not taken any action to present an amendment to the Constitution to do so. As a result, the JVP had decided to present the 20th Amendment to the Constitution as a private members motion.

"The Amendment has been criticised by many pointing out that President would lose powers over the Provincial Governors and their appointments.

JVP Kalutara District MP Dr Nalinda Jayatissa said that the approval of a two-thirds majority in Parliament would be needed for their Amendment to be passed. "The support of other MPs will be needed at this point. In addition, if the Supreme Court so decides, there will have to be a referendum as well," he said, adding that the JVP had been calling for the abolition of the executive presidency since it was introduced.

Cabinet reshuffle and policy statement among President Sirisena’s priorities

Sirisena holds cordial and fruitful talks with UNP trio, Cabinet changes before May 8 - Ranil orders UNP members not to criticise the 16 SLFP frontliners who voted against him; not all of them may sit in opposition benches - Trouble within ‘JO’ too, Wimal to challenge Bandula over offer to support JVP motion to abolish executive presidency


Queen Elizabeth addressing the opening session of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London. Among those on the stage is President Maithripala Sirisena (left extreme )
The Sunday Times Sri Lanka
A lesser known fact among most politically literate Sri Lankans was a directive Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe issued to all parliamentarians of his United National Front (UNF) ahead of the National New Year. On Monday April 9 he told them to refrain from criticising the 16 Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) MPs who had voted in favour of the no-confidence motion against him. That comprised six Ministers, the Deputy Speaker, four State Ministers and five Deputy Ministers.