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

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Myanmar policeman who testified Reuters reporters were framed is sentenced to prison: police

Prosecution witness police captain Moe Yan Naing walks outside the court room during a hearing of detained Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo in Yangon, Myanmar April 20, 2018 . REUTERS/Ann Wang

Thu Thu AungShoon Naing-APRIL 29, 2018

YANGON (Reuters) - A police officer who testified that police framed two Reuters reporters has been sentenced to an undisclosed prison term for violating Myanmar’s Police Disciplinary Act, a police spokesman told Reuters on Sunday, without elaborating.

Captain Moe Yan Naing told the court on April 20 that a senior officer had ordered police to “trap” one of the two journalists arrested in December. He said officers had been told to meet reporter Wa Lone at a restaurant in Yangon and give him “secret documents.”

During that hearing, Moe Yan Naing told the court he had been under arrest since the night of Dec. 12, the date the Reuters reporters were arrested, without access to his family. He said he had been accused of violating the Police Disciplinary Act.

The court in Yangon has been holding hearings since January to decide whether Wa Lone, 32, and his Reuters colleague Kyaw Soe Oo, 28, will be charged under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

At the time of their arrest, the reporters had been working on an investigation into the killing of 10 Rohingya Muslim men and boys in a village in western Myanmar’s Rakhine state. The killings took place during an army crackdown that United Nations agencies say has sent nearly 700,000 people fleeing to Bangladesh.

Seven Myanmar soldiers had been sentenced to “10 years in prison with hard labour in a remote area” for participating in the massacre, the Myanmar military said in April.
 
On Sunday, police spokesman Colonel Myo Thu Soe told Reuters Moe Yan Naing had been punished “according to police disciplinary act,” adding that his “case has been processed by a police court, finalised and he was punished and he has been sent to prison to serve the punishment.”

Myo Thu Soe did not elaborate on where the police court is based and did not respond to several questions about the specific section of the law under which Moe Yan Naing was sentenced. He also did not answer questions on the length of the sentence.

“The punishment is a prison sentence and for the rest, please find out yourself,” Myo Thu Soe told a Reuters reporter.

Myanmar government spokesman Zaw Htay was not immediately reachable for comment.

‘IN THEIR HAND’

Moe Yan Naing told the court he was charged under sections 16 (b) and 22 of the Police Disciplinary Act.

Under section 16 (b), anyone who “neglects to obey any general, local or other order issued in writing” could be sentenced to up to a year in prison.

Section 22 of the act also involves a maximum of a year-long sentence for “any act or omission which, although not specified in this Law, is pre-judicial to good order and police discipline.”

Tu Tu, the 42-year-old wife of Moe Yan Naing, told Reuters by phone she had not been notified about a sentence, adding that she has been unable to see her husband since Dec. 12.

“He is in their hand. They can do as they wish,” she said, referring to the police.

Detained Reuters journalist Kyaw Soe Oo and Wa Lone are transported in a police vehicle after a court hearing in Yangon, Myanmar April 20, 2018 . REUTERS/Ann Wang

Tu Tu and her children were evicted from their home in police housing in Myanmar’s capital Naypyitaw on April 21 - less than 24 hours after Moe Yan Naing’s testimony.

Police have said the eviction order was not related to Moe Yan Naing’s testimony, without elaborating further.

Judge Ye Lwin, who is overseeing the pretrial hearings in the case of the Reuters reporters, will on Wednesday rule on whether Moe Yan Naing was credible when he testified about what he called a police “set up” to “trap” Wa Lone.

Amber Rudd letter to PM reveals 'ambitious but deliverable' removals target

Exclusive: denials she was aware of deportation targets at odds with January 2017 letter now published in full

Amber Rudd has claimed she did not set, see or approve any targets for removals. Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images



The private letter from Amber Rudd to Downing Street in which she sets an “ambitious but deliverable” target for an increase in the enforced deportation of immigrants has been published by the Guardian in full for the first time.

The letter, signed by the home secretary in January last year, states that she is refocusing work within her department to achieve the “aim of increasing the number of enforced removals by more than 10% over the next few years”.

Rudd has claimed she did not set, see or approve any targets for removals. The former immigration minister Brandon Lewis suggested on Sunday this proposed increase was an ambition rather than a target.

But Home Office sources have told the Guardian that it is “shame-faced nonsense” to claim the department had not been set specific targets in this area, or that these have not been regularly discussed at the highest levels.

The latest furore was sparked on Friday when the Guardian published details from a separate confidential memo that was sent to Rudd in June last year.

Prepared by Hugh Ind, the director general of Immigration Enforcement in the Home Office, it picked up on the new policy outlined by Rudd in her letter to Theresa May.

The document stated that his agency had “set a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017/18 … this will move us along the path towards the 10% increased performance on enforced returns which we promised the Home Secretary earlier this year”.

While Rudd has denied seeing the six-page briefing note, the Guardian can now reveal that it was also sent to at least eight of the Home Office’s most senior officials, including:

 Marc Owen, senior director of national and international operations in Immigration Enforcement.
 Mark Thomson, the director general of the Passport Office.

 Tony Eastaugh, UK director of operations at Immigration Enforcement.

 Gareth Hills, director of performance and risk at the Home Office.

 Stephen Kershaw, a senior director in Immigration Enforcement.

 Andrew Wren, director of performance, assurance and governance at the Home Office.
The disclosure will heap further pressure on Rudd, who has said she will address MPs on Monday to answer the “legitimate questions” that have been raised over the past week.

On Friday night, nine hours after the Guardian first told the Home Office about the leaked memo, Rudd tweeted: “I wasn’t aware of removal targets. I accept I should have been and I am sorry that I wasn’t.”

The response appears at odds with the letter she sent to the prime minister in January last year.
But it also suggests that none of the other senior officials and special advisers copied into the subsequent briefing note ever discussed with her the targets which the Immigration Enforcement agency was attempting to reach on her instruction.

Home Office sources have told the Guardian that Immigration Enforcement has been working all year to reach the target of 12,800 enforced returns in 2017-18.

They have been bracing themselves to acknowledge to ministers that the agency has failed to do so. To meet the goal, it needed to deport 250 people a week, but it has only been able to remove about 225 a week.

“At the Home Office we work in a target culture,” said a source. “The civil service is completely target based. That’s all we do. It is shame-faced nonsense for Amber Rudd to say otherwise.”

Pompeo’s Message to Saudis? Enough Is Enough: Stop Qatar Blockade

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was met by the Saudi foreign minister, Adel Al-Jubeir, upon his arrival in Riyadh. CreditSaudi Press Agency, via Reuters


RIYADH, Saudi Arabi — As Saudi Arabia considers digging a moat along its border with Qatar and dumping nuclear waste nearby, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in Riyadh on his first overseas trip as the nation’s top diplomat with a simple message: Enough is enough.

Patience with what is viewed in Washington as a petulant spat within the Gulf Cooperation Council has worn thin, and Mr. Pompeo told the Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, that the dispute needs to end, according to a senior State Department official who briefed reporters on the meetings but who was not authorized to be named.

Last June, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates led an embargo by four Arab nations of Qatar, accusing the tiny, gas-rich nation of funding terrorism, cozying up to Iran and welcoming dissidents. Years of perceived slights on both sides of the conflict added to the bitterness.

Mr. Pompeo’s predecessor, Rex W. Tillerson, spent much of his tenure trying to mediate the dispute, which also involved Egypt and Bahrain, but without success. The Saudis, keen observers of Washington’s power dynamics, knew that Mr. Tillerson had a strained relationship with President Trump and so ignored him, particularly because Mr. Trump sided with the Saudis in the early days of the dispute.

But Mr. Pompeo is closer to Mr. Trump and thus a more formidable figure. And in the nearly 11 months since the embargo began, Qatar has spent millions of dollars on a Washington charm offensive that paid off earlier this month when its leader, Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, had an Oval Office meeting with Mr. Trump during which the president expressed strong support for the tiny country.

So Mr. Pompeo came here to deliver the same message to Mr. Jubeir at an airport meeting Saturday afternoon; to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman later that night; and to King Salman in a meeting planned for Sunday: Stop.

Confronting Iran, stabilizing Iraq and Syria, defeating the last of Islamic State, and winding up the catastrophic civil war in Yemen are seen in Washington as increasingly urgent priorities that cannot be fully addressed without a united and more robust Arab response.

Mr. Pompeo arrived in Riyadh on the same day that Houthi forces in Yemen shot eight missiles at targets in the southern Saudi province of Jizan, killing a man. The fusillade was the latest sign that Yemen’s blood bath is a growing threat to the region.

The vast humanitarian crisis in Yemen has become such a keen concern on Capitol Hill that influential senators have begun discussing restrictions on arms sales to Saudi Arabia. That would undercut other administration priorities, including an effort to increase such sales as well as attempts to get the Saudis to play a more active role in stabilizing Syria and opposing Iran.

Poor targeting by the Saudis in airstrikes, as well as the kingdom’s blockade of Yemeni ports, have done much to worsen the humanitarian situation in Yemen, and Mr. Pompeo told Mr. Jubeir on Saturday that Yemen must have easy access to humanitarian and commercial goods, along with fuel, the State Department official said.

Mr. Pompeo also came to the Middle East to discuss the Iran nuclear accord, which most observers believe President Trump will rip up on May 12, his self-declared deadline for deciding on a deal he has described as “the worst ever.”

On Sunday, Mr. Pompeo is scheduled to arrive in Jerusalem for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Then he will head to Amman, Jordan, for discussions with King Abdullah.
President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany both came to Washington this past week to urge Mr. Trump to preserve the Iran accord.

Mr. Trump has vowed that, regardless of what happens to the nuclear accord, Iran will not restart its nuclear program, something Iranian officials have said they may do if the United States abandons the deal. Mr. Trump has also vowed to pull American forces out of the Middle East’s grinding conflict in Syria, asking other countries to bear more of the burden.

Whether the United States succeeds in persuading allies to do more there, while telling the Saudis to back down over Yemen and Qatar, is far from certain. And how the Iranians view Mr. Trump’s threats while he pulls troops away from Syria is also unclear.

On Monday, Mr. Pompeo will return to Washington to help Mr. Trump prepare for a risky summit with the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, whom Mr. Pompeo met on a secret trip to Pyongyang over Easter weekend.

Are Psychedelics the Answer to Addiction and Depression?

A new generation of research into psilocybin could change how we treat numerous mental health conditions





HomeRoland Griffiths was trying to meditate – but he couldn’t do it. If he sat there for a few minutes, it felt as through hours were stretching out before him, like a long, slow torture. So he quit. This tall, thin young scientist, who was rapidly rising through the ranks of academic psychology, would not meditate again for twenty years — but when he returned to mindfulness, he became part of unlocking something crucial. Professor Griffiths was going to make a breakthrough — just not for himself, but for all of us.

I came to Roland Griffiths’ door towards the end of a 40,000-mile journey, from Sydney to Sao Paulo to San Francisco. I set out on this trek to interview the world’s leading experts on what causes depression and anxiety, and what really solves them, because I had been downcast and acutely anxious for much of my life, and the solutions I had been offered up to then hadn’t taken me very far.
 
Everywhere I went for my book "Lost Connections: Uncovering The Real Causes of Depression – and the Unexpected Solutions," I heard people talking excitedly about the new research into psychedelics that was slowly creaking open. Until the mid-1960s, many reputable scientists had set up clinical trials where they gave these drugs — either plants or synthetic chemicals which induce an altered mental state – to people suffering from depression, alcoholism, and other problems. They had some quite striking early findings – and then, in a cultural panic, the research was slammed shut by the Nixon administration.

And then came Roland Griffiths.
* * *
Professor Griffiths had been a young grad student when he walked away from his attempts at meditation, pissed off. As the years passed, he rose to become a leading Professor of Psychology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Maryland, one of the best academic institutions in the world. He rose, he says, by being “certifiably workaholic,” or “pretty close to it.” He became the leading expert in the world on the effects of caffeine, and he was like a personification of his drug: wired, and tightly-wound. He was succeeding on all the measures of success in his world – but he felt like there was a hole in his life. It was, he told me “as though in some respects I was going through the motions of being a scientist and having a career in science.” He found himself thinking back across the decades, to his aborted stab at mindfulness. He started to look to see if there was any scientific evidence for the benefits of mindfulness – but he quickly saw that in his academic world, it was almost heresy to talk about the deep inner self. This was not regarded as real science.

He went to an ashram – and found that this time, he could meditate after all. “This inner world started to open up — and I started to open up,” he said. The people he was meeting who had been meditating for years seemed — as he observed them — to have a spiritual dimension to their lives that really benefited them in all sorts of ways. They appeared calmer, and happier, and less anxious.
 
So Roland started to ask himself some basic questions. What is happening when a person meditates? If you meditate in a dedicated way, for long enough, most people say that they start to experience a spiritual change. Why did meditation make people feel they were being changed in a way that was mystical — and what did that even mean? He stumbled across the psychedelics studies from the 1960s, and it seemed to him that the way people described feeling when they took psychedelics was very similar to the way people described when they were in a state of deep meditation. He began to wonder if they were, in some strange sense, two different ways of approaching the same insight. Could investigating one unlock the secrets of the other?

So he did something bold. He applied to conduct the very first clinical trial on a psychedelic since the ban a whole generation before. He wanted to give psilocybin, a naturally occurring chemical found inside “magic” mushrooms, to “respectable” citizens who had never used it before, to see if they would have a mystical experience — and to discover what the longer-term consequences, if any, would be.

“I have to say, frankly, that I was a skeptic,” he told me one afternoon as we drove across Baltimore. When he got the permission to proceed, people were startled. They assumed it was because the regulators thought Roland, with such a solid reputation, could only find that these drugs were harmful.
  
So dozens of ordinary professional people were recruited in Maryland. We want you, the advertisements said, to do something unusual.
* * *
Mark didn’t know what to expect as he walked into Roland’s lab. It had been decorated to look like a living room in an ordinary home, with a sofa, and soothing pictures on the wall, and a carpet. He was a straight-laced forty-nine-year-old financial consultant who had never taken a psychedelic before; he hadn’t even smoked cannabis.

He responded because he had become divorced from his wife a few years earlier and become depressed. He had been taking an antidepressant for four months, but it was just making him feel sluggish. Now he was worried about himself. He felt he kept everybody at arm’s length, and never really connected to them.

This had begun when Mark was ten years old and his father had developed a heart problem — a defect in one of his valves. One day he suddenly started experiencing terrible pain, and as Mark watched him get into the ambulance, he knew instinctively he would never see his father again. In the months and years that followed, Mark’s mother was so lost in her own grief that she couldn’t discuss the death with the boy, and nobody else did, either. “I think I just stuffed it all. I think I just went into denial mode,” Mark told me. It was the beginning of a pattern for him — of hiding, in order to protect himself.

As he lay on the sofa in the pretend lounge, his anxiety understandably flared. This was to be the first of three sessions in which he was given psilocybin. At the Baptist church he went to, they used to give the teenagers little comic strips about a man who took LSD and thought his face was melting. He couldn’t stop and had to be taken to a psych ward — and never recovered.

He lay down on the sofa, and when he was comfortable, he was handed a small psilocybin pill to swallow. Then, calmly, he looked at some images of landscapes in a book with his guide through the experience, Dr. Bill Richards, and then Bill placed a blindfold over Mark’s eyes and put some headphones on him, playing gentle music. And within forty-five minutes, Mark started to feel something different. “I could feel my mind getting looser,” he said to me.

The scientists had explained to him in the long preparation process that calling these drugs “hallucinogens” is a bit of a mistake. A true hallucination involves seeing something that isn’t there and thinking it’s as real as the device on which you’re reading this article — a physical object in the world. That’s actually very rare. It’s more accurate, they said, to call them “psychedelics”—which in Greek means, literally, mind-manifesting. What these drugs do is draw things out of your subconscious and bring them into your conscious mind. So you don’t hallucinate—rather, you will see things in the same way you see them in a dream, except you are conscious; and at any given moment, you will be able to talk to your guide, Bill, and know he is physically present, and know that the things you are seeing as a result of the drug are not physically there.
 
“There’s no visual experience of the walls turning or anything like that,” Mark told me. “It’s totally dark. And all you hear is this music as a means of grounding you—and then it’s just internal visualization . . . I would say [it is like] dreaming awake,” except he could remember it all afterward, vividly—“as vividly as anything in my life.”
* * *
As he lay back on the sofa, Mark felt he was paddling in a great cool lake. He started wandering up and down, and he could see there were different coves around him, and that there would be inlets from those coves. He sensed intuitively — as you do in a dream—that this lake symbolized all of humankind. All of us empty out into this lake, he thought — all our feelings, all our longings, all our thoughts.

He decided he was going to explore one of these coves. He hopped from rock to rock, all the way up the stream, and he felt something was calling him to keep going, deeper, deeper. He then reached a sixty-foot waterfall and stood before it in awe. He realized that he could swim up it, and he thought that when he got to the top of the waterfall, he would be wherever he wanted to go in life, and “the answer would be there for me.”

He told Bill, his guide, what was happening. “Drink it in,” Bill said.

When Mark reached the top of the waterfall he saw a little fawn in the water, drinking from the stream. It looked at Mark and said “There’s some unfinished business here for you to take care of,” from your childhood. “This is something that you need to take care of if you want to continue to evolve and grow.”
 
Now, at the top of this waterfall, Mark felt for the first time in his life that it was safe to approach the grief he had hidden away since he was ten years old. He followed the fawn farther down the river and he found an amphitheater. And there, waiting for Mark, was his dad, as he had been that last time Mark saw him.

Mark’s father explained that he was going to tell him some things he had wanted to be able to say to him for a long time. First of all, he wanted Mark to know that he was fine. “That he had to leave,” Mark recalls, “and he felt bad about it, but [he said] ‘Mark—you are perfect just the way you are, and you have everything you need.’”

Mark cried when he heard that, in a way he had never cried for his father before. His father held him, and he said: “Mark, don’t hide. Go seek.”

Then, later, Mark met another a smiling guide – a man who had come to help him through this journey, he said. He reached inside him, and he began to pull out a great slew of concrete walls. The guide said: “Mark, we need to talk to this part of you.” The guide said to the walls: “You have done an amazing job for Mark. You have protected him. You have created incredible works of art for him—these beautiful walls you created for Mark, these trenches, this scaffolding which has protected Mark for many, many years and got him to this place. We need to make sure you’re okay with taking these [walls] down so you can experience what’s next.”
 
“And it was done with such love,” Mark told me. “No judgment.’” And the frightened parts of Mark consented to let his walls come down. And as he did, Mark realized that close by, he could see people he had loved, who had died—his father, and his aunt—applauding him.

Mark knew then—“this whole journey, everything I had experienced, this whole push, was to say—life is for living. Go out and live. Go out and explore, and enjoy, and just take it all in.” He had an intense sense of the beauty of being alive, of being human—“the magnificence of it, the wisdom of it, it was just overwhelming.”

And then he began to feel the drug wearing off, and it was “like you were back in your own ego,” as he puts it. He had arrived at Johns Hopkins at nine o’clock, and he left at five thirty. When his girlfriend, Jean picked him up, she asked him how it had gone, and he had no idea what to say.
* * *
In the months that followed, Mark found he was able to talk about his father in a way he never had before. He had a strong sense that “the more open I am, and the more revealing I am, the more I’m going to get from anything.” He felt his anxiety had—to a significant degree—been replaced with a sense of wonder. “I felt I was able to be a little bit more human with people,” and he even started to go to ballroom dancing with his girlfriend, something he would have had to be dragged to kicking and screaming before.
   * * *
Part of the job for Roland — the skeptical scientist who was running this experiment — was to interview everyone who had been given psilocybin, two months after the experience. These people would come in, one by one, and their answer was almost always the same. Routinely, they would say it was “one of the most meaningful [experiences] of my life” and compare it to the birth of a child, or the death of a parent. Mark was typical. “It struck me as kind of wildly implausible at first,” Roland said to me. “My immediate thought was — what kind of life experience did these people have [before the experiment]? But they were high-functioning, mostly professional-level people.”

Some 80 percent of people like Mark still said, two months later, that it was one of the five most important things that had ever happened to them.

This was the first of many striking results they found when they gave psylocibin to patients. They tried administering it to long-term smokers who had tried everything to give up. Incredibly, 80 percent of them quit, and remained non-smokers a year later. To give a comparison point: the next most successful tool for quitting smoking, nicotine patches, works for 17 percent of people. This has opened up an array of studies currently looking at whether it can help with other forms of addiction.

Roland’s work played a key role in re-opening the gates of psychedelic research across the world. I also traveled to interview the scientists who have done this work in Los Angeles, New York, London, Sao Paulo, and Oslo. They have all made startling discoveries. For example, a team working at University College London gave psilocybin to people who had severe depression and hadn’t been helped with any other form of treatment. It was only a small preliminary study without a control group, so we shouldn’t overstate it, but they found that nearly 50 percent of patients saw their depression go away entirely for the three-month period of the trial.
 
So what, I wanted to know, is happening here?
 * * *
Whatever is happening, all the scientists involved warned that people should not lightly decide to try these experiences. If meditation is the beginners’ ski-slope, Dr Bill Richards told me, psychedelics are the Olympic slopes. They should only be tried in carefully monitored circumstances, where you can be monitored by people with deep experience.
* * *
I learned that within all this research, there are two smaller findings – ones that I think begin to tell us what is really going on here. They show us the power of these substances – and their limitations. At first glance, they will seem a little strange.

Here’s the first one. When you take a psychedelic, most people will have a spiritual experience – you get a sense that your ego-walls have been lowered, and you are deeply connected to the people around you, to our whole species, to the natural world, to existence. But it turns out the intensity of the spiritual experience varies from person to person. For some people, it will be incredibly intense; for some people, mild; and some people have no spiritual experience at all. At Johns Hopkins, the team discovered that many of the positive effects correlate very closely with the intensity of the spiritual experience. So if you had a super-charged spiritual experience, you got the benefits very heavily; and if you had no spiritual experience, you didn’t have many positive effects.

Saturday, April 28, 2018

North-East journalists protest in Batticaloa demanding media freedom

Home28Apr 2018

Journalists from across the North-East gathered in Batticaloa on Saturday to participate in a demonstration calling for media freedom and demanding justice for the killings of numerous Tamil journalists. 
The demonstration was held on the thirteenth anniversary of the abduction and murder of the Tamil journalist and editor of TamilNet, Dharmeratnam Sivaram. 
Despite the current government's pledges to end media repression and ensure justice for past atrocities, Tamil journalists continue to face harassment by the security services. 
Journalists from the Jaffna Press Club and the Eastern Province's Journalists Association also held a rememberance event that afternoon in Batticaloa town, where they were joined by local residents and community leaders in commemorating Sivaram's life and work.  
Sivaram was abducted in front of Bambalipitiya police station in Colombo on April 28 and was found dead several hours later in a high security zone in Sri Lanka's capital, which at the time had a heavy police and military presence due to the ongoing conflict. His killers, highly suspected to be linked to the government of then president Chandrika Kumaratunga, remain at large. 
2005 not only saw the murder of Sivaram, but also of two other Tamil media workers, Mr S Suhirtharajan, Trincomalee correspondent for Sudar Oli, a Tamil daily and Ms Relanki Selvarajah, Tamil broadcaster.

A tale of two past giants, two recent interviews, and a failed constitutional marriage


article_image
Rajan Philips- 

"We must try and marry the two ideas – the Executive elected by the people and the Parliament elected by the people." - J.R. Jayewardene

They haunt us still. Colvin R. de Silva and JR Jayewardene, that is: they were two classmates, schoolmates and friendly boxing rivals, who rose to colossal heights in this little country’s constitutional evolution. JRJ won the ultimate political power in the late evening of his long political life. Colvin never won power, but he was always powerful and he would have been powerful anywhere. Colvin by the sheer force of his personality, that included his formidable intellectual prowess, exceptional persuasive skills and utmost patience to suffer fools, presided over the dissolution of our ties to British monarchy while preserving the parliamentary system that we got from the British and made it the matrix of our political society. JRJ took over from where Colvin left but he (JRJ) came to the game with the kind of political power that no other Sri Lankan leader, either before or after him, has ever received from the electorate.

To be sure, the scale of JRJ’s victory was more fortuitous than it was the endorsement of his rather idiosyncratic agenda. But no matter how political power landed on his lap, it gave him the wherewithal to put in place a political scheme that until then had convinced no other Sri Lankan political leader as suitable for the country except Mr. Jayewardene himself. He changed Sri Lanka’s constitution, barely five years old after Colvin had finished with it, to have an elected executive President with an elected parliament. In his own words, as I have quoted above, President Jayewardene wanted to marry the two. But the marriage has not worked well at all. I would argue that it has been a total failure and it is the parliament that is the poorer for it. The two are too incompatible to cohabit. In the end, it is the parliament that became redundant and eventually incompetent.

In fairness to JR Jayewardene, he was too much of a parliamentarian to actually scheme for the withering away of parliament under the dominance of the executive presidency. In fact, he categorically told Prof. AJ Wilson that he (JRJ) was not in favour creating in Sri Lanka "the kind of administrative state" as in France, where the French President has a "bureau of overseeing administrators who initiate action, intervene in ministries and coordinate policies" and virtually command key sections of the government. In contrast, President Jayewardene told Wilson, "I wish (the President) to have only his Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers as Advisers because they represent the people as Members of Parliament."

But his intentions have been undone both by the provisions of his constitution, and where they are not bad enough by the manner in which his successors operated the constitution. The Prime Minister was reduced to a peon, parliament was subordinated, and the President became not only Head of State and Head of Government, but also Head of the Cabinet, in a uniquely triple concentration of roles and powers. The marital failure was not unanticipated. During the constituent assembly debates in 1970 when JR Jayewardene first mooted the idea of an elected president and elected parliament, Dr. Colvin R. de Silva exposed the inherent contradiction in the idea of the marriage, calling it a ‘redundant counter-posing’ of two elected agencies. Prophetic words, they are as powerful as powerful institutions. And they haunt us still!

Current Parliamentary Incompetence

There were two news conferences last week that that shed plenty of light on our current state of politics and what is likely to unfold in the near future. The first was what I am tempted to call a swashbuckling interview by the National Elections Commission (NEC) Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya to the national media. Answering questions from probing and even provoking journalists, Mr. Deshapriya laid bare the level of incompetence to which our parliament has sunk. The pathetic procedural delays over the Provincial Council election legislation are a sad commentary on how parliament is being run on a day to day basis. The parliament’s legislative savvy is now a national joke, after the results of the local government elections in which the total number of elected members in our local bodies ballooned from about 4,486 to 8,356 under the new hybrid system of elections. Yet, no one in the cabinet or legislature saw it coming until everyone saw it after the fact.

Mr. Deshapriya effortlessly shot down as "baseless" a journalist’s seemingly omniscient query if the doubling of the number of elected local government officials is the result of interventions by local NGOs with foreign (government) funding. The NEC Chairman gave the chronology of parliament’s labour in deciding the total number of elected officials: it has been going on from 2012 (i.e. two to three years before the ‘regime change’ that too is baselessly alleged to be the work of foreign forces), was revisited in 2016 and 2018, was vetted by the Supreme Court, and was passed in parliament by government and opposition support. So, where are the foreign forces here, and who are they? Or, for that matter, who and where are the foreign forces either in the defeat of the no-confidence motion, or in the JVP’s proposed 20th Amendment? When there is nothing else to pull for easy political mileage, just pull out of thin air the bogey of foreign forces.

What is not clear to me in the local elections arithmetic is the basis of the claim that such a huge increase was necessary because of the change to ensure that 25% of the elected members in each authority are women. Why was it necessary to increase the number of elected members in each local authority to ensure women’s representation at 25%? Is it because someone did not want to reduce the number of seats available to men in order to give legitimate representation to women who are more than half the population? That’s a funny, or perhaps not so funny, how do you do? Even then, there was no need to virtually double the total number of local council members in all local authorities. Is too much to ask of Minister Faizer Mustapha, who is supposed to be a legal luminary, to make a comprehensive statement in parliament, explain the background to this local election fiasco, and outline how the government is proposing to fix this while there is much public interest about it?

Gratifyingly, at least to this writer since I have been harping on it from time to time, Chairman Deshapriya also took strong exception to the tendentious ploy of elevating local elections to the status of a national plebiscite. With folksy wisdom, he recalled how local elections were held when we were young, when there was nothing of the kind of national fuss or fanfare as there is now. Now, editorial commentators go to town plying this ploy and legal luminaries rise on their hind legs in the apex court to learnedly argue that nothing less than a fifth of the national sovereignty is at stake in the local elections. A fifth, because the Jayewardene Constitution divides sovereignty into five parts: legislative, executive, judicial, fundamental rights and franchise. No one bothers about the constitutional text that exclusively ties the franchise to presidential and parliamentary elections and, of course, the Referendum. Local government is important but its elections are not an extension of the ‘sovereign franchise.’ Nor are they a surrogate for national parliamentary elections.

The most insidious aspect of the new system is that the allocation of 60% of the seats in a local authority, to single-member or multi-member wards, does not mean that the voters get to elect their ward members directly. No, they are a constrained to mechanically vote for a party and the contesting parties submit two lists, one for the 60% ward members, and the other for the 40% PR numbers. Based on the number of votes cast for each party, it is left the Election Commission officials to determine the winners from ‘Ward’ list and the PR list. So it is the political party leadership and bureaucracy that determines who will be your ward member.

We can draw two lessons from Mr. Deshapriya’s interview and local elections fiasco. First, our parliament doesn’t know what it is doing, and, two, when it comes to elections it is the party machine that is running the show and not the people who cast their vote. Based on them we can also conclude that the current parliamentary incompetence and the rise in the power of political party machinery are the direct results of the failed marriage of the elected executive and the elected parliament, and the corrupt system proportional representation that has been for the parliamentary election.

The JVP News Conference

The second news conference was by JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who took the opportunity to explain the JVP’s proposal for a Private Member’s Bill to amend the constitution for the twentieth time. Mr. Dissanayake was necessarily open that the JVP needs to persuade and canvass the support of all the parties in parliament because the JVP alone with its six MPs cannot even get a debate on the bill going. The JVP cannot and is not trying to pull a constitutional veil over anyone’s eyes. But the JVP’s critics can and they are doing it with obfuscation and slander.

It should be clear to everyone that there cannot be a total abolishment of the presidency, simply because it is not possible to do so. But the opponents of the 20th Amendment will have none of and will talk only about abolishment and the vacuum it is going to create. All that the 20th Amendment can and must do is to redefine the relationship between the President and the Parliament, which would invariably involve redefining the roles and functions of the Head of State, the Head of Government and the Cabinet of Ministers. The powers vested in the President by the 1978 Constitution are simply incompatible with the proper functioning of parliament. To wit:

Unlike in the American system which is based on the separation of powers, the Sri Lankan President, until the 19th Amendment, and despite the constitutional claims to separation of powers, exercised total control over parliament. He could "summon, prorogue and dissolve parliament" (Chapter 11, Article 70), and parliament would have no say in it. Only the President, and not the Speaker, would certify a bill passed by a referendum (11, 80). He can in his discretion submit for ratification in a referendum a bill that has been defeated in Parliament (13, 85(2)). It is the President who establishes and appoints members of the Delimitation Commission that carries out the demarcation of electoral districts for parliamentary elections (14, 95), and proclaims by publication the names and boundaries of the demarcated districts (14, 97). And finally it is the President who appoints the Commissioner of Elections with no input required from the cabinet or parliament (14, 103 (1)), although he can be removed by the President only upon an address of Parliament (14, 103 (3)).

Again unlike under the French Constitution, the Sri Lankan Constitution, until the 19th Amendment, thoroughly subordinated the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers to the President. It was no more the Prime Minister as head of the cabinet, being primus inter pares (first among equals) that used to be the underpinning of cabinet government. Under the Sri Lankan presidential system, the President, like the Roman Emperor, became "princeps" or " dominus, vis-à-vis the Prime Minister and the cabinet. According to AJ Wilson, the 1978 Constitution made the president "far more powerful than a prime minister could have been under the former system." Under different provisions of the constitution it is the President who has sweeping powers over all major appointments in the state machinery, with no accountability to parliament. These powers have somewhat been reduced after the 19th Amendment.

Specifically, the President is only "responsible" to parliament, and not answerable to it (8, 42) – a crucial difference, for AJ Wilson, who also notes that the Standing Orders of the House do not permit any censuring of the president or his actions by parliament. Although the President is a member of the cabinet and is the Head of the cabinet, he shall continue in office even when the cabinet stands dissolved (8, 42). He wields unrestrained power to appoint and dismiss ministers and assign responsibilities (8, 44); appoint ministers who can function directly under him without being part of the cabinet (8, 45); and appoint deputy ministers in consultation (a rare instance till the 19th Amendment) with the Prime Minister (8, 46). Most importantly, the President, till the 19th Amendment, could get rid of the Prime Minster at whim (8, 47).

Further, under Article 8, 44 (2), the President can assign himself any subject or function. In practice, this led to the presidents ‘usurping’ the Ministry of Finance. It started with President Premadasa, and was picked up by Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa.The practice continued even after the arrival of the yahapalanaya twosome, with the difference that it was the Prime Minister, and not the President, who usurped not the whole Ministry of Finance but just yanked the Central Bank out of the Finance Ministry and brought it under his wings. That set the stage for the now infamous bond scam and the saga continues with the Interpol search for the former Governor of the Central Bank. There could be a rebirth of the old scandal in parliament if Ravi Karunanyake were to be reinstated as a Minister, in his capacity as the Assistant Leader of the reformed (sic) UNP. Who knows? If that were to happen, it must not be the executive presidency that should take the blame.

Endemic Judicial & Police Corruption In  Sri Lanka; Recent Revelations Should Be An Eye Opener!


Lukman Harees
logoThis is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
The Video of a speech by a young ‘whistle-blower’ lawyer Sugandhika Fernando exposing the utter corruption and deterioration of the standards in the system of justice and law enforcement in Sri Lanka, has already gone viral. She particularly mentioned many acts of misconduct such as drunken/corrupt judges, corrupt Mudliyars/court administration staff, and also senior lawyers and Police officers who have been abusing the system to enrich themselves. What she exposed boldly and publicly about the vices of corruption, bad practices and sexual exploitation within the system of law, has also been a pet topic of UNP Deputy Minister  cum actor Ranjan Ramanayake for some-time, both within and outside the Parliament which landed him in hot water, with a legal Mafia chasing him from behind gunning for his blood. Besides, many members of the legal profession as well as clients too has been sharing similar views in private hush talks. Nagananda Kodituwakku is another rights lawyer who has spearheaded a campaign to clean up the stables long polluted by rogue corrupt elements both in the Bench and the Bar.  
In an interview with Daily Mirror ( 29/08/2017) Ranjan Ramanayake opined ‘There are instances where wrong verdicts are given. There are instances where sexual bribes are given. A judge had been accused of raring a servant. People talk about them. A former Chief Justice admitted that he gave a wrong judgement during his tenure. What did the BASL chief do about these judicial officers and lawyers. Aren’t we going to penalize these judicial officers? There are instances where people threw excreta at judges. Some Sri Lankan lawyers have been identified as ones who hold black money by Panama papers. I am going to be penalized when I talk about them. Wrong doers are spared. Only the corrupted law enforcement officers start panicking when one talks about corruption in the judiciary. .. Late Prime Minister John Kotelawala said he would apply tar on the heads of corrupted monks. All monks should not panic about this statement. Likewise only corrupted judges and lawyers should panic about my statement.. My statements are based on what people come and tell me about lawyers.. People suffer as a result of shortcomings in the judiciary”. However, there is also a counter view that public attacks by political figures against the judiciary, can further undermine judicial independence and public confidence in the Judiciary. Nevertheless, it appears that judicial corruption is endemic. Political interference in the judicial process by influencing or intimidating judges were common since JRJ times with MR being the worst in that respect.  
As they say ‘fish rots from the top’, Sarath N. Silva as Chief Justice sacrificed the very notion of an independent judiciary and became a servant of the Executive Presidential system.  He shamelessly sacrificed the independence of the judiciary allowing the Executive President to play around with the process of law. How he later came on a political platform and apologized to the nation about letting MR go in the infamous Hambantota case is an open secret and shameful. Then the country had another CJ Mohan Pieris appointed by MR, who virtually acted as his Majesty’s loyal servant in delivering judgments. He reportedly went before the Present President Sirisena too to offer his services on the same terms. Such was the sad tale of interferences with the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka. We have also seen many reported acts of misconduct of many judges too serving in the lower benches including bribery and soliciting sexual favours. There was also another new tradition of judges which came to light in the  recent past , inviting  politicians to parties to sign as witnesses at their children’s weddings. There were thus clear cases of Supreme Court judges continuing to have personal and social relations with the executive branch specially during MR’s regime,especially despite being a government whose behaviour was extremely questionable from the viewpoint of democracy and the Rule of Law. 
Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena, a legal commentator captured this sad reality in an article to Colombo Telegraph in 2012; ‘Exponentially increased contempt displayed by the executive for Sri Lanka’s judiciary was manifested in recent years with politicians from the highest levels downwards seeking to influence the outcome of cases, with criminals having political backing openly disregarding arrest warrants and with the judiciary being treated as an appendage of the government’. As a prominent rights activist lawyer Basil Fernando also opined ‘The real test is as to whether the system of law and the administration of justice have gotten back to the point where it can be honestly claimed that the system functions well and that every element of the system has gotten rid of the corruption that it had been exposed to. Such victories should not be lightly claimed for all aspects of individual freedoms and the whole life of the nation depends on such things, like the way blood runs through the human body. The most essential element to consider is whether the competence of the judiciary that has suffered past interference has been restored fully’ and asks the question: ‘Does the legal process in Sri Lanka function sufficiently well that we could claim today that the due process of law can be assured within our system? If one is to go by the large numbers of litigants, who are the ultimate judges on this issue, we cannot yet claim such a situation has dawned’. 

Read More

Redefining Home: Experiences of the Jaffna Displaced



Many middle-aged displaced Tamils who have resettled in Colombo remain reluctant to return to their places of origin in Jaffna due to personal and professional reasons. This article explains how they have reconstructed their lives in Colombo, in the wake of displacement.

The ethnic violence of 1983 in Sri Lanka forced Tamils to flee their homes as well as abandon many material belongings and seek refuge in different parts of their country and also abroad. A substantial number of the Tamils from Jaffna migrated to Colombo to escape the miseries of the ongoing war and also saw the city as an easy transit out of the country. Those who ended up staying in the city experienced myriad difficulties during their initial days as they struggled to adjust to a new environment and culture. This was particularly so as Colombo is multi-ethnic, with a community comprising of Sinhalese, Tamils, Tamil-speaking Muslims, Burghers, Malays, Bohrahs and foreigners.

Eventually, the displaced managed to survive in their new locales and establish themselves. The children of these migrants, who were very young at the time of displacement, also experienced discrimination and isolation in a new city at the beginning. However, they little by little accustomed themselves to a new hometown and people. Brought up amidst the trappings of city life, these children, who were in their mid-30s at the time of this research, are reluctant to return to life in Jaffna.

Among eleven middle-aged [i] persons interviewed in Colombo, this article highlights two interesting narratives, drawn from field research conducted in 2013 [ii], which indicates how integration in Colombo helped them to aspire for

a better future that would have never been possible in Jaffna. This has also led them to reconsider and renegotiate their relationship to their ‘home’.

The journey from attachment to detachment: ‘What was once home is a broken dream’
“Home to me is Colombo as we have been living here for 22 years now”.

Eshwari Parthasarathy [iii] is a 33-year-old Lecturer at a university in Colombo. She has been staying in Colombo since her teenage years. While speaking about her initial struggle to feel at home in Colombo, she recalled childhood memories of Jaffna:
“I really loved to be in Jaffna during those days. I fell in love with the quietness… I used to ride bicycles and roam around without any fear. Our ‘home’ was the best thing we had. We felt like staying so close to nature there. But things started changing as the military and LTTE started interfering in our daily lives. [iv] I started to hate Jaffna slowly as it became quite hard to stay there”.
According to her, having freedom and living close to nature are important aspects to have in one’s childhood. Interestingly, at present, she does not regret the fact that she is not living ‘close to nature’. There were too many difficulties she witnessed as the town turned into a violent place with the onset of fighting between the Sri Lankan military and the LTTE that took away her cherished freedom. As time went on, after coming to Colombo, her feelings of attachment to Jaffna grew distant:

“In the 90s, I really wanted to return, but as days passed my feelings also changed. In 2011, I went to see my ‘old home’ after 21 years and got really upset to see it. Once constructed by my parents, it has now turned into a broken dream”.

However, she has the desire to renovate her childhood home in Jaffna, because it is the last remaining symbol of her father. In a relaxed tone, she stated that she would not mind going to Jaffna during holidays to feel at ease, but at no point in time does she wish to return and settle there.

“If the government at any point in time asks us to leave and return to Jaffna, then I would fight, as being a citizen of the country I have the right to live anywhere within the island”. Her decision to stay in Colombo is mostly influenced by the uncertainties that Jaffna offers now.

“The last couple of decades we have grown used to living a different life in Colombo compared to Jaffna. Also in Jaffna, all the facilities that I enjoy now, are absent”. If Eshwari returns she has to start afresh, which she is unwilling to do. Her fear of not getting a suitable job in Jaffna, compared to the job she presently has, is another concern. She doubts there would be any jobs for her at all due to increased unemployment.

Several years of her hard work has helped Eshwari to achieve a certain position which she does not want to lose by returning. Moreover, all her friends and relatives have migrated abroad or are in Colombo. Without them, home in Jaffna is merely a place, to Eshwari, which fails to provide her the feeling of ‘at-home’. This kind of thinking about home has already been expressed by Mesch and Manor where they state that attachment to community enhances with the increasing number of close friends and neighbours [v] .

Her stay in Colombo and occupation has changed her lifestyle. Eshwari has grown accustomed to urban life which stands in stark contrast to her life in Jaffna; it would be quite difficult to transition back. She states that any attachment, she felt to her home in Jaffna is ‘past’; she considers it to be the place where her parents lived decades ago and which had no contribution in the formation of her present identity. In this regard, Eshwari’s situation is similar to the assumption made by Wiborg, that in today’s world, with the onset of globalisation and mobility, homes in rural areas are gradually losing their importance as they fail to create any impact on individual’s lives in the formation of their identity [vi] .

The journey from rural to urban life: aspirations for a better future

“I do not want to return. My life’s changed now…Displacement has been a hidden blessing to me”. Rajesh, a 37-year-old unmarried Tamil-Hindu man, shared his memories about his ‘former home’ in Velanai, a village 6 kilometres away from Jaffna town. He grew up amidst paddy and tobacco fields, playing with pets, eating home-cooked food and leading a life centred around the village. This adolescent upbringing created a strong sense of belonging in which nature was the key element that linked him to his ancestral home.

Life changed in 1987, when Rajesh and his family were forced to leave their home. The following nine years, he experienced suffering due to continuous displacement which finally came to an end in 1996 when his family reached Colombo and gradually settled down. Rajesh’s initial days in Colombo resembled the hardships evidenced by others of his age whom I interviewed. With the passage of time, he completed his studies, got a job, and adjusted to city life. His job requires frequent travel to many places in Sri Lanka including Jaffna. His mother returned to Velanai in 2011 which is another reason for him to return to his hometown on visits. This helps to keep him updated about the place and its surroundings.

His growing concern about Jaffna can be sensed when he opines that the town has become ‘technologically developed’, but unfortunately this development has proved to be ‘fatal for young generations’ as they are getting involved in crimes such as robbery, rape and murder.

Colombo has brought transformation to his life; for his personal perception of ‘survival’, he needs ‘air conditioning, a refrigerator, a television, a washing-machine, a computer and other electronic gadgets’. Here, he is earning a comfortable salary and leading a ‘luxurious life’. Rajesh is well aware that to maintain his life-style he needs to sustain a certain income which can only be possible if he remains in the capital. He considers  displacement as a ‘blessing’ in disguise. This echoes the story of Eshwari. In contrast to Eshwari who has no family in Jaffna, Rajesh could have opted to return because of his mother.

His mother lives alone in Velanai as their relatives and neighbors have all migrated either to Colombo or abroad. According to Rajesh, security is a big concern there, so it can be assumed that his mother is not safe. He is so determined to stay in Colombo that his mother’s return to Jaffna could not influence his decision. His feeling towards his ‘home’ has changed over these years from attachment to detachment.

This article explores the experiences of the middle-aged Tamils who were displaced to Colombo and share similar experiences at a very young age. After staying in Colombo for more than two decades and growing accustomed to the city life, none of them are willing to return to their places of origin in Jaffna. Ideally, ‘home’ is an emotional attachment to territory, and ‘return’ means a ‘feeling of relief from uncertainty, insecurity, fear and terror’ [vii]. However, the interviewees have a contrasting view upon ‘return’. They believe integrating in Colombo paved their way to aspire for a better future. This has also led them to reconsider and renegotiate their attachment to their ‘homes’. I argue that the ‘attachment to home’ that implies a ‘positive affective bond’ where an individual must maintain closeness to a specific place [viii] alters with time, place, and priority. People like Eshwari and Rajesh have practically no attachment to their homes, and thus, they do not plan to return. Each one of them has own tale to tell regarding their displacement, nevertheless when it comes to their decision to return, all of them shares the commonality of integrating to their places of displacement.

This is because they have asserted their own individual attachments to their new locations, diminishing the ones to their ‘past homes’. They view post-war return as a ‘new uprooting’ because they have to build up a life in an environment which was once familiar but has now turned into a strange place. They are now happy to be able to settle down in the urban areas. They are not likely to leave their secured life and return to a rural life where livelihood opportunities are confined to either agriculture, labour work or fishing.

Moreover, if they return to Jaffna, they would have to assimilate themselves with a community of people who stayed in Jaffna and have suffered immensely for decades due to the war that deprived them of basic facilities and economic opportunities. Therefore, there remains a high possibility that the middle-aged returnees would not be welcomed by the locals, as they could be perceived as acquiring urban values which are totally different from the values of Jaffna. This in turn may lead to an experience of ‘social exclusion’ which could affect their daily lives and present further discrimination and isolation from the locals. Besides, the experiences they gained at their present locales influence the meaning of their ‘homes’ which play a vital role in their decision to return.

They have integrated socially and economically, and thus the value and importance of their ‘past homes’ has gradually decreased with time. The urban life-style has greatly influenced their self-image and identity and has distanced them from their rural, more conservative lifestyle.

The meaning of ‘home’, and attachment to it, is changing with time and priorities, making the concept more fragile and an object of negotiation and reflexivity. In today’s globalised world, ‘traditional homes’ are losing their importance as people are more likely to be in places which offer them a ‘better future’ rather than remaining attached to a place by emotion.

[i] People in between the age of 35-45 are considered as middle-aged, and the target group of this article fall in this range at the time of my interviews in 2013.

[ii] Interviews were held during my field work in January 2013 in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

[iii] I have used pseudonyms of my interviewees for security reasons.

[iv] The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was formed in 1975 by Vellupillai Prabhakaran with the aim of seeking an autonomous region for the Tamils in the North-Eastern part of Sri Lanka through armed struggle.

[v] Mesch, G. S., and Manor, O. (1998), Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environment and behavior, 30, no. 4: 504-519.

[vi] Wiborg, A. (2004), Place, nature and migration: Students’ attachment to their rural home places. Sociologia ruralis 44, no. 4: 416-432.

[vii] Chattoraj, D. , Gerharz E., “Difficult Return: Muslims’ Ambivalent Attachments to Jaffna in Post-Conflict Sri Lanka”, (upcoming article).

[viii] Hidalgo, M. C. and Hernandez, B. (2001). Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, no. 3, 273-281.