9 years today – Hospital hit again, Obama calls for an end to the shelling

Photographs: The aftermath of a shell attack on May 13th 2009.

 13May 2018

Marking 9 years since the Sri Lankan military onslaught that massacred tens of thousands of Tamils, we revisit the final days leading up to the 18th of May 2009 – a date remembered around the world as ‘Tamil Genocide Day’.  The total number of Tamil civilians killed during the final months is widely contested. After providing an initial death toll of 40,000, the UN found evidence suggesting that 70,000 were killed. Local census records indicate that at least 146,679 people are unaccounted for and presumed to have been killed during the Sri Lankan military offensive.

13th May 2009

The same hospital hit again

More than 100 civilians, including children, medical staff, a voluntary doctor and an Red Cross worker, were killed in Sri Lankan artillery attack that targeted a makeshift hospital for the second time in 24 hours. See more from TamilNet here.

The ICRC confirmed that one its employees, identified as Sivakurunathan Majuran, was killed alongside his mother in the shelling. The organisation confirmed the hospital had been “hit by shell fire for a third time”.

In another incident of shelling, at least 39 female patients were also killed at a counselling aid centre for mentally ill women located in the final conflict zone.

The OISL reports that at the time, UN estimates said there were “more than 100,000 civilians remained trapped within three square kilometres”.

It added,

“By 13 May, with shells falling all around, sometimes into the compound, the only treatment that could be given was basic first aid and medication”

“Letters seen by OISL, consistent with witness accounts, including from United Nations and humanitarian workers, indicate that GPS coordinates of most hospital and other humanitarian facilities, including when they were relocated due to fighting, were transmitted to the Government, the SFHQ in Vavuniya and other Sri Lankan security forces, as well as the LTTE, to ensure that these facilities would be protected from attack.”

“During that time, the ICRC ship – which at that stage would have been the only possibility for taking patients for life-saving medical treatment - was not able to approach the shore because the shelling and gunfire was continuing.”

Photographs: The aftermath of a shell attack on May 13th 2009.

Obama calls for an end to the shelling

US President Barack Obama stepped out on to the White House lawn to make a statement on Sri Lanka. He called for “urgent action” and for the Sri Lankan government to “stop the indiscriminate shelling that has taken hundreds of innocent lives”.

See extracts of his statement below.

“As some of you know, we have a humanitarian crisis that's taking place in Sri Lanka, and I've been increasingly saddened by the desperate news in recent days. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians are trapped between the warring government forces and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka with no means of escape, little access to food, water, shelter and medicine. This has led to widespread suffering and the loss of hundreds if not thousands of lives.”

“Without urgent action, this humanitarian crisis could turn into a catastrophe. Now is the time, I believe, to put aside some of the political issues that are involved and to put the lives of the men and women and children who are innocently caught in the crossfire, to put them first.”

“I'm also calling on the Sri Lankan government to take several steps to alleviate this humanitarian crisis. First, the government should stop the indiscriminate shelling that has taken hundreds of innocent lives, including several hospitals, and the government should live up to its commitment to not use heavy weapons in the conflict zone.”

“Second, the government should give United Nations humanitarian teams access to the civilians who are trapped between the warring parties so that they can receive the immediate assistance necessary to save lives.”

“I don't believe that we can delay. Now is the time for all of us to work together to avert further humanitarian suffering.”

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband meanwhile called the conflict zone “as close to hell as you can get”.

A Vice Ministerial Troika from the European Union (EU) visited Sri Lanka and visited the Menik Farm camp where tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were being detained.

Though a statement said the EU is “deeply concerned about the high number of civilian casualties and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Northern Sri Lanka and reiterates its primary concern for the civilians in the conflict zone who are surviving under appalling conditions,” it went on to state,

“The EU recognises that the current crisis is approaching a final phase with the defeat of the LTTE militarily. The EU acknowledges the efforts and welcomes the commitments made by the Government in assisting its citizens that have escaped the conflict zone.”

See the full statement here.

Read More

Executive Presidency:What the 13A SC Determination really said - part I

By C. A. Chandraprema-May 13, 2018, 10:11 pm 

Nationalistic groups in this country believe that the institution of the executive presidency is a sine qua non for the preservation of Sri Lanka’s unitary character in the face of the provincial councils system. This idea largely stems from what is believed to have been stated in the Supreme Court determination of 1987 on the 13th Amendment Bill. Some appear to believe that Justice R. S. Wanasundera’s dissenting determination had said that after the introduction of the provincial councils system, the only thing that now preserves the unitary state is the executive presidency. For the past thirty years, this view has held sway among nationalists and continues to do so, today.

It was recently stated at a political gathering that when the 13th Amendment was taken up by the Supreme Court back in 1987, four judges said that it undermines the unitary character of the state and four other judges said that the unitary character of the state will remain unimpaired. It was said that one of the main arguments put forward by the latter group of judges was that since the executive president is elected by all the voters in the country and since the executive power of the President holds sway throughout the country via the cabinet, and the governors, Sri Lanka remains a unitary state and that it is the executive presidency that holds everything together.

This has now solidified into an article of faith among nationalists. However, what exactly did the 1987 Supreme Court determination on the 13th Amendment say? Did any judge really say that it was the executive presidency that ensured the unitary character of the Sri Lankan state after the introduction of the provincial councils system? In 1987, the petitions against the 13th Amendment were heard before a full bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice S. Sharvananda and Justices R. S. Wanasundera, P. Colin-Thome, K. A. P. Ranasinghe, E. A. D. Atukorale, H. D. Tambiah, L. H. DE Alwis, O. S. M. Seneviratne, and H. A. G. DE Silva.

The nine judges delivered five determinations with Chief Justice Sharvananda and Justices Colin-Thome, Atukorale and Tambiah delivering one determination and Justices Wanasundera, Ranasinghe and Seneviratne each delivering separate determinations and Justices Alwis and Silva delivering a joint determination. What enabled the passage of the 13th Amendment with only a two thirds majority in Parliament and without a referendum was Justice Ranasinghe’s determination coming into line with the joint determination delivered by Chief Justice Sharvananda and Justices Colin-Thome, Atukorale and Tambiah with the amendment of one clause which the former had held requires a referendum. Thus the determination of the full bench of the Supreme Court on the 13th Amendment was divided 5 to 4.

Legislative power was

fundamental

However in carefully reading through the five separate determinations given on the 13th Amendment, we see that none of the Judges had said that the executive presidency was the factor that safeguarded the unitary character of the country in the face of the provincial councils system. In delivering their determination Chief Justice Sharvananda and Justices Colin-Thome, Atukorale and Tambiah considered the question whether the introduction of a provincial councils system undermined the unitary character of the Sri Lankan state enshrined in Article 2 of the Constitution. They concluded that the essence of a unitary state is that sovereignty should remain undivided and the powers of the central government should be unrestricted.

They identified the two essential qualities of a unitary state to be firstly, the supremacy of the central Parliament and secondly the absence of subsidiary sovereign bodies. Subsidiary law-making bodies may exist but it should be possible to abolish them at the discretion of the central authority. In a federal state on the other hand, the field of government is divided between the federal and state governments which are not subordinate one to another, but are co-ordinate and independent within the spheres allotted to them. The federal government is sovereign in some matters and the state governments are sovereign in others. It was observed that in the exercise of legislative as well as executive powers no exclusive or independent power is invested in the Provincial Councils and the Parliament and President have ultimate control over them.

The most contentious provision in the 13th Amendment Bill which was discussed in all five determinations were clauses 153G (2)(b) and 153G (3)(b). What clause 154G(2)(b) stipulated is that a Bill for the amendment or repeal of the provincial councils Chapter or the Ninth Schedule in the Constitution shall become law only if such Bill has been referred by the President to every Provincial Council for the expression of its views. If every Council agrees to the Bill, it can be passed by a majority of the members of Parliament present and voting. However where one or more Councils do not agree to the Bill it has to passed with a two thirds majority of the whole number of Members in Parliament (including those not present) and also approved by the people at a referendum.

Clause 154G(3)(b) stipulated that no Bill on any matter in the Provincial Councils list can be passed by Parliament unless it has been referred by the President to every Provincial Council for the expression of its views and if every provincial Council agrees to the passing of the Bill, it can be passed by a majority of the members of Parliament present and voting. But if one or more Councils do not agree to the Bill, it has to be passed with a two thirds majorityof the whole number of Members (including those not present) and also approved by the people at a referendum.

The conclusion that Chief Justice Sharvananda and Justices Colin-Thome, Atukorale and Tambiah came to with regard to these two contentious clauses was that the central parliament can, by following the procedure set out in Articles 154G(2)(b) and 154G(3)(b) override the provincial councils. They opined that these two clauses do not limit the sovereign power of parliament but only impose procedural restraints.

Furthermore they saw the requirement of a referendum in these two clauses not as an impediment to the power of parliament but as an acknowledgement and affirmation of the sovereignty of the people.

President and Governor

in India and SL

To buttress their argument that the provincial councils are subordinate to the central government under the proposed 13th Amendment, Chief Justice Sharvananda and others pointed out that the provincial Governor is appointed by the President and holds office during the pleasure of the President and that the President remains supreme or sovereign in the executive field. They drew reference to Clauses 154C and 154F of the 13th Amendment Bill which provided that the executive power pertaining to matters coming under the Provincial Councils shall be exercised by the Governor of the Province either directly or through the Board of Ministers or through officers subordinate to him.The board of four Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head were to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions. The Governor was obliged to act in accordance with such advice, except in so far as he is required by the Constitution to exercise his discretion.

If any question arises as to whether the Governor is required by the Constitution to act at his discretion, the decision of the Governor shall be final and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called into question in any Court. The exercise of the Governor’s discretion shall be on the President’s directions. The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by the Ministers to the Governor could not be inquired into by any court. This was by far, the most extensive reference to the presidency in the five determinations on the 13th Amendment. It will be noted that all the powers of the President and the Governors mentioned by Chief Justice Sharvananda and the others are to be found word for word in the Indian Constitution as well. However India does not have an executive president. What they have is a ceremonial President with certain discretionary powers. Justice Wanasundera in his determination in fact observed that some of the discretionary powers available to the Indian ceremonial President vis a vis the States such as the power to veto statutes passed by the States (Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian constitution) have not been made available to the executive President in Sri Lanka through the 13th Amendment.

Articles 52, 53(1), 153, 154(1), 155, 156 and 163 of the Indian Constitution outlines the powers of the Indian President and the State Governors. Viz. There shall be a President of India.The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution. There shall be a Governor for each State. The executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution. The Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President and shall hold office during his pleasure.

There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advice the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his discretion. Anything done at the Governor’s discretion shall be final, and shall not be called into question. The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by the Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court – Thus we see that the provisions relating to the President and the Governors in the Indian Constitution are identical with the provisons relating to the President and the provincial Governors that were introduced to our Constitution through the 13th Amendment. The point to note is that it is not necessary to have an executive presidency to maintain control over the provinces and that a ceremonial president vested with the same discretionary powers as the Indian President is all that is needed.

Chief Justice Sharvananda and the others to further establish their claim that the 13th Amendment Bill does not affect the unitary character of the state pointed out that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal continue to exercise unimpaired jurisdiction over the whole country unlike in a Federal State. The power of appointment of Judges of the superior courts remains with the President. (As is also the case in India under Article 124(2) of the Indian Constitution.) The appointment, transfer, dismissal of judges of the lower courts continue to be vested in the Judicial Service Commission. Thus, the centre continues to be supreme in the judicial area as well.

The 13th amendment provides for Provincial Councils to have legislative power in respect of matters enumerated in the Provincial Council list and concurrent list in the Ninth Schedule. With regard to this, Chief Justice Sharvananda and the others contended that Article 76(3) of the Constitution specifically allowed Parliament to empower any person or body to make subordinate legislation for prescribed purposes and that delegated legislation is legal and does not involve any abandonment or abdication of the legislative power of Parliament. On the basis of the foregoing, Chief Justice Sharvananda and Justices Colin-Thome, Atukorale and Tambiah determined that no division of sovereignty or of legislative, executive or judicial power has been effected by the 13th Amendment and that the national government continues to be legally supreme over all other levels or bodies and that the Provincial Councils are merely subordinate bodies.

Justice Ranasinghe’s determination

Even though Chief Justice Sharvananda and the others who accepted the 13th Amendment Bill without any changes and did not consider a referendum to be necessary to have it passed into law were outnumbered by the other five judges who gave dissenting determinations, the determination of Justice K. A. P. Ranasinghe was such that with an adjustment, it could be brought into alignment with the determination delivered by the Chief Justice and others. Justice Ranasinghe determined that the supremacy of Parliament is retained in that it has the power to legislate, albeit in a special manner and form, to render ineffective any statute passed by a Provincial Council and even to repeal the provisions of the Provincial Councils Chapter in the Constitution in its entirety. Furthermore he observed that the executive power of the people entrusted to the President of the Republic is not whittled down in the 13th Amendment.

The issue that Justice Ranasinghe had was with Clauses 154G(2)(b) and 154G(3)(b) whereby a Bill for the amendment of the Provincial Councils Chapter in the Constitution or a Bill in respect of any matter set out in the Provincial Councils List can become law, in the event of one or more Provincial Councils not agreeing to the amendment only if it is passed with a 2/3 majority in Parliament and also approved by the people at a referendum. Justice Ranasinghe observed that Article 83 which specifies the entrenched Articles in the Constitution has been made alterable only by the process of a 2/3 majority and a Referendum and that therefore any steps taken thereafter to entrench another Article, would amount to an 'addition' to the existing provisions laid down in Article 83 of the Constitution and that would require a two thirds majority in Parliament plus a referendum.

It was by dropping the requirement for a referendum from Clauses 154G(2)(b), and 154G(3)(b) that Justice Ranasinghe’s determination was brought into alignment with that of Chief Justice Sharvananda and Justices Colin-Thome, Atukorale and Tambiah, thus enabling the 13th Amendment to be passed with a two thirds majority in Parliament without a referendum. It will be noted that one of the reasons stated by Justice Ranasinghe in coming to the conclusion that the 13th Amendment did not affect the unitary character of the Sri Lankan state was because ‘the executive power of the people entrusted to the President of the Republic’ has not been ‘whittled down’ in the 13th Amendment. In India too, the executive power of the union which is vested in the President has not been whittled down in any way.

The only difference between the Sri Lankan and Indian Presidents is that the former is a politician elected directly by the people and exercising power at his own discretion and the latter is a head of state elected by the Indian Parliament and carrying out his functions on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers and having discretionary powers in certain matters. What matters is the executive power of the central government. Whether it is exercised by a ceremonial President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister or an elected President acting on his own, is of no relevance to the preservation of the power of the central government and the unitary character of the state. This can be seen from the incongruous fact that the supposedly ceremonial president of India has much greater discretionary powers in relation to statutes passed by the Indian states than the executive president in Sri Lanka has in relation to statutes passed by the provincial councils.

(To be continued tomorrow)

JR’S PRESIDENCY: MAHINDA’S MONARCHY

 

13 May, 2018

History repeats, because we don’t listen the first time. Those who wanted genuine change, now pin their hopes on the 20th Amendment which would abolish the Executive Presidency and restore parliamentary rule.

The Mahinda Rajapaksa presidency in the years 2010-2015 is remarkable for its successes and excesses. If he planned to perpetuate his rule, he did so for a good reason.

Kingship is an ancient office. Mahinda’s second term was a modern ‘kingship’. That explains the vociferous opposition to the proposed abolition of the executive presidency. When the powerful Executive President ended a war and became the unifier of the land and redeemer of his tribe, he became the anointed ruler of the tribe.

The abolition of the executive presidency will not impugn the unitary form of the Republic. That is balderdash by a segment of the Opposition that is itching for a strong man to rescue the land from democratic chaos and restore the discipline of the despot.

The executive presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa is far more complex than what was designed by President J.R. Jayewardene.

The executive presidency introduced in 1978 was the result of a unique turn of events that occurred in 1977.

The UNP received more than 50 percent of the total vote in the entire island. Under the first-past-the-post electoral system that existed in 1977, this translated into the UNP getting 5/6 of seats in Parliament. The massive mandate turned the septuagenarian JRJ into a philosopher king.

With philosophic detachment he outlined his vision. He told an interviewer, “I think you must trim your sails to your own country’s needs and resources and forget about philosophies and theories”
Fortified by this unprecedented mandate, President JRJ decided that the country needed a ‘strong and stable executive not subject to the whims and fancies of an elected legislature’. He wanted an authoritative institution ‘not afraid to take ‘correct but unpopular measures ‘.

The Presidency of J.R. Jayewardene ended quietly in considerable confusion. His friend, classmate and political adversary, Dr. Colvin R de Silva wrote a brilliantly incisive pamphlet, ‘The UNP Government and the Crisis of the Nation ‘summing up the times of the first executive presidency.
“To drift as we are doing under this government, offering no alternative to a state at war with a section of the people, is to drift to disaster. That is not the way to prevent what has to be prevented; namely the division of this country into two separate states which cannot survive except as client states of big powers. The UNP government has put our independence in peril. And so also, and no less, have the Tigers! “

Readers should forgive me for the extensive quote. We owe history some degree of honesty. As Kafka told us in the business of writing, let us not bend. Let us not water it down. Let us not try to make the illogical logical. Let us not edit our souls. We should follow our obsessions mercilessly.
In the case of Mahinda Rajapaksa, the dice fell differently. He won the Presidency by a whisker a quarter century later in 2005. He beat the Tigers in 2009. He became the unifier of the land.

Following the military triumph, the Executive Presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa quietly acquired the prototypical character of a ‘Kingship’.

Authoritarian rule is not pure coercion. It is not only state machinery. The apparatus of coercion can coopt religious leaders to manipulate the flock to desired goals and targets. Domination of minds from within was the singular achievement of Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Constitutional amendments are adopted or rejected not on their relative merits. Partisan interests have guided our constitutional evolution. If some group feels that the proposed outcome is a zero-sum game, the intended outcome was of little relevance.

Traditional institutions are conditioned to resist change to existing arrangements that function to their advantage. Traditional elites make it their business to stunt the growth and the spread of democracy.
The Buddhist clergy is such a traditional institution. They constitute a traditional elite. They are profoundly hierarchical in orientation. To them, democracy is peripheral.

With the executive presidency, we created an agency that was superior to the elected Parliament. It was a manipulative authority concentrated in the hands of a single person.

Under the first executive presidency, life of Parliament was extended by a decidedly flawed referendum. It was pure and simple slaughter of democracy.

Historian Isaac Deutscher described the murders of German Socialist pioneers Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht in 1919 as the last triumph of Kaiser Wilhelm’s Hohenzollern Germany and the first triumph of Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

The Referendum held under the Executive Presidency of JRJ was the last triumph of the UNP that won independence for Ceylon. It was the first triumph of the autocracy of Mahinda Rajapaksa that ended the civil war in Sri Lanka.

When you trample on freedom, you leave footprints for successors. Relative morality is the name of the game.

The parallel is cited for one reason only. The study of history compels us to confront chaos while retaining our faith in its order and meaning.

The successful conclusion of the war made Mahinda Rajapaksa something more than an Executive President. He became the unifier of the motherland, redeemer of the Dhammadveepa – the land of the righteous. The three principal sects of Sangha fraternity have bestowed on Mahinda Rajapaksa exotic titles usually associated with our ancient kings: Vishva Kirti Sri Sinhaladhisvara, Sri Vira Vikrama Lankadhisvara, Sri Lanka Rajavamsa Vibhushana Dharmadvipa Cakravarti.”

This should not surprise us. The clergy as it is constituted today is an institution that operates on the principle of inequality and a top down flow of power and authority.

The memory of kings has a tenacious hold on the Sinhala Buddhist Sangha fraternity. That hold is less spiritual and more political.

Political institutions cannot be fashioned independent of the customs and practices of a society.
Today, the proposed abolition of the executive presidency has provoked a high-pitched opposition from an influential section of the Maha Sangha. The pro-Rajapaksa clerical troopers are versatile practitioners of the art of intimidatory persuasion. They proceed on the theory that he who shouts loudest is heard most.

They are most comfortable with a coercive disciplinary state that guarantees their tenure as shepherds of the flock. Past glories constitute their principal platform. Confronting enemies of the nation is their primary occupation.

They are pronounced partisans of the Mahinda Rajapaksa-led opposition. It is therefore obvious that they not only wish to preserve the powerful executive presidency but would like a Mahinda Rajapaksa proxy to reoccupy it. There is logic behind the move. The military victory over the separatists has had a seismic impact on the executive presidency.

Mahinda was indeed a ‘King’ to his followers. He still is. He will remain on this perch or pedestal as long as that section of the Buddhist clergy succeeds in sustaining the Sinhala Supremacist sentiment.
Mahinda defeated separatism and unified the country. He is the modern hero king. There is indeed some popular basis to this notion. That said, it is clear that in Ven Medagoda Abayatissa thero, spearheading the opposition to the abolition of the executive presidency, he has an an image maker of great promise. He is able to present the sales pitch as scripture and doctrine.

Monarchist sentiment was never completely extinguished in Sri Lanka. The Kandyan Convention was an instrument that enabled the monastic orders of Kandy to continue state sponsored rituals. The Monastic elite accepted the British King. As an eminent social anthropologist recently pointed out, among our traditional Buddhist clergy, “embers of monarchist fantasy lie beneath, ready to be ignited at the slightest opportunity.”

Post war triumphalism anointed the Executive Presidency with a sanctity associated normally with ancient Kings in our folklore.

The Rajapaksa regime found that a restoration of a new indigenous order – part feudal, part oligarchic, replete with a religio-magical legitimization, would be politically more rewarding than reaching out to genuine reconciliation.

So, we are back in a drift, just as comrade Colvin pointed out in the eighties.

The drive to glorify a vanished past, was a thinly disguised political project that constructed a paternalistic kingship associated with the executive presidency. Parallel to the process of making a ‘ Maharajano’ was the idea that the Sinhala people are the true citizens of the land and others are guests who must not demand more than their due.

This trend had other negative consequences. The culture of impunity became firmly entrenched. Dissent was construed anti national. Ethnic supremacy of the modern kingship had a price: Our freedom. 

Growing Religious Representation

Religious symbols have two significant characteristics, the empirical and the transcendent. The first emphasises the physical presence albeit, not in reality. 

by Mass L. Usuf -May 12, 2018

( May 12, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In an ethnic-conflict prone nation like ours, to examine the dynamic correlation between religious symbolism and peaceful co-existence would be instructive.  Especially, when they have been imposingly displayed in public places, government offices, police stations etc.

Sri Lanka is not governed by a religious organisation or religious parties. It is a secular country and the government is run by a democratically elected political party(ies). If so, the display of symbols only of a dominant community creates the space to inquire into its constitutional and moral justification.   After all, Sri Lanka is a multi-religious, pluralistic and secular society.

Public servants are considered the servants of the government and there duty is to serve the public.  A public servant cannot refuse to serve because the party he supports is not in power.  His personal political preference is absolutely irrelevant the moment he assumes work in office.  If politics is irrelevant, how about religious preference?  Religion is always considered a personal choice. Then, is it appropriate to display the religious inclination, of an individual or group of public servants, in a public office?  The duty of a public servant is to serve without expressing directly or indirectly, his religious adherence, in words or symbols. This is what ensures the continuity of public administration.

Symbol As An Identity

A symbol possesses the characteristic of identification in addition, to having a perceptive effect.  It can be used by a community of people or by a distinct group. In fact, a symbol has no reality in it except that it creates a religious, psychological or sociological sense of belonging or a close affinity to it. By this attachment there is an emotional connection that arises in relation to the symbol.  Religious rites, rituals, the feelings of awe, reverence and inspiration. It is qualified by man himself as holy and it enjoys a special status of inviolability for example, the Cross, the Dhamma Chakra. A symbol therefore, can identify those belonging to it.  Inversely, those belonging to a group or a religion can be identified with the symbol.

Subtle Dominance

A symbol though by itself is powerless can however, convey an overarching dominant message.  For example, the Swastika of the Third Reich during the second world war had this domineering effect.

Research indicates that subliminal exposure to national flags affects political thought and behaviour. “We report a series of experiments that show that subliminal exposure to one’s national flag influences political attitudes, intentions, and decision…. in “real-life” behaviour. The results portray a consistent picture: subtle reminders of one’s nationality significantly influence political thought and overt political behaviour”. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. December 2007)

It is common to see the statue or picture of Buddha prominently displayed in the offices of the government, local bodies, police stations etc.  The moment a non-Buddhist enters such premises, a mental barrier is created because he cannot relate himself to that image.  A sense of being distinguished and/or excluded pervades one’s mind. A Buddhist, naturally, like fish in water will never get this feeling. What a Buddhist may feel is derived from the above scientific research. It indicates a subliminal exposure to the symbolic image (as in the flag) influences thought, decision making …. in real lifebehaviour.  Here the subliminal stimulus is not on the teachings of Buddha but the thought of Buddhism and ‘Buddhist’ country.

“Marx used the expression “ideology” to this function of symbols and he made it into an unprecedentedly powerful political symbol.  Symbols are ideologies…… that is consciously or unconsciously created for sake of dominance”. (The Religious Symbol, Paul Tillich, The MIT Press). If peaceful co-existence ‘going deeper into our minds and hearts’ is to be achieved these may need to be addressed in the context of a multi-religious environment.

Consciously Purposive

This should not be misunderstood as a disrespect to Buddha.  It also should not be taken as disregarding the sensitivities of the followers of buddha’s teachings.  This is only an inquiry with regard to a practise which may contradict the message of the buddha.  Buddha statues are normally placed in a location removed from ordinary worldly affairs.  Many homes have a separate room, alcove, or cabinet for storage of religious images. This seclusion reminds a person of his/her vows as well as meditation practice.  The silent and calm environment helps to purify the mind, build up the serenity within oneself. Overcome the negative emotions of fear, greed, jealousy and hatred etc. of the materialistic world.

Religious symbols have two significant characteristics, the empirical and the transcendent. The first emphasises the physical presence albeit, not in reality.  Nevertheless, enabling a delicate reminder and a caution to be conscious.  The second, the transcendent, exudes the esoteric message figuratively symbolised therein.  Where only the empirical is given relevance or prominence to the neglect of the transcendent, it becomes a falsification of that religious object.  Since at the core of objectification is the figurative transcendent qualities which it is supposed to convey. When the priority is for the physical, the essence is lost.  There is more insult to the symbol than reverence; More hypocrisy displayed than sincerity. Mere ostentatiousness than humbleness.

Therefore, the use or display of religious symbols must be consciously purposive.  Where the conscious purposeness is lost the essence is missing.  Then, it means nothing and, leads to conduct contradictory to the manifested symbol.

Contradiction

Reflect on the irony of having a huge buddha statue in the compound of a Police Station where sometimes torture, assault, threats, bribery and other forms of corrupt practices allegedly takes place.  A lottery seller near a big buddha statue blaring repeatedly over the loudspeaker, ‘Ada wasanawantha Kotipathiya’, today’s lucky millionaire.  In the Sigalovada Sutta buddha adviced Sigalaka as follows:

“And what six ways of squandering wealth are to be avoided? Young man, heedlessness caused by intoxication, roaming the streets at inappropriate times, habitual partying, compulsive gambling, bad companionship, and laziness are the six ways of squandering wealth.

Seen are buddha statues also, near ‘three-wheeler’ or trishaw parking lots. A place where they sometimes haggle, lie or are rude to customers. Do these acts have any semblance of metta (loving kindness) or the other precepts in them?  I recently saw the serene image of buddha displayed near a drain in a congested spot of a junction, for want of space!

Statue Of Buddha

The early twentieth-century writer Alfred Foucher was the first to articulate the theory of aniconism which has been universally accepted. (“The Beginnings of Buddhist Art,” Journal Asiatique, January-February 1911).  According to him the earliest Buddha images were those produced in the Gandhara region more than half a millennium after the Buddha lived.  Ananda Coomaraswamy, like Foucher, accepted the theory of aniconism to explain the art in which portrayals of the Buddha in human form did not occur. (Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, “The Origin of the Buddha Image,” Art Bulletin 9, no. 4 (1927): 287-328).

Aniconic means, no statue or idol. The Buddha was only represented through symbols such as an empty throne for example.  Professor A.D.T.E. Perera of the Department of Philosophy, University of Mexico and former Editor of the Buddhist Encyclopaedia writing a scholarly essay on “Colossal Buddha Images of Ancient Sri Lanka” had stated that Bactrian Greek art influenced the sculpture of colossal images of the Buddha in Sri Lanka. (Sunday Times, 22.01.2012).

“As flame… blown by the force of wind goes out and is no longer reckoned…. Even so the sage, released from name and form, goes out and is no longer reckoned,” and …. the absence of Buddha figures in human form in the early art reflects the Buddha’s “true Nirvana essence [which is] inconceivable in visual form and human shape.” (Early Buddhist art and the theory of aniconism by S. L. Huntington Art Journal Vol. 49 No. 4, 1990).

Sangha Responsibility

If it is considered that the above makes sense, it becomes the responsibility of the respected Sangha community to vocalise against the proliferation of buddha’s image.  The monks in the temples must guide the lay people not to indulge in such superficial acts of veneration.  The Sangha has a noble duty to act, being the repository of this teaching.  They must be fully supported by the devout lay Buddhists in this effort.  The Minister of Buddha Sasana must enact laws prohibiting the fixing of buddha’s images without prior permission. The Sangha must advice the government to respectfully remove all of these mushroomed statues illegally installed around the city.  They should be given a dignified place in temples.  Thereby, ensuring the serenity and the transcendent nature of this great teacher.

Surely, no politician would dare to lift a finger on this issue.  For them the Sinhalese voter bank is more precious than the buddha.

The End.

SRI LANKA’S RTI: ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO BACKWARDS

13/05/2018

Few would quarrel with President Maithripala Sirisena’s statement on Tuesday as he inaugurated the second session of the 8th Parliament, that his National Unity Government had enacted several ‘people friendly laws’, including the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The President praised the RTI Act as ‘the strongest such act to empower citizens of any country in Asia.’

Coincidentally these remarks were made at the very same time that RTI commissioners, experts, advocates and practitioners as well as government officials were enthusiastically applauding the strides that Sri Lanka has taken at a global conference hosted by the Sri Lanka Press Institute in Colombo to mark the first anniversary of the implementation of the law.

Even though a draft RTI law had been finalised long before our neighbours in the region had enacted RTI legislation, Sri Lanka marked a sad late entry due to the 2004 draft being pushed aside by the successive Presidencies of Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa for reasons that are pretty obvious – they did not like transparency in government. Therefore, as Sri Lankans actively using RTI today will no doubt concede, the incumbent President’s boast on Tuesday is well merited. Much of that credit is due to his Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who first gave it the political leadership, and then saw it through in 2016.

With this progressive law coming into force in February last year, and the RTI Commission getting activated, there has been an impressive turnout from the ordinary public at accessing information that had hitherto not been available to them. As the Press Institute Chairman, however, lamented this week, the media are yet to take full advantage of this law to ferret out locked information for the public good, though the ordinary citizens have seen the benefits accruing to them.

And yet, this seemingly rosy picture is at odds with a disturbing trend whereby the very Government which pats itself on the back for its RTI success including at the 37th session of the Geneva based United Nations Human Rights Council in March this year, is approving more and more laws that protect members of various entities from being subjected to RTI scrutiny.

One prominent example was the Office of Missing Persons Act enacted a few months after the RTI Act. This protects members of the OMP but also officers, servants and consultants of the OMP from RTI scrutiny in respect of ‘matters communicated to them in confidence’. Civil society organisations have expressed concerns regarding the vagueness of the term ‘in confidence’ which could mean each and every possible communication.

More recently, we have the Audit Bill which gives a similar privilege to members of the proposed Audit Service Commission and also ‘any person appointed to any office under this Act or any other person assisting any such person for the purpose of carrying out the provisions under this Act or a qualified auditor engaged by the Auditor General’.

All these persons are required to refuse RTI disclosure in respect of ‘any information’ received in the performance of duties until the report or statement prepared by the Auditor General relating to such information has been presented in Parliament. The only exception is where there is a request of Parliament or an order of court or to give effect to the provisions of any written law, other than ‘any law requiring the disclosure of information’. Disobedience is an offence. Why then, is the Government back-pedalling on the Citizen’s Right to Information?

Any sensible reader of these clauses will see the obvious ‘potshots’ aimed at the RTI law which the Government professes to be proud of. Certainly, the fact that the long delayed Audit Bill is finally before the House is a matter for relief. Amended and diluted and recast several times over, the Bill was once again put off on Friday by Parliament for another date. The objective of the legislation is to comprehensively deal with the national auditing process whereby insider trading, financial mismanagement and corrupt activities are effectively curtailed. But if that is the aim, then it begs the question as to whether giving such broad privileges against RTI to such wide categories of persons defeats that very purpose for which the Audit Act is being introduced. Legitimate restrictions may be imposed on premature release of audit reports pending before Parliament even within the scope of an information right balancing the public interest. But giving blanket protections to a few privileged offices is contrary to the fundamental principles of RTI.

The fact that the Supreme Court had dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Audit Bill is beside the point. The Court only went into the merits of its constitutionality, not its good governance score sheet. The clauses shutting out RTI relates to a policy decision taken by the Government which is a distinct matter from a constitutional test. At a time where the Parliamentary process itself has been riddled with irregularities, these proposed clauses that prevent disclosure until ‘presentation in Parliament’ point to clear and present dangers. They must be narrowed and be more precisely defined to avoid a situation where the Audit Act may lead to the proposed remedy being worse than the disease.

At this week’s global conference on the first year of the RTI law in Sri Lanka, there were the usual bouquets and the brickbats. Foreign delegates had a glimpse of the RTI Commission at work. Some were aghast at its informality despite the fact that lawyers have started appearing before it. Yet, the Commission is doing its work splendidly, delivering on the intentions of the law to the ordinary men and women of this country in search of otherwise elusive official information.

A Government official announced that the Media Ministry which is the designated Ministry to drive the law was in consultation with the Education Ministry to introduce RTI to the school curriculum. While one arm of the State is moving progressively, the other arm is moving regressively, typical of the present Administration.

In general, it is a bad practice to enact new laws which shut out RTI in respect of privileged offices or individuals. That trend must cease if the Government is keen to retain its pride in bringing RTI to ordinary Sri Lankans. Openness and transparency were promised. Openness and transparency were provided by the RTI Act in 2016. Openness and transparency were applauded. Now, that too may only turn out to be a hollow boast, like many of its other unfulfilled promises.
(Editorial, Sunday Times, 13 May 2018)

Mahathir’s ‘Second Coming’ In Malaysia: Mixed Lessons For Sri Lanka!

By Mohamed Harees –MAY 13, 2018

AUTHOR: LUKMAN HAREES

Lukman Harees

“Malaysia Boleh” or “Malaysia Can Do It” which evolved as a national slogan in the early 1990s appear to have re-emerged in the run up to the recent Malaysian elections. Mahathir Magic worked as a result ,when he as head of an Opposition Alliance ‘Pakatan Harapan’, made an extraordinary political comeback as Malaysia’s leader at the age of 92,, thus ending the six-decade rule of PM Najib Razak’s party in a landmark shift for this Southeast Asian Muslim nation. Mahathir Mohamad, whose historic win was helped in no small part by his legacy as part of the old guard of Asian politics and grandfather of the nation announced,’ “We are not seeking revenge, we want to restore the rule of law”. Thus, in one of the biggest U-turns of his 70-year career in politics , he therefore signalled that he is ready to hand over power to Anwar Ibrahim, a popular opposition figure whom he sacked as his deputy in the 1990s.

The elections was dominated by a widely known investigation into allegations that billions were siphoned from a state investment fund, 1MDB, and laundered through foreign bank accounts,which scandal had ramifications even beyond Malaysia’s boundaries. The historic political revolutionary change probably would not have occurred but for the brazen excesses of and alleged widespread corruption alluded to ousted Prime Minister Najib and his high spending wife, which were too much even for the high-living UMNO elite to stomach.

During his earlier reign(1981-2003), Mahathir’s track record was not without blemishes; many criticised his chequered rule. But love him or hate him, no one can deny that Mahathir had nothing but fierce love for Malaysia. Mahathir’s earlier legacy thus made the Malaysians to flock together to re-elect him despite his advanced age. Mahathir’s definition of independence surely struck a chord with the voters, leading them  to give him the mandate yet again: “Independence means we enjoy freedom. We are not colonised by people. And we can govern our own country and develop it independently so that our people can live a better life.” The phenomenal growth of Malaysia under the leadership of Mahathir has brought about a patriotic sense of achievement amongst its people. A large portion of the Malaysian electorate possess lasting affection and respect for him because of various successes. Mahathir engineered rapid economic growth. He shifted the country’s economy from agriculturally based to a more industrialised one. He created a sense of civic and national pride through projects such as national car Proton, the Sepang Formula One circuit and, of course, the Petronas Twin Towers, still the tallest twin skyscrapers in the world. Mahathir unleashed the Reformasi movement that at one point saw citizens tear-gassed on the streets of the capital. He is now the leader that Malaysians yearning for change are banking on. For Malaysians, Mahathir’s return to power is more than a palace coup; it is a new era of hope. He also spearheaded Islamic banking institutions too. 

One of the true visionaries of the age, Mahathir Mohamad is revered and feared, the world over, for his explicit opinions regarding the ideologies of the West .The Look East Policy was his brain child, aimed in emulating some characteristics of other neighbouring nations. But the principle goal was a shift in focus of relation from the West, in particular, Britain, towards the new rising Asia, specifically, Japan. It economic influence to Malaysia was profound both positively, and also negatively. One of the main focuses of Mahathir on the policy was the Malaysian emulation of East Asian ethics. Economically speaking, he wanted Malaysia to adopt some principles from Japan. He believed that Malaysia should follow the example of Japan Inc. and create the Malaysia Inc., where both government and the private sector worked together to achieved a common economic goal. However, although the policy was not effective in changing the values of the Malays, it did bring out a change in direction from looking to the West towards looking to the East. 

Read More

Muslim women’s painful wait for redressal

Zahrah Imitiaz-Friday, May 11, 2018 

Eight years ago, Fathima Faika (45) lived out the story of a Hollywood blockbuster when she found her way to Malaysia to bring back her two sons, taken away from her by her ex-husband. Armed with no money, influence or power but simple raw determination packed in her tired little body, she brought them home. Her story captured the headlines and inspired all women out there.

Muslim women’s painful wait for redressal.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Parliamentary abuse issue raised by LeN snowballs in parliament -again president behind blundering and bungling (video) !

(Lanka-e-News- 13.May.2018, 11.30PM)    Following our news report this morning under the caption ‘Grave parliamentary  abuse- a world record!’ Nalin Bandara M.P. has questioned the speaker today in that regard. Responding to this question , the speaker had said , the president has still not given the permission to  act in accordance with the constitution , and the speaker has on two occasions officially intimated this to the president and reminded him.   

Based on Bandula Gunawardena’s statement , it  is discernible there is a conspiracy to re appoint Thilanga to  the post of deputy speaker. The president is procrastinating with this aim in view. 

Speaker and deputy speaker ought to be  inactive politically and should be impartial in parliament , yet Thilanga as deputy speaker during the recent no confidence motion  had not conducted himself impartially and been actively favoring a political  party  thereby demonstrating his prejudice and partiality. Hence no matter who is in favor , Thilanga cannot be a deputy speaker in parliament again.

It seems the president is behind every blundering  and bungling .

The parliamentary proceedings lastday is in the video footage hereunder

---------------------------
by     (2018-05-13 21:14:10)