The need to implement UNHRC resolution remains

By Jehan Perera-June 25, 2018, 9:47 pm 

The departure of the United States from the UN Human Rights Council will weaken a global institution which has been mandated to protect and uphold human rights throughout the world including Sri Lanka.  The UN body was established in 2006 with the aim of promoting and protecting human rights around the globe, as well as investigating alleged human rights violations and is made up of 47 member states, which are selected by the UN General Assembly on a staggered basis each year for three-year-long terms. Members meet around three times a year to debate human rights issues and pass non-binding resolutions and recommendations by majority vote.

The US government has justified its decision to leave the UNHRC on the basis of the hypocrisy and double standards within the institution in which countries that violated human rights are also present and pass strictures on others. In the case of the United States this is focused on the repeated criticisms of Israel, which is a close US ally. Sri Lankans are also familiar with this type of justification for being unwilling to follow the recommendations and criticisms of the UNHRC. The previous government in particular took a strong and defiant stand against UNHRC resolutions.

In both 2012 and 2014, the UNHRC passed increasingly strict resolutions that were opposed by the then Sri Lankan government. These called for the government to implement the recommendations of its Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and for the Office of the High Commissioner to undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.

The present government’s decision to co-sponsor rather than to oppose the UNHRC resolution of 2015 helped it to become a drafting partner to that particular resolution. The resolution called for promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights.  As this resolution was drafted in partnership with the Sri Lankan government it cannot be simply dismissed or critiqued as something that the international community alone wished to thrust on Sri Lanka, but as something that Sri Lankan authorities too thought was necessary to implement to enable national reconciliation to become a reality. This was evident at the session of the UNHRC in March 2017 when the Sri Lankan government asked for two more years to implement the resolution, which was granted without difficulty.

The sudden withdrawal of the United States from the UNHRC has generated an expectation that is being promoted by the nationalist opposition and some members of the government that Sri Lanka will no longer have to comply with the requirements of the UNHRC resolution of October 2015. At that time the government promised to implement the resolution within a two-year time frame. An assessment of developments over the past three years will reveal that the countries that spearheaded the resolution on Sri Lanka, including the United States, have been giving Sri Lanka the time and space it requires, and asks for, to implement its commitments without forcing it to keep to the original time frame.

SUPPORTIVE ROLE

In March 2017, the UNHRC without dissent agreed to give Sri Lanka the two extra years that the government asked for to implement the October 2015 resolution. The international community represented on the UNHRC recognized that it is only the Sri Lankan government that can deliver on all of these, and not the international community which can at best play a supportive role. The United States in particular said it was pleased that Sri Lanka had agreed once again to co-sponsor the resolution, and invited like-minded UN members to demonstrate support for reconciliation and peace in Sri Lanka by adding their names to the list of co-sponsors. In a statement, the US applauded the government for its continuing efforts to promote reconciliation.

Therefore it is clear that the United States had ceased being a source of hostile or coercive pressure on Sri Lanka as long as two years ago. This also accompanied the foreign policy shift of the Sri Lankan government away from overdependence on China. The March 2017 session made it clear that the countries that are active on the UNHRC, including the United States, were looking for signs of progress even though they would have preferred the pace of change to be swifter. One of the positive features of the present government is that it is constantly making incremental changes in advancing the frameworks for good governance and reconciliation.

Attention, rather than pressure, is what the UNHRC has been giving to Sri Lanka for the past three years. The departure of the US from the UNHRC is unlikely to reduce the attention that this international institution gives to the country. As for pressure, there was very little coercive or hostile pressure even when the United States was an active member in the post-2015 period. The US embassy in Sri Lanka has assured that it will continue to assist Sri Lanka to fulfil its international commitments to advance the cause of reconciliation and lasting peace for all Sri Lankans. It is more likely that the European countries, particularly the EU, may be more strict in terms of asking for the fulfilment of commitment than the United States, which has a more political approach to international issues, including human rights.

KEEP COMMITMENTS

It is necessary that the government should fulfill the commitments it made in that resolution. These commitments are ones that need to be kept whether or not the government has international commitments because these should be national commitments. These are for the release of civilian land held by the military, release of prisoners held without charge for years, demilitarization, removal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and establishing a truth seeking and accountability mechanism to investigate and prosecute violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law.

The release of yet another hundred acres of land by the military in the North to the civilian population is a message that the process of land returns is continuing. This is complemented by the government decision to build a further 50,000 houses in the North for those who were affected by the war. In addition, the government has been providing livelihood assistance to war victims, rehabilitating ex-LTTE cadres, and has recently passed a law that criminalises enforced disappearances, set up an Office of Missing Persons, and is in the process of establishing an Office of Reparations.

 It is necessary for the government to seek to implement the remaining commitments made in the UNHRC resolution, which include reducing the military presence in the former war zones of the north and east, and engaging in constitutional reform that would devolve more power to those areas. These are necessary to bring about a lasting solution to the ethnic conflict that has plagued the country since its independence and prevented it from developing as a united and strong nation. The government also needs to be more focused, and of one mind, in communicating the truths about the need for reform and for change to the larger population so that they understand them to be part of the process of national integration and unification of hearts and minds in the aftermath of decades of war and conflict.

The US departure from the UNHRC may weaken that global institution, but it must not weaken Sri Lanka’s commitment to ensure the protection of human rights and achieve reconciliation within our own country. This is for the good of all Sri Lankan people and not simply giving in to the international community.  The US action should not be seen as leading to a lessening of international attention on Sri Lanka. Nor should it be seen as an opportunity for either this government or future governments to evade engaging in the reforms that would bring a political solution to the ethnic conflict and make national reconciliation a reality.

Quitting HRC won’t change US’s goals in Sri Lanka

2018-06-25 

The US quit the UN Human Rights Council on Tuesday (June 19) with rhetoric intended to assert the moral high-ground, slamming the council and selectively ‘naming and shaming’ council members outside its charmed circle of ‘friends.’ While the statements of US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington reeked of imperial arrogance, the irony of this grandstanding by one of the worst human rights offenders on the planet would not have been lost on many in the global South, who have been at the receiving end of its worst depredations over time.   
Haley accused the council of being “a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.” The US’s own glaring lack of even-handedness in branding its detractors as ‘rights abusers’ while at the same time propping up its strategic allies militarily and economically, no matter how authoritarian or oppressive their conduct, may have escaped Haley. But not those in the majority world who have been forcibly ‘democratised’ by the US at the cost of their dignity and sovereignty, or have become targets of colonization one way or another, through US efforts to maintain global hegemony in the course of history. Even as the US envoy preached human rights, accusing others of ‘hypocrisy,’ her own government was implementing a harsh new immigrant policy of separating children from parents at the US border with Mexico, causing outrage within the US’s own rights community among others.   

"The US’s exit from the HRC: some have speculated that pressure to fulfil commitments made in the resolution will somehow be eased"

The US exit from the HRC the last analysis was spurred by rancour over its inability to persuade the council to change course over Israel – the US’s Middle East ally - and its treatment of Palestinians. For months, Palestinian protestors in Gaza at the border fence with Israel have been facing tear-gas and live fire from Israeli forces, who are reported to have killed at least 125 since the mass demonstrations began in support of their ‘right of return.’ The Human Rights Council last month voted to probe the killings, accusing Israel of using excessive force. Given the background, the superpower’s bid to exit the HRC in the garb of a ‘human rights leader’ comes across more like a modern-day tale of ‘The emperor’s new clothes.’   

The US’s withdrawal from the HRC has been a matter of special interest in Sri Lanka, where the yahapalana government has been struggling to comply with the demands of a US-led Human Rights Council resolution, which it misguidedly co-sponsored in 2015. The resolution alleged human rights abuses by Sri Lankan forces during the war against the LTTE and sought reforms, for the purpose of what it called ‘reconciliation and accountability.’ Not surprisingly many of these moves, to introduce new laws, institutional reforms, a new constitution that could weaken the central government and seen to encroach on sovereignty - have met with a groundswell of opposition – not least because they are seen by many to be dictated from Washington.

In the wake of the US’s exit from the HRC, some have speculated that pressure to fulfil commitments made in the resolution will somehow be eased. This optimism would seem to be misplaced, if only because the resolution was never about human rights in the first place. It is no secret that the US interest in Sri Lanka derives from the island’s location in the Indian Ocean, near strategically important sea-lanes. It is also well known that the US aims to counter China’s growing maritime footprint, and therefore seeks to dislodge China from the privileged position it is currently seen to enjoy in its relations with Sri Lanka. The US Pacific Command was recently re-named the Indo-Pacific Command, to signal the shift in focus. The US needs to have a ‘hold’ on Sri Lanka in order to make it a compliant partner in its strategic project, and this is where the resolution comes in useful.   

It was precisely to ensure that the GoSL does not get the mistaken idea that the US will back off, that the US embassy in Colombo on June 21, issued a statement about the decision to quit the HRC, saying that Ambassador Keshap met ‘senior Sri Lankan officials’ to convey “the assurance of the United States Government” that it will “remain fully engaged with the Sri Lankan Government to help it meet its continuing and standing commitments to the international community to advance the cause of reconciliation and lasting peace for all Sri Lankans.”

There were other indications too, that the US has no intention of letting Sri Lanka drop off the radar. In Washington on 20th June a US House Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing titled ‘Human Rights Concerns in Sri Lanka.’ Testifying at the event were J. S. Tissanayagam, journalist and human rights advocate; Michael Jerryson, PhD, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Youngstown State University; David M Crane, Principal at Justice Consultancy International, LLC; and John Sifton, Asia Advocacy Director at Human Rights Watch. Fresh avenues of information-gathering are being sought, it would seem.   

The opening comments of Congressman Chris Smith, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, betrayed a lack of familiarity with the background to the Sri Lankan conflict, and a barely superficial understanding of the issues. According to excerpts posted on his website, he began by describing the war waged against the LTTE, a banned terrorist organization, as “a brutal ethnic conflict between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils.” Other remarks were equally revealing. In a dead give-away of the real motivation behind the US interest in Sri Lanka, he said:   

“Sri Lanka’s stability is of critical importance to the United States national interests. Strategically located in the sea-lanes linking the Persian Gulf to East Asia, this island-nation has seen a spike in recent activity by the Chinese. China’s strategy globally is one of indebting countries and binding them in servitude so it can extract resources, so it is safe to say that Beijing’s initiatives will not emphasize ethnic reconciliation and/or human rights. This presents the United States with an opportunity to stand up for justice and the rule of law and to oppose China’s malign influence.”

It is intriguing how Smith’s statement, which starts by referring to ‘the United States national interests,’ morphs into an assertion of concern for ‘justice and the rule of law in Sri Lanka’ which, somewhere along the way, becomes equated with the task of ‘opposing China’s malign influence.’ But for the US there is no dislocation here. The US rhetoric comes from the paradigm of ‘the white man’s burden.’ It is telling, in this regard, that Pompeo in his remarks in Washington began by saying that Human Rights were God-given, and the Trump administration was committed to protecting them.   

There is nothing to suggest that the US has given up its strategic objectives in Sri Lanka as an outcome of leaving the UN rights body. Only its methods of trying to achieve them may change.  

Sri Lanka: Code of Ethics for the Election Commission

We all have political friends. Keeping quiet about them does not change that and does not mean we have no politician friends.

by S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole- Jun 25, 2018

( June 25, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) At the last meeting of the Election Commission on 18.06.2018 some ethics issues came up. An MP had complained that I had been untruthful about him in one of my articles – whereas I had referred to my personal observation in June 2011 of his cadres and the army forcing the public at the Jaffna bus-stand to sign a statement that there had been no casualties at Mullivaikal. This was immediately after the UN Secretary General’s Panel gave 40,000 as the casualty figure there. We came to the realization that we have no code of ethics although we have promulgated codes for political parties and candidates.

Another issue concerned my referring to Thambyrajah Gurukularajah of ITAK as a friend. It was suggested that I had compromised the integrity of the Commission. Gurukularajah is my childhood friend and not a political friend. I have lived in his house in Paranthan. We are from the same school and church parish. Our fathers were Anglican priests (his in the CSI, the Anglicans in South India).

We all have political friends. Keeping quiet about them does not change that and does not mean we have no politician friends. In fact, my open declaration of our friendship prevents me from participation in Commission decisions concerning Gurukularajah, whereas non-declaration would allow me secretively to take his side. What I did is known and expected in ethics as full-disclosure.

More importantly, however, the Commission’s function is to uphold election laws. It is agreed that when no one cheats it is wrong to say anything negative or positive about a party or politician; whereas when there is rampant cheating, there is no way in which our laws can be upheld without pointing fingers. Yet another function of the Commission is voter education – voters have the right to know when politicians openly flout the laws of the land. Commission neutrality must not be an excuse to hide from the voters the misdeeds of our politicians, thereby shielding them from the punishments the law prescribes.

Friday to Saturday (15-16 June) the Commission avoided celebrating Voters’ Day (01.06.2018) in Muslim areas because of Ramazan. At the grand meeting at Sainthamaruthu Grand Mosque, Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya in the spirit of pointing fingers at those that cheat, referred to the Commission’s determination that the ongoing postponement of elections to Provincial Councils is a violation of our franchise and therefore of our sovereignty. The country belonged to us the people and not our rulers, he said.

We had decided on 18.06.2018 that after speaking to party representatives on the 26th, we would refer to the Supreme Court for direction in the face of government recalcitrance in avoiding PC elections just like the LG elections were dragged on through delimitation and legislative changes.

Minister Faiszer Muthapha who as recently as on 25.04.2018 said on Ada Derana that “Elections for 6 Provincial Councils are mandatory this year,” has declared on 16.06.2018 (Daily Mirror) that elections to six provincial councils are not likely this year because “the political parties are apprehensive of the outcome following the experience gained at the February local government poll.” What was mandatory is no longer mandatory? The only problem was that many old men had to give way to young women with new ideas. The only basis for such postponement is to deny us our franchise. At the same time, Cabinet Spokesman Rajitha Senaratne (Hiru News, 20.06.2018) has told us that elections will be held in December under the old proportional representation. This is incredible for two reasons. First, December is the month of national exams when holding elections is very difficult. Second, to hold elections under the PR system after the laws have been changed to a mixed system, needs new legislation.

I have pointed out to huge flaws in the legislation where the Commission has a quorum of three on a membership of three. The law does not say if the Chairman is an executive or primus inter pares. I have been assigned a Rs. 50,000 travel allowance by Parliament which is finished in two and a half trips by car to Colombo (with nothing for hotel accommodation). In reality, this means I cannot attend all meetings. Assistant Commissioners get cars from our large fleet for official travel but not Members because the auditor says we have a travel allowance. Naturally, we are back to square one where decisions are taken without the quorum. The Chairman tries to accommodate me by asking junior officers to attend meetings that they need not attend so that I get a free ride in their cars. They resent disturbance to their work to baby-sit me. The President has ordered that I be allocated quarters but the people allocating housing say that I am far behind in the queue although some assistant commissioners get quarters in Colombo. The Constitutional Council is exercising powers like giving us leave when such powers are not on record anywhere. The government is unable to make the simple, required legislative changes. Even the new laws the government passes refer to the Chairman as Election Commissioner. The Government website refers to him as Head of the Commission whereas a Head is not quite the same as Chairman. The law removed the Commissioner but allowed the old designations like Additional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner to stand with cars for personal use and a higher salary than Members. People naturally ask, “If someone is Additional Commissioner, then where is the Commissioner?” So for all practical purposes, however hard the Chairman tries, people refer to him as Commissioner and even parliamentary committees asks him to take decisions that are the Commission’s. Is it any wonder that I am asked if I am sure I am on the Election Commission, whether I am the member in charge of Jaffna, etc. We members are commission flatulence.

When the government cannot make urgent changes to make the 19th Amendment work as it should at least with respect to the Election Commission where decisions previously taken by the Commissioner are now meant to be taken by the Commission, what chance is there that it can change quickly the legislation with respect to the Provincial Council Elections as Rajitha Senaratne has suggested? None!

It is a given among election administrators as declared by the Commonwealth’s “good practices” to which we subscribe, that we should be wary of attempts to change the rules when elections are due. This seems to be such a moment. One does not change rules half-way through a game except to gain an advantage. Indeed, the rules need to be clear well before the game begins. Any party preparing for elections must have candidates, campaign machinery and financing ready. If elections are to be under the new PC law, they must have women ready; but not if they are to be under the old law. When only the government knows the rules, it has a clear advantage. Besides, reversion to the old system is an unacceptable roll back of all the gains we made for women on 10 February.

The police whom I suspect have taken money to play down election law violations, seem to be helping to push back on women’s gains. In Akkaraipattu there is a dispute over Muslims buying land in a Tamil area that led to violence. Two Tamil women elected on 10 February are Sanuja (SLFP) and Vijeyarani (UNP). While many Representatives went to see how they could help in the dispute, a party of all-male policemen went only to the homes of these two women at 1:30 am on 21.06.2018 to arrest them. This, despite their party connexions in government. They are presently out on bail, having been charged with fomenting communal discord. The two think it is the police’s way of discouraging women and thinking they can get information on the crimes easily from women through intimidation. Sanuja’s husband is upset she entered politics. Vijeyarani despairs that a marriage may be difficult to arrange for her because of her seeming criminal record. Will women come forward to contest next time?

This brings me to my own speech at Kalmunai and again at South Eastern University. I referred to the Chairman of the local authority in Musali (a backward area near Mannar) telling a woman member of his authority not to speak in the chamber because women were physically weak and likewise their mental ideas were also weak. This is totally unacceptable in a country where women have earned high professional status and have demonstrated mental capacities far stronger than the Musali Chairman’s. Is there a plan deliberately to roll back the gains that women made on 10 Feb. because men want it all?

I have a whole list of written election complaints against powerful politicians enjoying impunity while women are arrested – “treating” under the Sasundodaya Programme by offering Rs. 500 million for Buddhist temples in the North and East, for holding an election meeting at a temple, for spreading religious hatred by saying Tamils should not vote for Christians and that only Saivites who speak Tamil are Tamils while the rest are Tamil-speakers, for threatening a public officer and preventing him from doing his duty, etc.

Do these politicians earn the right not to be accused because that would make the Commission less neutral? Indeed, our silence would betoken partiality. It is time for a code of ethics so that we may be guided on what the law allows and what it does not.

Sri Lanka HR commission denies holding up Army peacekeeping mission

Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 06:52 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

June 25, Colombo: Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) today denied that it is holding up the deployment of the next army contingent for the UN peace keeping mission due to the delay in the process of clearing the military personnel in the contingent.

A report in a leading local English daily said the deployment of another contingent of military personnel has been held up due to the delay in giving clearance for them by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka HRCSL making it unable for Sri Lanka Army to send a contingent of 101 for UN peace keeping duties in Lebanon.

In a letter to the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper, the Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission Dr. Deepika Udagama expressing "deep concern" said the news item is incorrect and false.

"We trust that you are conscious of the fact that reporting matters which are factually incorrect not only negatively impacts HRCSL as an independent Commission, but also the public interest at large," the letter released to the media said.

The Chairperson pointed out that there was no delay whatsoever on the part of the HRCSL in the vetting process due to its actions. The Commission, she said had brought to the notice of the parties concerned that the vetting process is being pushed back and hampered as a result of inadequate information being provided to facilitate the vetting. Further, the applications were submitted without sufficient advance notice to meet the deadlines.

Full text of the HRCSL's letter to the newspaper
Re Lead Story in Daily Mirror of 25 June, 2018
The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) notes with deep concern the lead story appearing in today's Daily Mirror (25th June 2018) under the caption "SL Army Peace Keeping Mission held up due to delay in clearance by HRCSL". This news item is incorrect and false.

We trust that you are conscious of the fact that reporting matters which are factually incorrect not only negatively impacts HRCSL as an independent Commission, but also the public interest at large.
The process of vetting personnel of the tri forces and the police to be deployed overseas as UN Peace Keepers by HRCSL commenced in September 2016. As such, your reporting that clearance of personnel by the HRCSL commenced in March, 2018 is incorrect.

A roundtable conference was held on the 21St June 2018, in Colombo which was attended by the Commanders of Army and Navy, Air Force Chief of Staff, senior personnel of the STF,
representatives of the Ministry of Defence, Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chairperson and Commissioners of the HRCSL together with the officers of the Peace Keeping Department of the UN, New York. There, the modalities of vetting and expediting the process were finalized in keeping with UN standards.

We wish to inform that the HRCSL informed H.E. the President by letter dated 04.04.2018 of the manner in which the vetting process undertaken by the HRCSL had progressed since 2016. A copy of the letter is attached for your reference.


Please be good enough to ensure that this response of HRCSL be published in tomorrow's (26th June 2018) Daily Mirror, affording to it the same prominence as the news item in issue.

Political Pilgrimage To Monks & The Outrage From Asgiriya 

By Shyamon Jayasinghe –JUNE 23, 2018

Shyamon Jayasinghe

Gnanasara

The jailing of the mugger-monk known as Galagoda Atte Gnanasara did not result in any stir among the public. The incident may be regarded as another instance of affirmation of the superiority of the law in this island. 

It is hoped that President Sirisena will not succumb to the irrational elements in the polticial spectrum  by giving the monk a pardon or even letting the latter remain in his cell wearing  the robe. Gnanasara has happily got into jumpers just as well as the Army Commander Sarath Fonseka had willingly got into. It would be nothing short of hilarious to see one jailbird in a robe and other jailbirds worshipping him.

SWRD

Pandering to monks, deemed as ‘influential,’ has been one of the unfortunate things our polticians  keep doing. SWRD upheld the saffron symbol in his MEP campaign to wreak power off the ruling United National Party and win a landmark general election in 1956. 

The new Prime Minister, before long, found himself in the evil clutches of the Chief Priest of Kelaniya Rajamaha Vihara-the infamous Buddharakkita thero. The latter tried to work out commission deals with the government over shipping transactions. SWRD rejected the moves and Buddharakkita (whom the then charismatic leader of the Left, Philip Gunawardena, referred to as “Buddy Racketeer”) conspired with his stooge Somarama Thero to have the Prime Minister assassinated. Somarama shot SWRD while the latter was bending in two in an act of deep respect for the robe.

That apalling incident received world-wide publicity and it denigrated the Buddha Sasana. For some years, monks were frowned at even in Sri Lanka and politicians avoided the practice of having them on stage.

Back in Action

However, the temptation to re-recruit monks for poltical support keeps coming up, and now we see them back in action. The restoration of our respect for the yellow robe irrespective of the behaviour of the user has resulted in a widespread practice of  abuse by thugs, morons and controversial seedy characters wearing the robe to back politcal groups and join their stage gimmicks. There have been hoodlums in robes who are hired at call to protest. It is merciful that the GMOA thad refrained from recruiting  monks in favour of the doctors’ habitual protest and strike action.

On the other hand, we found Mahinda Rajapaksa liberally using monks and referring to the latter reverentially while addressing gatherings. “Ehema neda Ape Hamuduruwane?” He is heard and seen often asking the rhetorical question turning to monks in his gatherings. His backing orators like Wimal Weerawanse also do that. 

Robe and its Wearer

Nowhere do Buddhist texts enjoin faithfuls to respect the robe regardless of the wearer. In fact, the Buddha did warn his followers during his time that undesirable persons may wear robes and spoil the Sanga. The Buddha wanted his followers to identify and respect only the Arya Sanga (monks on the path).

Sinhalese Buddhism has turned that upside down and Buddhists simply collapse to worship anyone donned in the saffron robe. 

Christians

The Christians don’t make that mistake in symbolism. They do not object to any priest been brought before court for alleged criminal offence. These days, we in Australia observe the former Archbishop and Vatican high-up being brought before court for alleged indirect involvement in serious child sexual abuse cases, while he was serving in his diocese. Nobody and no media has frowned at that development.

Law Above All

In modrnised countries like Australia, the law is above all individual citizens and anybody must account to court for any alleged criminal violations. The law and its administration belongs to a totally secular jurisdiction.That is how it should all be. Religious clergy cannot be an exception.

Champika Ranawaka

What is this ridiculous sacred cow turned out of a monk? Minister Champika Ranawaka was reported as urging the government to have a special court including Buddhist monks to try for alleged criminal violations by members of the Sanga. This proposal logically implies a separate legal system for a group  regarded as privileged. The Champika Court will have to be guided by different laws since the monks in it wouldn’t be versed in the legitimate laws of the country; their judgments will be derived from a different perspective. If one follows this logical line of Champika reasoning one would have to accept Sharia law, too.

I thought Champika has reformed. But,it seems leopards don’t change their spots. Isn’t it false and fake on the part of this prominent Minister to make requests like that? Champika has had a chequered past. I remember how he came to Australia and made incendiary communal speeches to garner backing of blind extremists of the Diaspora. I remember also how Champika went to Paris and how when addressing the delusional jaathiwaadeen he uttered historical lies, for instance, that the Sinhala language is the most ancient language in human civilization. He knew he was conning and he conned. The foolish Paris audience cheered the ‘hero.’ Now, we have Champika again on a false path meant to deceive extremist-inclined segments of our population. Once again, he knows he is conning but he cons. I doubt the broad masses are behind him in these inane utterances made for political effect. We have had a surfeit of cheap politicians.

Asgiriya and Gotabaya

The latest incident of monk mockery is when Presidential aspirant Gotabaya Rajapaksa had his 69th birthday almsgiving. I doubt Gota ever sought monks for his past birthdays except for his early childhood days when his parents would have taken him to the local temple. But now he goes after monks along with the camera. Gota knows unless he gets 75 per cent of Sinhala votes he hasn’t a chance. Hence, his fake Buddhist sentiments.

As is now common evidence, Gota didn’t behave Buddhistically when he enjoyed his ten years of power along with his might brother, the King or Maharajaneni. We cannot comment on the cases now before court except to say that these are over serious criminal charges.

Read More

Is the State grossly underestimating the losses from the Mob Violence in Kandy?

Featured image by Amalini De Sayrah

L ZUBAIR C MALGE F SHAKIRA T HADGIE S RAMEEZ AND A NIJAMDEEN- 06/24/2018

In March 2018, mob violence visited pockets in an East to West arc from 5-20 kilometres North of Kandy. The state is obligated to ensure the safety of its citizens and it failed to do so. In spite of urgent warnings of impending violence and reassurances by senior officials, the Police were bystanders at critical junctures. Now, at a minimum, the state is obligated to restore the property, health and well-being of the affected expeditiously.  After 100 days, there is cause for alarm.


Map 1: The 20 Divisional Secretariats in Kandy are shown – with Hathariyadda and Tumpane combined. Violence started in Medadumbara (7), spread to Kundasale (5), and in the following day to Patha Dumbara, and on the 4^th day to to Pujapitiya, Harispattuwa, Akurana, and Yatinuwara.

Soon after the violence, the victims were assured by the Prime Minister, visiting Ministers, the Army commander, and officials of full and quick restitution. The Prime Minister urged that the rehabilitation be completed in 4 months. The Army commander assured that the buildings will be rebuilt by the Army as the President will release funds for this. However, after the initial debris clearance, the army has withdrawn, and there has been little restitution by the state.

In mid-March, an initial compensation amount was paid –  approximately Rs. 100,000 for a destroyed business and Rs. 50,000 for a destroyed house.  In all, about Rs. 10 million has been disbursed to the worst affected. For them, these amounts  are only helpful for getting through the days while displaced, for cleaning debris, or for going from office to office in search of redress.



Map 2: Loss Assessments in Rupees for Businesses, Residences and Religious Places put together by civil society. Largest losses were in Kundasale, followed by Pujapitiya, Akurana, Harispattuwa, Yatinuwara and Patha Dumbara.

Since early March, officials have been assessing losses and have made victims understand that their assessment shall form the basis of rehabilitation and restoration by the state. Below, we describe the available assessments and compare it with that undertaken by civil society.

Damage Assessments by the State

At the local level, each of the affected Divisional Secretariats (DS) (Map 1) were tasked with estimating the damages. These DS officers have visited the affected sites and summoned the affected multiple times and identified 622 victims due restitution. By May 1st they were able to assess properties of about 440 of those affected including 224 houses of 301, 119 businesses of 221, of 78 vehicles and 19 of 22 religious places. These assessments were stymied in several cases as the displaced do not have all the documentary evidence that the officials feel they need to accept a claim. Since then the officials state that they have not completed fully completed the assessments and therefore do not want to release any information.

The DS division with the largest number of damaged buildings and vehicles were Kundasale, Yatinuwara and Pujapitiya. The DS division with the largest loss estimates were Kundasale, Akurana, Pujapitiya and Medamahanuwara.


Table 1: Loss estimates compiled by the Kandy District Disaster Management Authorities. The fraction shows the assessed cases/ total cases.

These tabulations at the Divisional Secretariat level were compiled by the District Disaster Management officials and forwarded it to the Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation. In the case of the up to 21 mosques and 1 temple they communicated the assessment to the Ministries of Muslim Religious Affairs and Buddha Sasana respectively.

By May 1, their aggregate estimate of loss for these 440 cases was Rs. 28 million. Anyone who has seen photographs of the damage and has any idea of construction costs locally will know that such an aggregate is ridiculous. This value may go up as some of the more difficult assessments are pending. However, the estimates so far are far too low.

After the initial release of information on May 1, state officials have been unwilling to release updates even at aggregate scales. In addition, even many of the victims are not provided with the state’s estimate of their own losses. The victims are not in a position to complain as they need the blessings of these local officials for managing basic functions.

Damage Assessments by Civil Society

There has been a community effort to put together assessments of damages so as to facilitate disbursing private donations to take care of the most urgent needs until the state delivers. The assessments were done by volunteers and civil society groups. They compiled the estimates through interviews, site visits, expert inputs and peer review. As there is a common pool of limited funds to be disbursed there are checks and balances to the process. The total estimate that this effort has come up with for 292 cases is a billion rupees.

Table 2: Loss estimates compiled by civil society. Note 292 cases were compiled compared with 440 of the state. Although half as many cases were assessed by the Civil Society, their estimate of damages is much higher.

Lessons and Next Steps

Assurances were given that reconstruction would be completed within 4 months. With two weeks to go, even the assessments have not been completed. The causes of delay – delays in processing at particular offices, lack of skill or procedures and policies that unduly delay – should be documented and understood so that they can be mitigated in future.

Given the lack of transparency, the best we can make out is that the state apparatus has under-estimated the losses by around 10-50 fold.

These gross under-estimates will lead to profound losses for the affected with long-term impacts of alienation and bitterness, a perceived lack of deterrent action against future mob violence on the part of the State and the mob leaders feeling they have accomplished their goals to encourage similar future enterprise.

The reasons for delays and under-estimates have to be documented, understood and rectified particularly as

• officials have not been transparent –   concealing information or erecting barriers to avoid criticism is unacceptable.
• The reasons adduced for under assessment – such as low assessments for taxes or insurance needs to be countered. The abiding principle has to be the restoration of the property of the victims.
• Some assessments are delayed or lowered because many have lost ID cards, deeds and other records from violence. As done by civil society, other methods have to be found. In any case, the state owes these victims much more than just compensation for documentable property damage.
• Empathetic officials who are fluent in Tamil have to be brought in particularly to help most female victims.
• Many of the affected need assistance with dealing with officials and support through psycho-social counseling.
• There should be an Ombudsman to advocate for the victims.

The citizenry, civil society and the media should push for

• transparency
• quick rectifications of inadequate assessments or alternative the state should take over reconstruction and replacement of properties
• expediting the reconstruction and
• to publicise the obvious shortcomings in processes.

Given the Army’s demonstrated ability in the aftermath of violence in Aluthgama to bulldoze red-tape, and get around the shortcomings of officialdom including in assessments, the Commanders initial willingness to rebuild if tasked should be taken up.

The larger lessons, and long-term social impacts have to be documented. The promised Presidential Commission of three retired judges is essential. The National Police Commission must release reports from itself and the Police. The Human Rights Commission should publicly release its report and follow up. In addition, a fuller accounting of the societal, commercial, livelihood and national damage is needed.

If these steps are not taken then the State shall not acknowledge the costs passed on to the victims and endured more generally. Nor is there a platform to promote accountability, to identify bottlenecks, reforms of institutions and policies, recognition of the grave underlying problems, and the enabling of a healthier engagement between the citizen and the State. Absent such reform, mob violence shall recur as entrepreneurship in extremism that leads to violence has a viable business model in Sri Lanka.

Editor’s Note: Also read, “Kandy: The damage and the distrust” and “Untold Stories from Kandy“
The authors can be contacted via disasterservicescentre@gmail.com.

SANDAYA EKNELIGODA GETS DEATH THREATS

24/06/2018

(24 June 2018 Sunday Observer )After the sentencing of Galagodaththe Gnansara Thera to six months rigorous imprisonment for criminal intimidation earlier this month, his victim Sandya Ekneligoda, the wife of missing journalist, Prageeth Ekneligoda has been facing harassment and intimidation, largely via social media networks.

Speaking to the Sunday Observer, Sandya Ekneligoda complained about receiving continuous death threats and daily abuse through Facebook messages.

“Without knowing the real situation or the facts of the case, people are mentally tormenting me and my children,” said the mother of two, who has been struggling to find the whereabouts of her husband since January 2010. Sandya says Facebook messages from unknown users have been pouring in since judgment was given on the criminal intimidation case this month.

Many of the threats have alluded to the fact that Prageeth Ekneligoda, the missing scribe was a LTTE spy.

Back in 2016, the Homagama Magistrate’s court instructed the Commanders of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Commanding Officer of the Special Task Force, Director- Criminal Records Division, Director- Intelligence, DIG- Terrorism Investigation Division to report to court if Prageeth Ekneligoda was involved in terrorism or criminal activity.

Concluding investigations all officials reported to Court that there has not been any connection between Ekneligoda and the LTTE, according to B reports submitted to court.

“Journalist Prageeth Ranjan Bandara Ekneligoda is not wanted for any court case nor has he been found involved with any criminal offence, terrorists offence, or aid and abetting activities of the LTTE,’’ the B report dated August 8, 2016 filed in court by the CID states.

However, Sandya Ekneligoda says her abusers were still using the LTTE label to insult her claiming that her husband was a Tiger.

“Some men without knowing the actual situation, find fault with a helpless woman. This is all Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa have instilled in the minds of the people during when they were ruling the country, and it still persists,” she said.

Meanwhile Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera was released on bail, pending appeal on Friday. Homagma Magistrate Udesh Ranathunga had ordered the release of Gnanasara Thera, on two surety bail of Rs.500,000 each, having considered his appeal. The Thera’s passport was ordered to be impounded.

Despite widespread public dismay over the decision of the Magistrate to grant bail to the controversial monk who only stayed in prison for eight days after his sentencing, legal experts said the decision to grant bail was not surprising.

“The hearing of the appeal would take longer than six months – which is the length of the prison sentence imposed on the monk,” said CPA Researcher and Attorney-at-Law Luwie Ganeshathasan, who expressed this opinion on Twitter.

Lawyers pointed out that if the appellant – in this case Gnansara Thera – was not granted bail, it would amount to an injustice, because the monk would have completed his six month sentence by the time his appeal was concluded, making the appeal meaningless.

The granting of bail was not a case of exceptionalism, therefore, legal experts argued, but very much expected. The controversial monk remains a convicted felon, has strict bail conditions and his passport has been impounded by the Magistrate.

His conviction and sentencing in the case of criminal intimidation against Sandya Ekneligoda will further have a bearing on several other charges and indictments set to be brought against him, especially if he is judged guilty in those cases of inciting hate and contempt of court which will also carry punitive sentences.

Meanwhile, Justice and Prison Reforms Minister Thalatha Athukorala by letter last week replying to Prof. Kotapitiye Rahula Anunayaka Thera of Kotte RajamahaViharaya states that the contents of his letter run counter to the established law of the country.

Prof. Kotapitiye Rahula has claimed that a Thera cannot be disrobed under the general law but should only be done only by the Sanga Council.

“In terms of section 106 of the Prisons Act any person convicted by a court of law is ordered to wear the prison uniform,” Minister Athukorale’s letter stated.

Prisons Commissioner Nishan Danasinghe told the Sunday Observer that there were 14 Buddhist monks currently serving prison sentences in the country after Gnanasara was released on bail last week. All these prisoners adhered to the general law of the country and were garbed in prison uniforms, the Prisons Commissioner said.
SO

Herein are reports of all the forces and SIS about Ekneliyagoda ; threats and intimidation against Sandya are barriers to meting out justice -FMM

(Lanka e News 24.June.2018, 11.30PM) The venomous vicious statements and threats  made against Sandya Ekneliyagoda subsequent to  the court delivering  the sentence on the accused in the case based on charges of intimidation made against her  during court proceedings of  Prageeth Ekneliyagoda ‘s case , has been roundly condemned by the Free Media movement (FMM).

The FMM an organization   which has always steadfastly taken the stance that  justice shall prevail pertaining to the crimes committed against the mass media, views these threats and intimidations as  an impediment to the measures to mete out justice. Hence the FMM urges all the relevant parties to take action against the threats , intimidation and vengeful statements directed  against  Sandya, with a view  to ensure justice  is done duly.

By FMM communique

Hereunder is the answer to the accusations made that Prageeth Ekneliyagoda is a “Tiger’…

The army commander , the Air Force commander, Navy Commander, the commanding officer of the STF, the Director  Special bureau, the Director  Crime report division, the  Director State Intelligence service, the Director Colombo Crime division , the DIG of Terrorist Investigation department and SSP Nugegoda division have all reported to court that Pradeep had nothing to do with the LTTE  .

In the report produced in  court , it is stated thus….

 ‘Accordingly , the commanders of the forces including the army commander have notified that there are no reports that  Prageeth Ranjan Bandara Ekneliyagoda has been linked to any crimes, LTTE terrorism , any criminal groups, or aiding and abetting the LTTE , and is not sought in connection with any court proceedings.’

The above is  an extract from the police report submitted to Homagama magistrate court on 2017-11-06

---------------------------
by     (2018-06-24 18:46:12)

My Bête Noire, Gnanasara 

By Sharmini Serasinghe –JUNE 25, 2018

Sharmini Serasinghe

When it comes to the likes of pseudo religious figures viz, Gnanasara, I refuse to dignify such with revered titles; ‘Thera’, ‘Reverend’ or ‘Venerable’ as others do. To do so, would be a downright insult to all those who are genuinely worthy of it.

As a Sri Lankan, a Buddhist and a Sinhalese, I find this man utterly and completely reprehensible, offensive, an acute source of embarrassment and an irritation; in short, disgusting!

This ‘monk’ has, single handedly denigrated the image of the few authentic and revered Buddhist monks of Sri Lanka, both past and present, and turned the mantra “Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country” into a joke. 

Shaving one’s head and donning a saffron robe does not make one a Buddhist monk. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can do that and call himself Ven. Bla Bla Bla Thero. This man is nothing but a charlatan in robes and desecrating it in every way possible.   

His foster political parents; demagogues of a bygone era appeared to be enchanted by this ageing puppet’s performances back then, and seemingly gave succor to it with impunity by simply looking the other way. 

The failure on the part of the authorities back then to call a final halt to the appalling behaviour of this flagrant menace and shut him up for good, gave rise to a new breed of Gnanasara ‘s ilk. Intoxicated by his performances, they developed Dutch courage, took the law into their own hands and ran amok. I predicted this over five years ago in one of my ‘Opinion’ pieces, Courting Satan in Saffron Robes right here on Colombo Telegraph, when Gnanasara of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) first raised his ugly head! 

Then, with the political regime change in 2015 the man appeared to have been subdued but, the relief for us was short lived. The Homagama High Court drama made him erupt like a volcano and got him landed behind bars. This is where the likes of him rightfully belong, for the rest of their lives. Alas, the relief for us was short lived, again.

Upon being bailed out back then, he had to open his gab yet again and thrash all hope of him having reformed, despite being incarcerated like a common criminal. This man has no shame!

Reportedly, his public announcement upon being released was, on the need to educate Buddhist monks on the laws governing this country!!! 

By this, was this man implying that pseudo monks like him behave the way they do, as they have no understanding of the laws of this land???

Before his volte-farce on the laws of the land and his seemingly newfound respect for it, Gnanasara is on record for stating that they of the BBS would not subject themselves to the Roman Dutch law, which he deemed as ‘suddhage neethiya’ (white man’s law), and would only abide by the law of the Dhamma. 

Laws of the Dhamma!!! Does he even know what they are???

Was his performance within the Homagama High Court premises, running riot and hurling invective at the widow of Prageeth Ekneligoda, and insulting the court and court officials which ultimately landed him behind bars, his idea of the “law of the Dhamma”?

Has he even heard of the Tripitaka let alone the Vinaya Pitaka; the monastic rules Buddhist monks are required to abide by?

Then he went on to publicly request the Mahanayake Theras (who themselves violate the Vinaya Pitaka with impunity by upholding the repugnant caste system denounced by the Buddha) and the ‘white elephant’ Buddha Sasana Ministry, to include a course on the prevailing law enforcement system in the country, at the end of the Pirivena education or, in the Bachelor of Arts (BA) or Master of Arts (MA) courses, at the end of any Buddhist education in the country. 

To call this man a clown, is a compliment to him and, he’s well advised that it’s better to keep his trap shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt!

According to Chapter II, Article 9 of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, “The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly, it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana……..”. 

Is this how the State is giving Buddhism the foremost place, protecting and fostering the Buddha Sasana by seemingly granting carte blanch to the likes of Gnanasara, to make a mockery of it? Is he not openly violating the Constitution of this country? Isn’t this tantamount to an act of treason?

Never mind ignorance of the laws of the land or even the Dhamma, the latter which most label bearing Buddhists don’t have a clue of anyway, isn’t it basic human common sense, decency and etiquette to know how to conduct one’s self, at least within the hallowed precincts of a court house? 

Read More