OVER the last week, the story of a 41-year old man who married an 11-year old girl as his third wife has hogged the headlines in Malaysia. The incident put the spotlight on the incidence of child marriage in Malaysia.
Child marriage is defined by the United Nations as a formal marriage or informal union before age 18, and is a practice widespread in developing and lower-income countries. Child marriage affects both boys and girls, though girls are disproportionately the most affected.
Child marriage, more often than not, leads to a lifetime of disadvantage and deprivation. The Convention of the Rights of the Child defines any person below the age of 18 as a child, and by Malaysian law, the age of majority is attained also at 18.
Global advocates often highlight that the term early marriage is a better term because, in many societies that do practise child marriage, once a girl attains puberty, she is no longer considered a ‘child’ per se, but rather a ‘woman’ despite her age.
The most common drivers of early marriage are poverty and a lack of access to education and employment opportunities. However, in a country like Malaysia, where access to education is heavily subsidised, we also need to consider other drivers as key.
Without doubt, in the widely-publicised case, poverty is a key driver. However, the additional vulnerabilities and marginalisation that this family faces must also be taken into consideration.
That they are migrant workers from a neighbouring country, in which access to health and education which is subsidised is usually denied to them.
They work as rubber tappers in a farm, or a plantation, which is a hard-to-reach, even isolating community with its own rigid hierarchies and limitations.
The family’s income is derived from selling their rubber to this man in particular, and as such he does hold some form of power over them. Hence they fall below the poverty standards, as migrant workers are paid less especially in the plantation sector.
There is no possibility of social mobility for this family, due to this lack of access to education and other forms of employment.
Child marriage occurs due not only to poverty, but is also caused by the low status of girls within our society.
One proverb goes – ‘Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbour’s garden’ and girls once married, cease contributing to their parents and their birth families.
Poor families then tend to spend less educating their daughters, as compared to their sons, because of social expectations of girls contributing or belonging to the families they marry into.
This social norm is also replicated in inheritance laws across many Asian societies which favour sons over daughters, as well as ownership of family businesses and professions.
Within families and households, gender roles also predominate. Girls are brought up to do care work within the household – cooking, fetching water and firewood, caring for younger siblings, cleaning, washing and doing the laundry.
Regardless of educational attainment, girls and women, are still expected to perform most if not all of the care work and the reproductive labour in the household: “If you study, you have to make roti, if you don’t study, you have to make roti.” Educational attainment alone cannot bring the necessary transformation for more equal gender roles in the family and household.
In situations of poverty, educating girls and allowing girls to be free from care work comes with an economic cost that poor families cannot afford.
Hence not only do poor families have to be given additional subsidies to enable them to send their daughters to school, but they also have to be taught to think about and view their girl children differently.
A study in Bangladesh notes that when girls were able to have some form of gainful, monetary employment, families deferred marrying them off young.
Source: Lano Lan/Shutterstock
Besides poverty and the low status of girls in our society, the third key driver, in my opinion is the tight control of girls’ sexuality exerted by family and community. Adolescence, which is the period between 10-19 years of age marked by puberty, is often the period of sexual awakening. Both boys and girls experience crushes and different feelings of love, form relationships, and experiment with their bodies and with sex. This is part and parcel of the biological process.
However, boys and girls experience adolescence differently. Boys usually get more freedom and autonomy to explore and define their sexual identity, whereas girls usually experience curbs and limitations on experiencing and exploring their sexuality.
In many traditional societies, the onset of menstruation, signals availability for marriage, and the period of adolescence is for girls far shorter, and sometimes coincides with marriage. Hence many who profess a conservative viewpoint will point to menstruation as readiness for marriage, rather than to perceive a girl as an adolescent who is just discovering herself and her identity.
For girls then – biology is destiny. The end goal – socially and culturally is – for any girl is to be a wife and mother. Since that’s where girls are headed (and should be headed), there is nothing wrong in getting them to reach that destination earlier.
The sexuality of girls is meant to be expressed only within the framework of marriage, and the emphasis on virginity, (and a protection of that virginity), is an onus on families. Again those who are in vulnerable social positions who feel they cannot adequately safeguard the ‘honour’ of their daughters, find it easier to marry them off young.
The Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women’s (Arrow) research shows that families living in areas affected by climate change, which increases economic and social vulnerability, also fall back to marrying off their girls young.
Since the sexuality of girls needs to be tightly controlled and curtailed, families also resort to marrying girls off before 18, to ‘protect’ girls from sexual promiscuity – since these girls may have been dating, socialising, having a boyfriend, having had sex or are pregnant.
The general thinking is that since girls are having sex, let’s get them married because that’s where they can and should legally be having sex. Hence, marriage and sex are perceived as one package for girls, which is not necessarily true for boys.
In common lingo – this is ‘halalkan yang haram’ which means making permissible that which is forbidden. Girls’ needs for sexual expression and discovery is not at all recognised as part of self-development, which it should rightfully be.
There is a flawed assumption that marriage and family for women and girls are sites of protection and care. However, research denotes that girls who are married off young suffer from higher rates of maternal mortality, domestic violence, HIV transmission, divorce, and have higher birth rates. Hence marriage and family is often, especially for vulnerable girls, the site of further discrimination, violence, and oppression. We are not doing better by our girls by marrying them off at an early age.
Ensuring that the law unequivocally states that the age of marriage stands at 18 years of age, without exception, will do much to protect and elevate the status of girls in our society.
It sends a signal that social norms need to be modernised. That girls have a right to continue their education, to be gainfully employed and economically empowered, to have choices and options beyond marriage and motherhood in our society. That girls are autonomous beings in their own right, and are not mere chattels to be kept and traded between men and families.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of Asian Correspondent
Migrant families line up to enter a bus station after they were processed and released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on June 24. (David J. Phillip/AP)
Lawyers for the Trump administration on Friday asked a federal judge for more time to reunite immigrant children with their parents, the latest signal that the government is struggling to bring families back together after separating thousands as they crossed the U.S.-Mexico border earlier this year.
U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego had ordered the government to return children under 5 years old to their parents by Tuesday, but federal lawyers said they could meet that deadline for only about half of the 101 children in that age group.
Officials say they have deployed hundreds of government employees and opened a command center usually reserved for natural disasters to match parents and children. But the massive effort is complicated by difficulty in locating some parents and, in other cases, uncertaintyabout the parents’ identities. Some parents have been deported and others have been freed in the United States, apparently without a system to monitor everyone’s whereabouts.
The judge ordered the government to deliver a list of the children’s names to the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit, by Saturday and said he would decide Monday whether to grant an extension.
“And then we can have a more intelligent conversation,” Sabraw said Friday at a status hearing on his order, adding that “then the court can determine whether it makes sense to relax the deadlines as far as reunification. But I would need more information.”
Arnovis Guidos Portillo asked his 6-year-old by phone about life in U.S. custody after he was sent back to El Salvador. The two were set to be reunited June 28.(Video: Joshua Partlow/Photo: Fred Ramos/The Washington Post)
Friday’s hearing captured the frustrations over the Trump administration’s inability to get a handle on the number of parents separated from their children in recent months after implementation of President Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy at the border. It also foreshadowed the troubles officials could face as they try, over the next three weeks, to locate the parents of roughly 3,000 children ages 5 to 18. The deadline is July 26.
Sabraw, appointed in 2003 by President George W. Bush, late last month ordered federal officials to reunite all families within 30 days, and children under 5 within two weeks. Families were initially apprehended together, and then scattered to criminal jails after being charged with illegally crossing the border, or to civil immigration agencies to seek asylum or face deportation.
In court records, the agencies said they were not prepared to track the separated parents and children, which delayed their efforts to reunite them.
A Justice Department lawyer told the judge Friday that reunions should happen swiftly for approximately half of the 101 children under age 5 who are being held in shelters overseen by Health and Human Services.
“There are then some groups for whom the reunification process is more difficult,” lawyer Sarah Fabian told the judge. “In some cases if we’re not, for example, aware of where the parent is, I can’t commit to saying that reunification will be able to occur by the deadline.”
Jodi Goodwin is an immigration attorney working inside the Port Isabel detention center in Los Fresnos, Texas.(Jon Gerberg /The Washington Post)
She said the government had matched 86 parents to 83 children. Sixteen children had not been matched, and it remained unclear if they crossed with their parents, she said. About 46 parents are in immigration custody, 19 were deported and 19 were released. Another nine are in the custody of U.S. Marshals.
Two parents had criminal records that made them ineligible to regain custody of their kids, she said, noting that these figures do not cover all parents and that efforts to match families were ongoing.
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the ACLU who brought the class-action lawsuit on behalf of parents separated from their children even before the administration’s zero-tolerance policy took effect in May, told the Sabraw the government’s lack of record keeping was “startling.”
“It just doesn’t make sense,” he said. “You’ve taken a child from a parent. They need to give the child back.”
He urged the judge to require the government to stick to the deadlines and said thousands of lawyers are willing to help match parents with their children, which is why he asked the Justice Department for a list.
A parallel lawsuit, brought last month by the Democratic attorneys general of 17 states and the District of Columbia, also seeks the rapid reunification of separated families. This week, the states asked a federal judge in Seattle to expedite discovery in the case, arguing that the government has not turned over key information — about its own policies, separated families, and asylum seekers refused entry to the country — in response to repeated requests from state officials.
The states also argued they need to gather testimony from migrant parents and children who are in federal custody and could be moved to different detention centers at any time. “Many of the key witnesses will likely be moved in the coming days and weeks with no assurances as to their well-being or whereabouts, and continued chaos is inevitable,” their motion says.
The motion includes hundreds of pages of sworn declarations from migrant parents and their advocates detailing alleged experiences that mothers, fathers and children have endured while trying to seek asylum in the United States. In one account, a 14-month-old baby fleeing El Salvador last year was separated from his father at a port of entry in Southern California. His mother, Olivia Caceres, sought asylum weeks later and — after enduring one bureaucratic hurdle after another, including a DNA test — was reunited with her son nearly three months after he was taken away. He was “full of dirt and lice,” Caceres said in her declaration. “It seemed like they had not bathed him the 85 days he was away from us.”
The child, identified only as “M.,” now cries inconsolably and is afraid to be alone. “M. is not the same since we were reunited,” Caceres said.
Advocates for immigrants have blasted the Trump administration, suggesting officials have created bureaucratic obstacles to delay the reunions. Authorities say they are conducting DNA testing and background checks to protect children as required by a bipartisan anti-trafficking law enacted in 2008.
Susan Church, a Boston immigration lawyer, said the government could release migrants who are seeking asylum on bond so that they can find their children faster. She represents a Guatemalan woman who had an emotional reunion with her 8-year-old daughter this week after being separated for 55 days.
The girl turned 8 in a government shelter.
“I can’t believe they have the nerve to ask for more time,” Church said. “It’s outrageous. The government has a choice here and that choice is to release people on bond and then reunification could happen immediately. But they’re choosing not to do that and asking the court for more time.”
A Justice Department spokesman declined to address questions seeking clarity on the administration’s desired timeline to reunite families. In a statement, an administration official said its priority was “to ensure the safety of the children in its custody.”
Dozens of government workers have descended on child shelters and immigration jails to conduct interviews and collect forms. But court records reveal the challenges lay ahead.
Robert Guadian, a senior official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), called the process “difficult and time consuming” in court documents filed Friday. ICE detains parents for deportation but does not track if they have been separated from their children, he said, noting that the parents of children under age 5 are scattered in 23 immigration jails across 13 states.
Though all detained parents had spoken by phone to their children as of Friday, as Sabraw ordered, Guadian said officials still must complete criminal background checks on the parents.
Immigration officials said they’ve relocated 23 parents to facilities that are closer to the HHS shelters where their children are staying.
ICE is attempting to match many more parents to older children, who the judge said must be reunited within 30 days. Officials said the agency has completed approximately 300 background checks, which include criminal and immigration histories, but still has 1,400 to finish.
The president has said he took the drastic measure to secure the border. Apprehensions of illegal border crossers slumped in June, as they typically do in the hot summer months, though at more than 42,000, the monthly tally is nearly double what it was in June 2017.
One in ten teenage girls has, at some point, been unable to afford sanitary products. One in seven has had to borrow tampons or sanitary towels from a friend because they couldn’t afford to buy their own.
That’s according to a 2017 study by children’s charity, Plan International UK, which asked 1,000 14 to 21-year-olds about their experiences of menstruation.
Period poverty is a thing. But there have been a few dodgy statistics flying around recently.
Do periods cost the average woman £500 a year?
The Labour MP, Danielle Rowley, told the House of Commons in a debate about period poverty this week:
“We know that the average cost of a period in the UK over a year is £500″
She was widely praised for talking openly about being on her period, breaking parliamentary taboo in the process.
Period poverty is undoubtedly a serious issue for girls and women on low incomes.
But that £500 a year figure made the FactCheck team a little curious – if true, that would mean the average woman spends about £40 a month on managing their menstruation.
A spokesperson for Ms Rowley confirmed that she was referring to a 2015 survey by a company called VoucherCodesPro.co.uk. The survey asked 2,134 women aged 16 to 45 how much they spent on their period each month.
Respondents said they spent about £13 a month on sanitary towels, tampons, and/or menstrual cups, a further £8 on new underwear, and £4.50 on pain relief.
But the figure also included spending on chocolate, sweets, crisps (£8.50) plus £7 on “other” items, including magazines, toiletries and DVDs.
The company concluded that, taking all this into account, the average woman spends £492 a year on her period.
The problem is, that’s very unlikely to reflect the experiences of people suffering from period poverty. By definition, these are people on low incomes who will probably not consider monthly spending on DVDs, chocolates and sweets a necessity to help them manage their period.
Assuming the average woman has 450 periods in a lifetime (this is the assumption that the VoucherCodesPro survey used), that works out at about £128 a year, or just under £11 a period.
But what about the cost of heavy periods?
There are, allegedly, some women who are blessed with a one-day, hardly-feel-it period, who presumably breeze through the month in a range of white linen trousers and miniskirts.
But if you don’t find yourself in that fortunate category, you’ll know that there is a whole range of ways that periods can be painful, embarrassing and expensive.
Danielle Rowley told us some of the ways things can go wrong – and what it can mean for your bank balance.
Rowley says: “First of all I buy three different sizes of tampons… Sometimes my flow is so heavy that I need to have the bigger sized tampons and wear a day time pad as well. For night time I buy night pads, because I prefer to feel that I can sleep peacefully.”
Medical conditions play a role. Rowley points out that conditions including endometriosis (where tissue like the kind that usually lines the womb is found outside the uterus in areas like the ovaries) can cause very heavy periods.
Pain levels vary, and sometimes mean women opt for higher-strength medication, which is often more expensive than own-brand products.
Are we missing the point?
You can buy a pack of 20 Tampax for £1.90, a box of 14 super plus extra Lil-Lets for £1.50, and a pack of 20 Tesco own-brand tampons for £0.95.
Even if you got through two or three boxes a month, that would cost less than £5 a period.
Some would argue that the period poverty debate shouldn’t focus on how much the average woman spends, or is forced to spend. The real problem is that some girls and women cannot afford to spend even that relatively small amount of money on sanitary products.
FactCheck verdict
The claim that the average woman spends £500 a year on managing their period is somewhat misleading. It includes other costs that most people would not consider necessities – for example, buying DVDs, chocolates and sweets.
A more realistic estimate of the average cost of periods is about £128 a year, or £10 a month.
Period poverty is very much a thing: one in ten teenage girls has been unable to afford tampons or sanitary towels.
Either way, many would argue that regardless of how much the averagewoman spends, the real issue is that for the very poorest girls and women, even a few pounds a month is unaffordable.
mage: Tamil people wait to vote as police officers stand guard at a polling station during the northern provincial council election on Sept. 21, 2013 in Jaffna, Sri Lanka.Buddhika Weerasinghe/Getty Images. 04/07/2018
TNA Member of Parliament M. A. Sumanthiran is to move adjournment Motion in Parliament on the 6th of July which says that ” if it is not possible to complete the said reforms within the next two months, we urge that the Provincial Councils (Amendment) Act No. 17 of 2017 be repealed immediately so that elections to the provincial councils can be held without any further postponement.” Adjournment Motion
To be moved by Hon M A Sumanthiran on 06/07/ 2018
Whereas the terms of office of 3 Provincial Councils came to an end in October 2017.
And whereas no election to the said three councils have been conducted to date owing to the fact that the Provincial Council Elections Act was amended in order to introduce reforms to the electoral process.
And whereas three more Provincial Councils will end their respective terms of office by October 2018.
No election to any Provincial Council can be held due to the fact that the electoral reforms are not yet complete.
An urgent priority has arisen to complete the electoral reforms so that the franchise of the people of the several provinces are not denied any further.
We urge the government complete the electoral reforms to the Provincial Councils election laws immediately without any further delay.
And if it is not possible to complete the said reforms within the next two months, we urge that the Provincial Councils (Amendment) Act No. 17 of 2017 be repealed immediately so that elections to the provincial councils can be held without any further postponement.
Tamils opposed to Gota in general as possible candidate
Northern people won’t vote en bloc to a particular candidate at next Presidential Polls
Yet, there are some Tamils who admire him as a doer
People in the North are not in favour of separatism or another armed struggle
C. V. Wigneswaran is quite popular among people
We don’t get international support and sympathy as it used to be
2018-07-03
Jaffna District Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Parliamentarian Dharmalingam Siddharthan speaks to Daily Mirror about politics in the North and the presidential elections. Mr. Siddharthan, who is the leader People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE), says people in the North will not vote en bloc to a particular candidate at the next election. The Excerpt:-
Q As far as the TNA is concerned, how do you assess the political situation of the country?
I do not know what does TNA leader R. Sampanthan feels. From the TNA’s point of view, I personally feel the party’s main purpose is Constitutional Reforms. It is not going to happen, though. I don’t believe it would happen.
Q Why do you think so?
The two main constituent parties of the government - the SLFP and the UNP - are embroiled in problems and at loggerheads with each other. They cannot be together and take the constitutional process forward. Secondly, I never thought that the Constitution-making process would go on for long. Most southern politicians are basically against the concept of power devolution. They do not believe in devolution. The Constitution-making process is too late now. The government should have done it during its first year in power. Now, the opposition is becoming much stronger. Southern leaders hinder the Constitution-making process.
Q The TNA played a pivotal role in the installation of this government; particularly at the Presidential Election in 2015. How do you assess present predicament?
Tamils were so anti-Mahinda Rajapaksa at that time. That factor played a big role in using their franchise en bloc to the current President. The TNA announced its support to the President only after postal voting took place at that election. Let alone, the 80% of postal voters had cast their ballots in favour of the incumbent President. That shows how Tamil people wanted to see a change even before the TNA took its official stand. After the elections, these two main parties got together. Then, we also thought that it might be possible to have a political solution. In the past, when one party tried to solve the problem, the other opposed to it. The 19th Amendment was enacted comfortably in Parliament this time, giving hope for us. In the immediate aftermath of the elections, Mahinda Rajapaksa was politically very weak. Now, he is strong. Any southern leader does not want to lose his vote base among the Sinhala people. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to get the new Constitution enacted.
The political solution is a must for our people. At the same time, people see that their day-to-day problems are not solved. These issues can be solved by the government very easily. But, they have done nothing. That is what the people feel
Q At the last local government elections, the TNA vote base had dropped drastically. Alongside, the vote base of the parties opposed to the TNA had increased. How do you look at the trend?
It is a fact that the TNA lost a large proportion of votes. I really do not know whether it is a temporary phenomenon or not. The vote base of the party led by former MP Gajendra Kumar Ponnambalam increased. The people have voted for the governing parties in the centre. The UNP and the SLFP also gained in the north this time. Also, the EPDP led by MP Douglas Devananda got a large number of votes. The political solution is a must for our people. At the same time, people see that their day-to-day problems are not solved. These issues can be solved by the government very easily. But, they have done nothing. That is what people feel. Nevertheless, the government has done something for them actually in terms of the release of lands etc. There are only 130 political prisoners remaining now. They include the convicted ones. Only 70 and 80 people are held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. For people, it is still below their expectations.
Q How do you look at the provincial council elections due this year?
Some ITAK members say Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran will not be the candidate next time. The TNA has not decided who should be the candidate. ITAK people feel that MP Mavai Senathirajah should be the candidate. Mr. Wigneswaran is quite popular among the people. He still never has said he would be leaving the TNA. The TNA has to decide. MP Mavai Senathirajah is adamant that he should be the candidate.
Q As the leader of PLOTE aligned with the TNA, what is your view?
I have not decided as such. At the last provincial council election, I am the one who proposed that Mr. Senathirajah should be the candidate. Yet, Mr. Sampanthan managed to convince the others that it should be Mr. Wigneswaran. He contested accordingly.
Today, the situation is different. Mr. Wigneswaran is popular. The TNA vote base dwindled.
Q The extremist parties such as Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam’s All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) gained at this election. Does it mean that the separatist ideology is gaining ground again?
Nobody is talking about separatism. Even Mr. Ponnambalam does not talk about it openly. There are some people living abroad, who make such noise. As far as I am concerned, people living in the North are not in favour of separatism or another armed struggle. They are not ready to lose anymore. They feel enough is enough. They need a political solution and economic development.
At the last provincial council election, I am the one who proposed that Maavai Senathirajah should be the candidate. Yet, Mr. Sampanthan managed to convince the others that it should be C. V. Wigneswaran
Q But the Tamil Diaspora groups think otherwise...
Some of them think so. There are some others who are rational. They feel that people should not be made a scapegoat any longer to pursue separatist agenda. War is needed for some people to do their businesses. Most expatriate people are not supportive of Tamil Eelam. I met a larger number of expatriate LTTEers. They are now very sober. They could not achieve Eelam even through the armed struggle waged by the LTTE. I do not think anybody can build an outfit like the LTTE. There is no way it can happen.
Q How influential is the Tamil Diaspora in northern politics?
They have a certain degree of influence because of their financial power. Some of them have their intellectual capacity as well. I do not deny that. I don’t think their influence is powerful enough to change the policies of the parties operating here.
Q There was large participation in the Mullivaikkal remembrance events in the North this time. Some chanted separatist slogans. It is interpreted in the South as signs of radicalization. How do you assess this situation?
That is the problem. Everyone has to remember his kith and kin. In the history of Sri Lanka,Mullivaikkal is the place where a large number of people had been killed. I also participated in these events because I feel for people. When one joins a military organization, he/she knows that he/she is bound to shed his/her life. But, ordinary people are not like that. They are innocent. That was why I went. Unfortunately, it was exaggerated in the South.
Everyone has to remember his kith and kin. In the history of Sri Lanka, Mullivaikkal was the place where a large number of people had been killed. I also participated in these events because I feel for people. When one joins a military organization, he/she knows that he/she is bound to shed his/her life
Q Yet, it is the area where the LTTE was decimated along with its top-rung leaders including Velupillai Prabhakaran. In the South, it is seen as a heroic act. How do you see this?
It is natural. In the South, former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the former Army Commander were seen as heroes. MR and Gotabhaya were seen as heroes who finished the war, an act considered impossible for 30 years. It was the other way round in the north. Tamils believe that Prabhakaran fought a valiant war. It does not mean that people are ready to go for Eelam now. I spoke to several ex-LTTE combatants. They were not ready for it.
Q There are some names being mentioned about the next Presidential Candidate. How do you see it in the North?
I don’t think people are worried about the Presidential polls. We just wait to see who would be the candidate next time. First, we have to know the candidate.
Q Last time, TNA supported President Maithripala Sirisena. It was speculated that Gotabhaya would be the candidate. In your view, what are the reactions of Tamil people?
I think the Tamil people are opposed to him in general. That is because he was the one who fought war and defeated the LTTE. That is the feeling. Actually, it is the truth. I do not know who would the next candidate be. But, some sections of the Tamil people feel that he is better than others though he fought the war. That feeling is there among some Tamils because they have seen the city development in Colombo under him at that time. There is anger against him as well.
Whoever is fielded, the vote base in the North and the East will be divided. They will not vote en bloc to one candidate. That is what I see.
Q How do you see the dynamics in the international arena?
The attitudes of the international community have changed towards Sri Lanka. We do not now have the kind of sympathy and support we had earlier. As far as we are concerned, India is more important than any other country.
Nobody is talking about separatism. Even Mr. Ponnambalam does not talk about it openly. There are some people living abroad, who make such noises. As far as I am concerned, people living in the North are not in favour of separatism or another armed struggle
Q If you refer to India, Jayalalithaa was a towering figure as the CM of Tamil Nadu. She used to exert a lot of pressure on the central government of India to prevail upon Sri Lanka. She is no more now. How do you see the situation as a result?
Tamil Nadu politics is weak. The support for the cause of Sri Lankan Tamils is on the wane. Earlier, a lot of leaders were there - M.G.Ramachandran, M. Karunanidhi and Jayalalithaa. If the state government is not strong enough in Tamil Nadu, the centre does not listen.
Among the images of pristine beaches, lush forests, and rolling hills, one thing that you won’t find on the website of the Sri Lankan tourism board are photos of the roadside shacks across the North and East of the country where elderly Tamil women have been protesting continuously for the past 500 days. This is the side of the ‘paradise isle’ that the government of Sri Lanka does not want you to see.
The collective of Tamil family members began their stand in February 2017 after years of fruitless efforts to obtain answers about the fate of their loved ones, many of whom disappeared in the final stages of the civil war in 2009 and its horrendous aftermath – some after they were witnessed entering into the custody of the Sri Lankan army. For nearly a year and a half, the families have endured exposure to the elements, dire material conditions, and repeated acts of intimidation and harassment to make their voices heard – all the while bearing the daily grief and trauma of not knowing the whereabouts of their kith and kin. According to recent reports, eight of the family members have reportedly passed away since the protests began.
The families have a simple set of demands that have been made abundantly clear to the authorities, including in face-to-face meetings with Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena. They include the investigation and release of a list of all secret detention centres, the publication of a list of all detainees held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (yearly, since 1978), and the release of records of all those who surrendered to the Sri Lankan armed forces at the end of the civil war.
Over the past year, we have been running a solidarity campaign in support of the families that is focussed on the last of these demands. Well over a thousand of you – including politicians and relatives of the disappeared from other countries around the world – have gotten behind the campaign, helping to highlight the government of Sri Lanka’s shameful treatment of these individuals and bringing pressure to bear to ensure that they act.
Today, at this important milestone for the families, we decided to put those voices into action by delivering our petition to the Sri Lankan High Commission in London[1]. Our folder included this powerful statement from Paul Scully MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils, as well as various photo messages of support from British MPs.
Meanwhile, in the absence of answers from the government of Sri Lanka, the families have sought to piece together the truth by themselves. A new initiative, coordinated by the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP), has attempted to recreate the surrender list that the Sri Lankan Army is withholding. It currently contains names – and in many cases photographs – of 280 individuals believed to have handed themselves over to the armed forces on or around 18 May 2009. The list includesthe names of many LTTE (‘Tamil Tiger’) combatants[2], but also large numbers of civilians, including a Catholic priest and at least twenty-nine children, several under five years of age.
Some of these photos were included in a moving art display, prepared by one of our volunteers, that we took with us to the Sri Lankan High Commission this week. It’s central message is that while we have some information about what happened to those who surrendered at the end of the war, we do not yet have the full picture – and it remains the responsibility of the Sri Lankan state to complete it. Despite some early signs of promise from Sri Lanka’s recently established Office on Missing Persons (OMP), it remains difficult to see how many relatives of the disappeared will be able to place their trust and confidence in the mechanism so long as the state continues to withhold vital evidence crucial to its proper functioning.
That is why meeting the demands of the protestors is so important, and why we are continuing to ask our supporters to throw their weight behind them. If you haven’t done so already, please take action today by:
Taking a photo of yourself with one of our printable ‘solidarity posters’, and sharing it with us via email or social media (on Twitter or Facebook). For maximum reach, please use the hashtags #DisappearedSL and #ReleaseTheList.
Additionally, this weekend you can join one of the various protests that will be held in support of the families – in London (1 July), Toronto (30 June), New York (1 July), Berlin (1 July), Zurich (30 June) and Belfast (4 July).
The rallies are intended to be women-centred and are not affiliated with any particular organisation or political party. Those attending are encouraged to wear black. For more information, please visit the Facebook event page hub here.
Back in December 2017, I issued a statement extending my fullest support to Tamil families of the disappeared as they marked 300 days of continuous protest at various sites across the North and east of Sri Lanka. It is with dismay that I am compelled to voice my solidarity again this week, as the protests surpass 500 days.
The families have a simple demand: to know the fate of their missing loved ones, many of whom were never seen or heard from again after they entered the custody of the Sri Lankan armed forces during the final stages of the war in 2009. To that end, they have asked the government to take a number of specific steps that could help provide answers, including releasing a list of all those who surrendered or were detained by the authorities at the end of the war. Unfortunately, despite public assurances from the President that these records would be handed over to the families, this has yet to happen.
As a result, the protestors have been cruelly forced to continue their struggle. They have done so despite the terrible trauma and grief that they each individually bear, despite the appalling material conditions of the makeshift shelters which they occupy, and despite a ratcheting up of threats and intimidation against them in recent months.
The government has the power to bring the protests to an end – by fulfilling the demands of the families, and by acting in good faith to establish the truth about their loved ones. I have been encouraged in recent weeks by some of the initial steps to establish the long-awaited Office of Missing Persons (OMP), and in particular by the manner in which the Chairperson has reached out to affected communities to listen to their concerns. But the success of the mechanism will crucially turn on trust among stakeholders, trust that remains in extremely short-supply. Without confidence-building measures from the government of the sort that that the protestors have requested, it is hard to see how this scepticism can be overcome.
As Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils, I call on the government of Sri Lanka to fulfil the demands of the protestors, and for members of the international community to bring pressure to bear to ensure that it delivers. As we mark this 500th day of protest, it is time to say, ‘enough is enough’.
Paul Scully MP, Chair APPG-Tamils (29 June 2018)
Footnotes:
[1] In order to balance transparency with privacy and security of our petition signatories, some of whom are of Sri Lankan origin, the petition so delivered included only first names, the first initial of surnames, countries of residence, and the dates of signature.
[2] Whose status is irrelevant since they were at the point of surrendering hors de combat (“outside of the combat”) and therefore protected under International Humanitarian Law.
By
Northern people won’t vote en bloc to a particular candidate at next Presidential Polls
