An HIV vaccine that has the potential to protect people around the world from the virus has shown promising results.
The treatment, which aims to provide immunity against various strains of the virus, produced an anti-HIV immune system response in tests on 393 people, a study in the Lancet found.
It also protected some monkeys from a virus that is similar to HIV.
More testing is now needed to determine if the immune response produced can prevent HIV infection in people.
Inventing a vaccine has proved an immense challenge for scientists, in part because there are so many strains of the virus, but also because HIV is adept at mutating to elude attack from our immune systems.
Previous attempts at HIV vaccines have been limited to specific strains of the virus found in certain parts of the world.
But for this "mosaic" vaccine, scientists have developed a treatment made up of pieces of different HIV viruses.
The hope is that it could offer much better protection against the almost unlimited number of HIV strains found across the world.
Image copyright
In a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, scientists tested various combinations of the mosaic vaccine in people aged 18 to 50 who did not have HIV and were healthy.
The participants, from the US, Rwanda, Uganda, South Africa, and Thailand, received four vaccinations over the course of 48 weeks.
All of the vaccine combinations produced an anti-HIV immune system response and were found to be safe.
Scientists also carried out a parallel study where they gave rhesus monkeys the vaccine to protect them from getting simian-human immunodeficiency virus - a virus similar to HIV that infects monkeys.
The mosaic vaccine combination that showed the most promise in humans was found to protect 67% of the 72 monkeys from getting the disease.
"These results represent an important milestone," said Dan Barouch, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and lead author of the study.
However, Prof Barouch also cautioned that the findings needed to be interpreted with caution.
Though the vaccine triggered a response in the immune system of the people who took it, it is not clear if this would be enough to fight off the virus and prevent infection.
"The challenges in the development of an HIV vaccine are unprecedented, and the ability to induce HIV-specific immune responses does not necessarily indicate that a vaccine will protect humans from HIV infection," he added.
'Promising signs'
Nevertheless, the promising results of the study mean researchers will next test the treatment on 2,600 women in southern Africa who are at risk of getting the illness - one of only five vaccines to make it to this stage of so-called efficacy trials.
Only one vaccine has ever shown evidence of protecting against HIV.
A vaccine tested in Thailand lowered the rate of human infection by 31%, but the effect was considered too low to advance it to common use.
Dr Michael Brady, medical director at the Terrence Higgins Trust, said it was early days for the vaccine but the signs were "promising".
"However, it's important to be cautious and be clear that there's a lot of work to do before an effective HIV vaccine is readily available."
Dr Brady added that in the meantime there were already tools that were effective for preventing the disease from spreading, such as contraception and treatments for HIV-positive people that prevent them from passing on the virus.
Image: Fern Colombo is located 2.6 km from U.S. Embassy, 2.8 km from R Premadasa Stadium and 3.5 km from Khan Clock Tower. ( photo -Booking.com) 08/07/2018
Allegations have resurfaced regarding large payouts to the former ruling family by another Chinese ports company, after Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake, who is becoming a lone crusader against corruption, revealed a copy of a cheque to the tune of Rs. 19.41 million made out to the Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation in 2012.
The transaction has been previously reported, with a B report filed in the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court, but Ramanayake’s exposes has brought new documents about the payment into public domain for the first time.
Pushpa Rajapaksa is the wife of then Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa and the sister-in-law of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) cheque (No 594691), was issued by ‘Colombo International Container’ and dated May 21, 2012. The account payee of the cheque was the Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation, A/C 204-1-001-5-0003290, People’s Bank HQ branch.
Colombo International Container Terminal (CICT) is the joint venture company running operations at the Colombo South Harbour. Hong-Kong based China Merchant Ports Holdings Company Limited (CM Ports) holds an 85% controlling stake in CICT. The remaining 15% stake is held by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority.
CICT was the company that received the contract to Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) the Colombo South Harbour extension in 2011. Its parent company, CM Ports, recently leased an 85% stake in the Hambantota Port.
CICT commenced operations in July 2013, just over a year after the cheque was issued to the Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation. The Chinese-operated terminal is currently the best performer at the Colombo Port. The cheque is dated during a period when the terminal was still under construction.
The Auditor General’s report dated March 1, 2016 (POS/A/SLPA/2016/04) makes note of the irregular donation, which amounts to precisely USD 150,000 based on the exchange rate on May 21, 2012.
The Auditor General has also directed several queries to the CICT through the Sri Lanka Ports Authority in November 2015. SLPA’s Director of Finance called for answers to the query which stipulated a figure of Rs. 600 million paid to the Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation. CICT’s Financial Officer replied the SLPA saying the amount indicated in the letter was incorrect, with Rs. 19.41 million being the correct amount. CICT said the payment had been accounted in its ‘Construction in Progress Account’ of 2012.
CICT attached a copy of the relevant cheque and payment voucher in its response. The CICT payment voucher makes no mention of the Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation, logging the Rs 19.41 million payment only as a “contribution made to a fund”.
The voucher is counter-signed by the financial controller of CICT, and under the “information of payee” section in the voucher, the word “cheque” is scribbled.
In March 2015, based on an explanation demanded by the Police Crimes Bureau, SLPA’s Director Finance wrote to the CICT CEO urgently requiring the Chinese owned company to clarify whether (a) CICT had issued the money out of its own fund, (b) whether the amount has been included in the construction cost of the terminal since it was issued during construction, (c) the source of the funds and (d) financial statements for the years 2011-2014.
The Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation is a non-governmental organisation registered under the National NGO Secretariat. The Foundation’s registration number is 141912 and it is registered at the address No 78, Rosmead Place Colombo 07. A landline beginning with the area code 033 (Gampaha District), mobile number and fax line also with the area code 033 are listed as telephone numbers for the Foundation. Repeated attempts to contact officials attached to the Foundation on the listed numbers proved futile.
Today, No. 78 Rosmead Place houses a 15 room boutique hotel named FERN. Current occupants had no knowledge that the Foundation had been based at the address. The hotel commenced operations in March 2018.
The FCID was probing the transaction, and in April 2015, Colombo Fort Magistrate Priyantha Liyanage ordered the managers of two state banks and a private bank to hand over details of the account holder Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation to the police. Police told court that the Foundation had been registered as a NGO in 2010 and said it was investigating fraudulent withdrawals of the money from its account at People’s Bank.
The FCID filed a B report (B 586/15) in the Fort Magistrate’s Court in 2015, and submitted the investigation report to the Attorney General’s Department on June 5, 2015, Sunday Observer learns.
In a media report in 2016, FCID sources were quoted as saying the CICT-Pushpa Rajapaksa transaction was one of the cases in which the AG’s advice had not been forthcoming nearly a year after the B report had been filed.
Officials of the People’s Bank, CICT and trustees of the Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation have been questioned by the FCID about the controversial USD 150,000 transaction.
The FCID filed a ‘B’ report – B 586/15 in the Fort Magistrate’s Court and submitted the investigation report to the Attorney General’s Department on June 5 but are yet to receive advice from them,” sources added.
While the transaction amounted to a massive conflict of interest, since Pushpa Rajapaksa’s spouse was serving as a powerful minister in the then Government, who controlled vast amounts of the public purse, it is unclear if there are legal grounds to act against the foundation or the company in question, unless there was clear evidence of fraud, legal experts told Sunday Observer.
But Deputy Minister Ramanayake vowed to pressure the Government to appoint a Commission to investigate the allegations. “The Rajapaksa family is well known for receiving money through foundations. The best example would be ‘Helping Hambantota’. This is a dangerous situation and we must investigate these frauds properly,” Ramanayake told the Sunday Observer.
Following repeated attempts to reach former Minister Basil Rajapaksa for comment, Sunday Observer contacted his Media Secretary Sanjeewa Edirimanne.
Edirimanne said the Minister did not wish to comment, but would issue a media release today following a legal consultation. CICT officials could not be reached for comment on the allegations.
Families of the disappeared currently protesting in Vavuniya, took their struggle to Nallur today, staging a one-day hunger strike in front of the Jaffna temple.
The Vavuniya protest reaches its 500th day tomorrow, Sunday. The protestors carried out special prayers at the Nallur Kovil, and also paid tribute to Thileepan at the nearby monument.
Three decades of war made Sri Lanka to depend on the militarily advanced countries to enhance its arsenals. Purchasing of military hardware to deal with the war in the North and the East had led even to an arms race in the Island nation.
With the country’s economy in dire straits, allocations were made on a mega scale for defence expenditure, neglecting the development of the country.
However, despite bringing an end to the war, Sri Lanka has now squeezed into the hands of the regional superpowers such as India and China.
When the war was in progress in the Island, China and India remained militarily supportive of Sri Lanka.
As the astonishing developments occurred in the geo-political scene globally, when Sri Lanka engaged in the war India and China emerged as economic superpowers and the China’s growth within a short period even stunned the giant economies globally.
So, in the guise of helping to rebuild war-torn Sri Lanka, the two regional superpowers, India and China, with their vested interests have flexed their muscles to compete towards establishing their regional supremacy in the strategically important Island nation and the latest New York Times revelations have highlighted how far the Chinese infiltration has taken place in the Island.
The latest shocking revelation with regard to the internal politics of Sri Lanka is that China funded both major presidential candidates at the presidential poll of 2015.
According to high ranking Police sources, the Police sleuths had stopped digging too deep into the investigations on Chinese funding at the 2015 Presidential election after finding that both major candidates were funded by China.
Already China has come under criticism from the West for creating artificial Islands in the South China Sea. So, the Colombo Port City project and the Hambantota Harbour Project in the Southern tip of the Island have also been seen as part of the Chinese expansion in the South Asian region by the West and it is evident from the latest New York Times article.
On the other hand the Chinese involvement in post-war Sri Lanka has made India to be concerned over its regional security as the country is already experiencing the Chinese presence in Tibet and in a `tug o’ war’ in the State of Arunachala Pradesh with China over territorial border issues.
Therefore, with the Chinese presence in Sri Lanka, India feels that the Subcontinent is in a state surrounded by China.
The competence of both regional superpowers in taking the upper hand in Sri Lanka has made the Island nation in a squeezed position of being unable to raise its head from the grip of both countries.
India already making its presence felt in the Northern tip of Sri Lanka with its engagement in reconstructing the Palaly Airport in the Jaffna Peninsula now seems to have succeeded in taking control of the loss- making Chinese-built Mattala Airport in a 40-year lease agreement.
As the Mattala International Air port is in a loss-making state, the present regime is paying back the interest annually amounting to Rs 1.7 billion for the past three years and even the profits from the Bandaranaike International Airport have to be added to the payment to be made to the Chinese for the next 15 years according to Deputy Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation Ashok Abeysinghe.
The previous regime with the end of the three decades of war worked out its post-war economic plans in a way satisfying the regional superpowers India and China without any farsightedness.
As India and China have flexed their muscles for their regional supremacy, Sri Lanka is now in a state of being squeezed by both superpowers.
In May this year, the government gazetted sweeping amendments to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, No. 25 of 2002. The original Act applied only to specified Commonwealth countries and non-Commonwealth countries which have signed the relevant agreements with Sri Lanka but the amendments now before parliament seek to extend the scope of the Act to all countries that have signed any international convention relating to a criminal matter to which Sri Lanka has become a party. Furthermore, while the original Act applied only to States, the amendments seek to bring international organisations as well within its ambit. The purpose of the original Act was to facilitate the provision of mutual assistance from foreign countries in the location of witnesses or suspects, the service of documents on such persons, the examination of witnesses, the obtaining of evidence, the execution of requests for search and seizure, the temporary transfer of persons in custody to appear as a witness, facilitation of the personal appearance of witnesses, the location of the proceeds of any criminal activity, and mutual enforcement of orders for the forfeiture or freezing of property, etc.
The Secretary to the Ministry of Justice was to be the ‘Central Authority’ for the purposes of that Act. Requests for assistance were to be made to the ‘Central Authority’ in Sri Lanka by the appropriate authorities in the countries that come under the ambit of this Act. The amending Bill seeks to lay the country open completely to all foreign states and organizations, vis-a-vis the granting of assistance in investigations and judicial proceedings, connected with criminal matters. This Bill furthermore seeks to make documentary evidence obtained in a foreign country admissible in a judicial proceeding; and also to make admissible evidence led from a foreign country through video conferencing technology. Another new feature in the amending Bill is that the Central Authority in Sri Lanka (the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice) can authorize any other officer not below the rank of a Senior Assistant Secretary, to act on his behalf and the Central Authority can also designate ‘competent authorities’ (which can be a law enforcement authority) who will process information to requests as directed by the Central Authority.
The Central Authority is also enjoined to ensure prompt action in respect of all requests from abroad and to have a dedicated unit to maintain a proper system to manage incoming and outgoing requests. Requests can also be forwarded by electronic means directly to the relevant competent authority through the appropriate authority of a foreign country or organization. The competent authority is then obliged to immediately proceed to implement the request after forwarding a copy of the relevant request to the Central Authority. The Central Authority and the officers holding delegated authority from him including the competent authorities are to maintain strict confidentiality with regard to requests made under this Act. If confidentiality cannot be upheld, the appropriate authority of a specified country or specified organization, will be informed and this foreign body will then determine whether the request should nevertheless be executed. Any person who fails to comply with this confidentiality requirement commits an offence and the High Court of the Province can impose a fine on that person ranging from a minimum of Rs. 100,000 to a maximum of Rs. 5 million. The Right to Information law will therefore, not apply to anything done under this amended Act.
The context
These sweeping amendments to the 2002 Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act are being brought in a specific context. This government has already established the Office of Missing Persons which is in reality a tribunal for all practical purposes which can examine witnesses, issue summons and hold hearings. Its officers can enter without warrant at any time of day or night, any police station, prison or military installation and seize any document or object they require for investigations. Anyone who fails or refuses to cooperate with the OMP may be punished for contempt of court. Government bodies at all levels including the armed forces and intelligence services are mandatorily required to render fullest assistance to the OMP and the provisions of the Official Secrets Act will not apply to investigations carried out by the OMP. The provisions of the Right to Information Act will also not apply to the work of the OMP. No court, not even the Supreme Court can order any officer of the OMP to submit to courts any material communicated to him in confidence. While the investigative mechanism has been set up in the form of the OMP, the government has also passed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance Act No: 5 of 2018 which makes applicable in Sri Lanka, the provisions of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance which has been signed and ratified by the Sri Lankan government. Even though the name of this international convention would convey the impression that it has something to do with ‘preventing’ enforced disappearances, its actual purpose is punitive and it has the effect of broad basing and sharing jurisdiction over offences related to enforced disappearances among all the signatories to the Convention. According to Article 10 of the International Convention, any State in whose territory a person (who can be a citizen of any other member state) suspected of having committed an offence of enforced disappearance is present, can take that person into custody.
According to Article 11, after making an arrest in that manner, the member state concerned can take one of three alternative courses of action - (a) extradite that person to another country in accordance with its international obligations, (b) prosecute that person under its own laws or (c) hand him over for prosecution to an international criminal tribunal whose jurisdiction that member state has recognized. Article 13 of the international convention also states that any member state may request the extradition of a person suspected of being responsible for enforced disappearances in any other member state and all member states are supposed to respect such requests for extradition. After the Sri Lankan government passed Act No: 5 of 2018 to make the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance operational in Sri Lanka, under Section 8 of this Act, where a request is made to the Government of Sri Lanka by the Government of a Convention State for the extradition of any person accused or convicted of causing an enforced disappearance, the Minister shall, on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka, forthwith notify the Government of the requesting State of the measures which the Government of Sri Lanka has taken, or proposes to take, for the prosecution or extradition of that person for that offence.
Section 21 of Act No: 5 of 2018 made it clear that its purpose was to give nothing less than full effect to Sri Lanka’s international obligations under the International Convention. When you read Articles 10, 11 and 13 of the International Convention Against Enforced Disappearances together with Sections 8 and 21 of Act No: 5 of 2018 it is clear that foreign countries which are members of the International Convention now have complete jurisdiction over Sri Lankans who are alleged to have been involved in causing enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka. Any member state of this international convention can get a Sri Lankan extradited to their country, and arrest, prosecute and punish a Sri Lankan for such an offence. When a foreign country which has complete jurisdiction over Sri Lankans in that manner arrests a person on suspicion over an offence relating to this convention, and that foreign country also happens to be a member of the International Criminal Court, that person can be handed over to the ICC to be dealt with as they would a citizen of the foreign country that carried out the arrest.
It is in that context that we have to view the changes contemplated to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, No. 25 of 2002. On the one hand the number of foreign countries coming within the ambit of the original Act has been expanded to include every country that is a party to an international Convention relating to mutual assistance in criminal matters, to which Sri Lanka has become a party - which automatically includes the International Convention for the Prevention of Enforced Disappearances. Furthermore, the amendment will make the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, No. 25 of 2002, applicable to organizations associated with combating international crime as well – which will of course automatically be applicable to the International Criminal Court. The punitive measures contemplated by the International Convention for the Prevention of Enforced Disappearances cannot really be implemented without the facilities that will be extended by the proposed amendment to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, No. 25 of 2002.
Changes made by the Supreme Court
In view of the dangers posed by this proposed amendment to the 2002 Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, several petitioners including Admiral Sarath Weerasekera went before the Supreme Court asking for a determination that the Bill before parliament was unconstitutional. He was represented by Manohara de Silva PC, with Canishka G. Witharana. Another petitioner Ven.
Maduruoye Dhammissara was represented by Sanjeewa Jayawardena PC. The SC Bench hearing the petitions consisted of Justices B. P. Aluwihare PC, Sisira J. de Abrew and H.N.J Perera. One of the provisions in the proposed amendment which engaged the attention of the Supreme Court was Clause 5(3) which stipulated that when requests are forwarded by foreign nations or organisations by electronic means directly to the relevant competent authority, the latter is mandatorily required to immediately proceed to implement the request. (The word used was ‘shall; which denotes a mandatory requirement)
The Supreme Court observed that Section 6 of the original Act of 2002 obliges the Central Authority to refuse a request if it violates the Constitution, but that no such restrictions have been put in place to regulate the conduct of the Competent Authority who is to be appointed by the Central Authority under the terms of the proposed amendment. The SC observed that this omission carries significant constitutional implications because Clause 5 (3) of the Bill makes it mandatory for the Competent Authority to directly receive and immediately proceed to implement requests from overseas and furthermore, this is given further impetus by Clause 5 (4) of the Bill which only requires the Competent Authority to inform the Central Authority by forwarding a copy of the relevant request before he responds to it. Therefore, the SC determined that Clause 5(3) is inconsistent with Article 12 (1) of the Constitution which guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. The SC held that it is imperative that the Competent Authority have the power under Section 6 of the original Act to refuse a request. This would enable both the Competent Authority and the Central Authority to filter requests.
The SC also made a reference to Clause 5B in the proposed amendment which went as follows: "Nothing in this Act shall prevent the Central Authority from directing a competent authority to spontaneously transmit the information requested relating to a criminal matter to an appropriate authority of a specified country or specified organization on the assurance of reciprocity and on such conditions as may be necessary for the purposes of confidentiality." In this regard, the SC held that to the extent that clause 5B sets an exception to the normal process, there must be a corresponding justification or a circumstance which warrants the invocation of clause 5B. The clause in its present form permits digression from the normal process in an ad hoc manner and thereby violates Article 12 (1) of the Constitution. The SC stated that if Clause 5B is amended reserving it as a response to exigencies, this inconsistency would cease to exist.
The question that we have to ask ourselves is where we stand now after the Supreme Court determination on the Bill to amend the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, No. 25 of 2002. The first thing to learn is that petitioning the Supreme Court is not an alternative to political action. There are many things that may not necessarily be unconstitutional but are politically and morally unacceptable. With the SC determination on the proposed amendment to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, No. 25 of 2002 which will enable it to be passed with suitable amendments, we see that the yahapalana government’s war crimes project is now ready for take-off. If there was opposition to having foreign judges to hear war crimes cases, that problem has been solved by having a mechanism whereby members of the armed forces can be tried overseas and even if the person concerned is living in Sri Lanka where he can be requested by a foreign country to stand trial in that country. The only way to prevent what the government has been angling for is through political action.
There was a good response to our article on the plight of the Tea Industry. We are also glad that at the Annual General Meeting of the Tea Traders Association, there were two addresses on How to face the future of the Industry. Problems facing it have been identified but it is pathetic that like in other crucial matters the government lacks the urgency needed and its lackadaisical attitude further aggravating the situation. Useful suggestions were made by Minister Harsha de Silva at the said meeting. He recounted that before the advent of the Tea plantations to Sri Lanka, coffee plantations were doing extremely well. A mysterious blight dealt a deadly blow to coffee plantations. But in this advanced age of scientific findings, the recurring of such a blight is extremely remote Even if it surfaced there are remedies available to counter such a disaster. It is therefore essential that the government takes a firm decision to return to coffee cultivation specially in the mid country where the tea plantations are facing numerous problems. It has been pointed out that the Tea Research Institute [TRI] failed to take this initiative. It is suggested that the TRI sub Station at Hantana can easily be used as the Reach Centre for Coffee plantations. There is a very lucrative market for coffee allover the world.
" Appointments made to the all-important governing body of the tea Industry were highly questionable and lacked its standards"
Attention has also been drawn by the minister to use the prestigious brand name Ceylon Tea to aggressive marketing. Here the Traders’ Association is tight-lipped. They say they cannot conduct aggressive campaigning under our brand name, since we use Indian Tea to blend with our teas. Some countries having realized that quality Sri Lankan tea is being blended with teas from other countries, have imposed restrictions saying that tea imported from Sri Lanka should have at least 51% locally produced Tea. When there are no issues arose in marketing the entire production, one cannot justify the intention of a section of the Tea Traders’ Association for lobbying for the import of Indian Tea. We have already pointed out that this was as disastrous, treacherous, anti-national and disgraceful. Here again the government shows its inability to make firm decision. The decision to ban importing Indian Tea must be taken without any further delay. It is urged that there should be an aggressive marketing campaign not only for tea but for all export products. The High Commissions and Embassies should be criticized for not doing enough in this respect. Are the Tea Centres in potential tea-importing countries functioning effectively? When was the last Sri Lanka ‘TEA Week’ held? It is suggested that the Export Development Board should get actively involved in organizing such ‘Tea-weeks’ in major tea importing countries in the world. Another important issue raised by the Tea Traders Association Chairman was about the Government’s indecision to lift the ban on importing glyphosate, since this particular weedicide accounts for kidney diseases in the country. Although sufficient evidence was being placed before the government that glyphosate was not the cause for renal disorders, the ban still stands. The country has suffered a colossal revenue loss due to the crop failure for not using the chemical. Fingers pointed at the President for his inaction to lift the ban. He was urged to do so by a politician-prelate who does not know what he talks about. The government should act fast to salvage this crisis-ridden industry.
"The decision to ban importing Indian Tea must be taken without any further delay"
However, the Tea Board has made firm decision to embark on an aggressive task-oriented marketing programme. Though the Tea Board Head has announced that there would be a marketing campaign in Russia and Japan, there was no indication about a tangible marketing campaign in the European Union countries to reap benefits from GSP+ facility. Minister Harsha de Silva provided statistics to show how China and Kenya had overtaken Sri Lanka. He lamented that in 2016, Sri Lanka accounted for only 3.05% of imported tea to UK while to Pakistan it stood at 2.13%. At the same time Kenya supplied 36% of imported tea to UK and a whopping 60% to Pakistan. These were earlier dominated by Sri Lankan tea. All sectors and players involved in Tea Industry must unite and enforce the discipline need not be adopted, which should emphasize the factory floor to reduce the percentage of refuse tea, adopt steady plucking norms to ensure that only tender leaves need to be plucked. The Advisory wing of the TRI has a vital role to play in these areas. We were told that a scissor has been introduced to pluck tea. But it was not clear whether it had brought any success It has been pointed out by some plantation companies that the OIC attached to the TRI in Ratnapura was doing a yeoman service.
"SL suffered a colossal revenue loss due to the crop failure for not using glyphosate as weedicide"
But this appears to be the exception rather than the rule. Some who responded stated that if one were to visit the TRI at St. Coombs, Ratnapura, one could see the deterioration it suffers. We were also told that the salaries paid to the so-called researchers were not competitive and therefore, many of them are leaving the country in search of greener pastures. We hear the Director’s remuneration at TRI is far below, compared to the ailing head of the national carrier whose earnings are several times higher than the former’s. Here again, it is up to the subject minister to intervene and deliver some justice. Meanwhile, some lamented that appointments made to the all-important governing body of the tea Industry were highly questionable and lacked its standards. If the Tea Industry is to survive, all concerned sectors must unify to find a salvation to this limping industry. It has been noted that the TRI has not recruited a Botanist for the past 20 years! The writer was an ex-employee at the TRI, Talawakele and can be reached at cmfserendib@wsltnet.lk
The reader should remember that during Rajapaksa administration, the law was applied either swiftly or slowly. It depended on which side of the Rajapaksa corporate megalith you stood.
by Sarath de Alwis-
( July 8, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The phrase ‘Cough up a Port’ held the essence
of the New York Times story. It compacted the global perception of the Magampura Mahinda Rajapaksa Port and its progression to date, into the finite space of the simple phrase – Sri Lanka coughed up a port to China.
The ‘cough’ metaphor made Mahinda Rajapaksa acolytes puke an unbelievable quantity of vitriol and venom at two Sri Lankan journalists who professionally assisted the NYT journalist to carry out her assignment in the form of logistical support and background material.
Reasonable minds are baffled by the incendiary indignation and obsessional opprobrium manufactured and vented out by the former President and his substantial support base.
The Rajapaksa corporate megalith has no patience with a vibrant Free Press. Brother Gotabaya demonstrated how the press can be tamed. He took The Sunday Leader to court. The litigation dragged on until the publisher was forced to sell the outfit that was being sued for billions in damages. The investor ready to take over the paper that was stubbornly critical of the Rajapakse regime was a close confidante of the ruling family. The editor of the paper, who opted serve under the new management did not last long. After a telephone spat with the Defense Secretary over the airlifting of puppy from Switzerland the luckless lady decided on voluntary exile.
The reader should remember that in those days, the law was applied either swiftly or slowly. It depended on which side of the Rajapaksa corporate megalith you stood.
The beleaguered publisher sold out to a party that was confident of reaching a settlement with the plaintiff – the once all-powerful Defence Secretary. Then, something unexpected happened. ‘Conspiring Western powers persuaded the people’ to vote out Mahinda. Meanwhile, the new publisher fired the legal counsel who was subjecting the plaintiff to rigorous cross examination. The plaintiff decided to be reasonable. Instead of the billions demanded, a settlement was reached. The paper published a no-holds barred apology to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, which sacrilegiously also admitted that the story so painstakingly researched, investigated and written by Lasantha Wickrematunge’s editorial team, was baseless. The Sinhala dictum – Naduth Hamuduruwange, Baduth Hamuduruwange ‘entered our legal lore.
It bears mention that the defamation case in question was filed over Wickrematunge’s consistent exposes with regard to the controversial purchase of MiG-27 ground attack aircraft for the Sri Lanka Air Force. An FCID investigation into this same transaction has delivered an Interpol Red Notice on former President Rajapaksa’s nephew Udyanga Weeratunga and forced the former Defence Secretary to make an appeal at the Supreme Court to prevent his arrest in connection with the case. Twelve years ago, Lasantha Wickrematunge conducted his own investigation into the transaction, filing away hundreds of Government documents to substantiate the facts he published in his newspaper.
Fast forward to 2018. In respect to the allegations made by the New York Times, the former President has decided to seek redress in Sri Lanka. Addressing a gathering at a Buddhist temple, he blamed the local journalists and announced that he would institute legal proceedings against publications that reproduced the NYT story about the port that was coughed up.
Mahinda is the arch realist. Litigating in New York is a different ball game. He has access to expert advice in the shape of brothers Basil and Gotabaya. Both are well acquainted with the constitutional and legal order in the US. They have passed the written and oral tests on the subject conducted by the INS- the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States. Mahinda is truly fortunate. He has the combined wisdomof the hands-on knowledge of his two brothers plus the remote wisdom of Prof G.L. Pieris.
In the natural order of global commerce, creditors exercise better bargaining power than debtors who are hocked up to their throats, chins and noses.
Nations incur debt in order to meet pressing priorities. Nations saddled with narcissist leaders do not borrow for priorities of the people. Driven by a desire to be remembered in history and spurred by the urgent need to put in place a dynastic succession plan, narcissist leaders are not deterred by the need or the necessity to repay loans. They mislead themselves by the illusory hope that creditors will be circumspect in their demands or be dazzled and deceived by declarations of good intent as they do with their captive people.
The Indians refused to help build the Magampura Port on grounds of its feasibility. The Chinese obliged on specified terms and conditions of repayment. Sri Lanka wanted the port at Hambanthota. D.A. Rajapaksa had mooted the proposal in the State Council. His son the President of Sri Lanka wanted it commissioned on his 65th Birthday.
The Chinese too wanted a modem port outside its immediate borders in the south. The Middle Kingdom formulates its strategies in terms of decades and centuries. The Chinese had on their drawing boards, plans for a deep-sea port in Kyauk Pyu in the Rakhine Province of Myanmar. They were quietly wooing the ruling junta, and later the reluctantly democratic khaki outfit that succeeded it that Kyauk Pyu port was a win-win for both Myanmar and China.
When Sri Lanka wanted funds for Hambantota, the Chinese found it to be a good game of poker for a port. Viyathmaga academics and professionals should seriously take up maritime geography.
When completed, the $ 7.3 billion deep water port will also host a $2.7 billion industrial zone that opens into the Bay of Bengal. It will have two parallel pipelines carrying oil and natural gas to the Yunnan Province in China. The Kyauk Pyu port when fully commissioned will naturally impact the performance of the Port in Hambantota. It may impact Trincomalee as well.
The NYT correspondent Maria Abi-Habib cites the positive response of the Chinese to Sri Lanka’s request for funds to build a port, an example of China’s ambitious use of loans and aid to gain influence around the world — and of its willingness to play hardball to collect. The Chinese knew the kind of pseudo experts and policy makers they were dealing with. Soon after the inauguration of the Port, the Lankan Ports Authority quoted the Singaporean Ambassador. The Singapore Ambassador in Sri Lanka is supposed to have said after touring the Port in Hambantota, “We’d better find ourselves another job”. Sri Lanka being at the very epicentre of trade routes will be able to accommodate even the largest of ships and cater to their needs.” In the hands of sycophants of exceptional genius Mahinda Rajapaksa was the emperor permanently ensconced in the dressing room trying out new robes.
Maria Abi-Habib ‘s conclusion and summing up are eminently precise and deadly accurate. She explains, “Months of interviews with Sri Lankan, Indian, Chinese and Western officials and analysis of documents and agreements stemming from the port project present a stark illustration of how China and the companies under its control ensured their interests in a small country hungry for financing.”
She does not suggest that the Magampura Mahinda Rajapaksa Port has been turned into a Chinese military outpost. What she describes is the perception of skeptical neighbours. “Indian officials, in particular, fear that Sri Lanka is struggling so much that the Chinese Government may be able to dangle debt relief in exchange for its military’s use.
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has reacted to the NYT article. The Chinese government, he assures us “never pressurised Sri Lanka on this matter. What the Chinese government wanted us to do was to get proposals from Chinese companies to come up with proposals to run the Port initially. The proposal from China Merchant Ports (CM Ports) was most beneficial for Sri Lanka.”
CM Ports has agreed to invest USD 1.08 billion on the Port. The Chinese Company and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority have entered into an agreement after the proposal received Cabinet approval. “This is a victory as far as the people in this country are concerned” says the Prime Minister.
The spin on the ‘victory ‘aspect of the Port deal requires some comment. It becomes compulsory in the context of the doctrine of public trust and the principle of transparency held high by this government as opposed to the governance style of the Son of Hambantota. Dealing with Contemporary China is neither feasible nor possible without knowing the Thucydidean wisdom contained in the Melian dialogues. The great, vibrant, determined and sprawling land mass of China with its authoritarian market economy is classical Athens when dealing with small nations as was learnt by ‘Sparta’ in the Greek wars of antiquity.
The Athenians told Sparta “What is practical and desired by the powerful is moral. The powerful extract what they can and the weak grant what they must.”
The Athenians only had to demonstrate that Sparta’s surrender was the only option. Therefore, it would be the correct and proper decision. The Prime Minster would have served us better if he admitted the Thucydidean option that was available to us after all the politicking about China and our overwhelming national debt.
The NYT story unfolds a subplot that is incidental to the main thesis on coughing up a port. That seems to have irked the former President. It should not. It does not speak about any wrong-doing or offence committed. Sri Lanka does not have laws guiding Campaign financing as in the United States.
The article states that during Sri Lankan elections in 2015, “large payments from the Chinese port construction fund flowed directly to campaign aides and activities for Mr. Rajapaksa and that these payments “were confirmed by documents and cash checks detailed in a government investigation” seen by The New York Times. She does not claim that she alone saw the documentary evidence.
She is explicit in her assertion that the newspaper has seen the evidence. The New York Times once defied the President and the Executive branch in the US by publishing the ‘Pentagon papers’, an action that was upheld by the US Supreme Court in an unprecedented unanimous decision that became a landmark precedent in democracies worldwide. Obviously, brother Gotabaya has missed out and brother Basil has learnt about a free press.
The article states that “At least $7.6 million was dispensed from China Harbor’s account at Standard Chartered Bank to affiliates of Mr. Rajapaksa’s campaign, according to a document, seen by The Times, from an active internal government investigation.
“The document details China Harbor’s bank account number — ownership of which was verified — and intelligence gleaned from questioning of the people to whom the cheques were made out.
Most of the payments were from a subaccount controlled by China Harbor, named “HPDP Phase 2,” shorthand for Hambantota Port Development Project.
China Harbor has paid out. The people who received are known to the New York Times. The Editors have told the former President that they are willing to clarify and explain. Who knows? It is possible that the New York Times is wrong. Our liberator could take the New York Times to the dry cleaners in a US court for slander and defamation. He could do better than his brother at the Mount Lavinia District Court against The Sunday Leader.
Born on 12th June 1942, having had my primary education at Hikkaduwa Sinhala School, post-primary education at Richmond College, Galle, I was admitted to University of Ceylon, Peradeniya in July 1960. As a young graduate I entered the teaching profession in May 1963 and joined the Ceylon Administrative Service (CAS) in October 1967.
Starting my new CAS career in Batticaloa District, I had an extremely eventful and memorable stint in the public service. I was appointed a Secretary of a Ministry, at the young age of 44. Although it was an enviable age to rise to such position, I also experienced the departure from public service in an abrupt manner in August 1996 at the unripe age of 54. When I did depart the service in 1996, I did so to uphold my unwavering principle of integrity. It repeated in November 2003. None would envy that for sure. But this experience was also for the best. Due to my employment in the private sector I was able to fund my daughter’s education in Pakistan which I was finding difficult as a government servant. Today when I see her carrying out her post graduate education at University of Oxford, I reflect that being removed from government service at that time was a blessing. Today, too, I leave with the conviction that everything happens for the best.
In 1996 I left government service keeping my uncontested integrity intact. This time in 2018 my departure may also seem abrupt to you. Many may interpret it in different ways. Social media have been discussing it for some time now. But it was discussed and agreed with His Excellency the President on 22nd of May 2018 at his office. I leave today at the mature age of 76. At 76, the world is a philosophical place!
Free man with a free conscience
Since 1996, I joined the public sector twice from the private sector – in December 2001 – as Secretary Defense and as Advisor and Governor of Eastern Province in January 2015, following as Secretary to HE the President in July 2017. The last position is the peak a public officer could reach in public service. It is a respected, sought after, esteemed position: a jewel on a crown.
I have pleasant and unpleasant memories of my present tenure. I will not discuss the unpleasant memories. Some of the memories encouraged me to leave public service and reminded me that the time has come for me to leave the secretariat. My thankful gratitude goes to two private sector organizations that gave me shelter when I needed it most- the Resources Development Consultants Ltd (for 5 years plus) and Japann International Cooperation Agency , Sri Lanka Office (for 11 years).
For a mere clerk’s son, without any political, social, or ancestral ties, to reach the apex position in public service proves that Sri Lanka is a country of opportunity, if one has perseverance, efficiency and integrity. I have done my part with total integrity, impartially, without malice towards anyone, even when I had been ill-treated, misunderstood, penalized, slandered etc.Tomorrow the same slandering and insults will begin. But I shall remove them from my heart with a smile, reflecting that this is the nature of the world.
Since I have no ill earned assets from irregular means and I have not been part to murder, torture, disappearances or wrongful punishment of any person. Tomorrow, I can walk on any street anywhere without security personnel surrounding me. Even in the times I was provided a large number of security personnel, I used them to the minimal.I am a free man with a free conscience. I am finally free.
By Alex Therrien-7 July 2018
The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) cheque (No 594691), was issued by ‘Colombo International Container’ and dated May 21, 2012. The account payee of the cheque was the Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation, A/C 204-1-001-5-0003290, People’s Bank HQ branch.
07
