Jaffna’s Rejection Of The Meritorious Candidate And Implications For The University System

JULY 25, 2018

Colombo Telegraph has since 2014 highlighted with cases the contempt for merit displayed by the University of Jaffna in the selection of academics. This has not changed. We had earlier highlighted the case of Mithila Gowthaman, the unquestionably outstanding candidate for the post of Probationary Lecturer in Financial Management who is an Associate Vice President (AVP) at Moody’s Analytics Knowledge Services Ltd which is a USA based leading provider of high value research, analytics and business intelligence to the financial service sector. If not for the Head of Financial Management, and Prof. Tharmaratnam and Prof Sitrampalam who were council nominees, Mithila’s application would have been buried without a hum, as has happened to many talented applicants.

Ratnam Vigneswaran – Vice Chancellor

The person, the Vice Chancellor, the Dean and the Senate Representative have been trying to push into that post comes nowhere near and is low down on the internal (Jaffna) merit list. It is a system in which the mafia of deans, the vice chancellor and the UGC Chairman stand by one another. There are no discussions on how to improve quality or even to avoid some of the more scandalous abuses. If one thinks that there are rules and the University Services Appeals Board (USAB) would uphold them, one is mistaken.

Mithila’s case is an example of where the corruption has set in very deep and has stiffened. As an applicant for probationary lecturer, a university concerned about quality should have grabbed her. Let us see what probationary lecturer signifies. It is an investment in a young, talented person who might otherwise be lost. Otherwise there is no justification for probationary lecturers, and the wise thing to do, as most universities in the world do, is to have those with PhDs apply to come in at senior lecturer level. That will also stop the calamitous inbreeding we see today in our universities.

When there is a departmental consensus that a student in the final year, or a particular applicant, has such scholarly qualities as would be a positive asset to the department, such is the kind of person to be taken in as a probationary lecturer. In 2013 there was such a consensus about Nilani Kanesharatnam in the Zoology Dept. Vice Chancellor Arasaratnam overruled her and put in a favourite low down the merit list. Since about then, the University goes by schemes of recruitment, tailor-made for taking in favourites.

Marks are awarded by selectors for items having nothing to do with scholarship and these marks are easily manipulated by two or three persons on the selection committee. Even marks are awarded for a master’s degree that most of the time defeats the rationale behind investing in a budding scholar, based on performance in the first degree. In Mithila’s case, her exceptional merit rests not on the first degree but on what she achieved in the short time after graduation. A selection committee looking for a scholar will be sensitive to that. But the Dean and Vice Chancellor tried to put her down claiming that she had no research, ignoring the fact that she was constantly doing research of a confidential nature for a leading company in her field.

If fact most lecturers at present come in at Probationary level and have been preselected by their teachers as a guarantee for their security, hide their mediocrity and to aid their power games. For the humanities it has been suicidal. One gets in as a probationary lecturer, writes a thesis in Tamil or Sinhalese under one’s own teacher, the standard of which is not tested in the wider world, and one routinely becomes a senior lecturer and then professor. Hardly anyone is under pressure to become functional in English or even to read in English. An inspection of the Jaffna University Library will show this. In the context of Sri Lanka, one who is not functional in English is illiterate. To deny that is to be patronisingly charitable.

Once such people take over a university they do everything to protect themselves. When an obviously good person with broad exposure in the world and competent in English applies to a department, petitions are written to the heads, deans and vice chancellors not to take that person on some silly technicality. Interviews get postponed indefinitely. Those already inside don’t see that taking such a person is an opportunity for themselves and is good for the students to learn to face the wider world confidently, rather than be frogs in the well. 

In a university, no department or faculty could survive on its own. The Humanities should be the life of the University, Senate and Council and should set the tone and standard of discussion for the whole institution. They should be a major voice against corruption in recruitment. This could be seen in the wider world and even in Sri Lanka, where the few articulate voices for reform are from the Humanities. Once the Humanities die, a university is dead. This could be seen in the vanishing of internal checks in Jaffna. Often strong personalities also arouse strong feelings of approbation or disapprobation, but that should not be a problem in a university. 

Read More

In the wake of the past, upholding all human rights

SAVITRI HENSMAN- 07/24/2018

Thirty-five years ago, human rights and democracy in Sri Lanka unravelled in a spectacular manner. Yet the background to these blatant abuses included an erosion of economic and social rights, with which political rights are interconnected. To tackle today’s challenges, it may be helpful to take an approach which seeks to uphold all human rights, for everyone.

In the wake of the past, upholding all human rights.docx by Thavam on Scribd

The nature of the State and the Presidency

New draft constitution - Part 1

By C. A. Chandraprema-July 24, 2018, 

The new draft constitution prepared by a panel of experts, for the consideration of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly is now out. The panel of experts who prepared this draft comprised the following: Prof. Suri Ratnapala, N. Selvakkumaran, Prof. Navaratna Bandara, Asoka Gunawardena, Suren Fernando and Niran Anketell. Proposed Article 1 of the draft constitution describes the Sri Lankan state as follows: "Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is a free, sovereign and independent Republic which is an aekiya rajyaya / orumiththa nadu, consisting of the institutions of the Centre and of the Provinces which shall exercise power as laid down in the Constitution. In this Article aekiya rajyaya / orumiththa nadu means a State which is undivided and indivisible, and in which the power to amend the Constitution, or to repeal and replace the Constitution, shall remain with the Legislature and the People of Sri Lanka as provided in this Constitution."

We have been assured umpteen times by the yahapalana government as well as the Tamil National Alliance that no one is encouraging separatism and the purpose of the new constitution will not be to divide the country. If that is really so, why can’t the present very simple formulation where Articles 1 and 2 of the present Constitution describes Sri Lanka (Ceylon) as ‘a Free, Sovereign, Independent and Democratic Socialist Republic’ and asserts that the Republic of Sri Lanka is ‘a Unitary State’ be allowed to remain as it is? The proposed very convoluted description of Sri Lanka as ‘an aekiya rajyaya / orumiththa nadu, consisting of ‘the institutions of the Centre and of the Provinces’ which shall exercise power as laid down in the Constitution is fraught with various implications which will become clearer as we examine other features of the proposed new constitution and is therefore bound to encounter stiff opposition.

The proposed Article 1 of the draft constitution reeks of separatism. There is no need to have Sinhala and Tamil words to interpret the English phrase ‘unitary’. The phrases aekiya rajyaya and orumiththa nadu mean different things to Sinhalese and Tamils. If passed into law, this will be a replay of the Ilangei Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) being described as ‘Federal Party’ in English whereas in Tamil it means ‘Tamil State Party’. In any event, present day formal Constitutions were never evolved by either the Sinhalese or the Tamils. This is an European import and the meaning of the English phrase ‘unitary’ is what best describes the nature of the Sri Lankan state. Any change in the description of the Sri Lankan state will be a case of opening a political Pandora’s box.

Coupled to the above is the proposed Article 4 in the draft which describes the territory of Sri Lanka as ‘constituted of its geographical territory, including the Provinces as set out in the AAA Schedule of the Constitution’. However, the present Constitution describes the territory of the Republic of Sri Lanka as consisting of the twenty- five administrative districts. The switch from districts to provinces will be looked upon with extreme suspicion by the general public in Sri Lanka because the separatist cry was always based on provincial boundaries. Readers will note that even in the proposed Article 1 of the draft, there is a reference to the Sri Lankan state consisting of the institutions ‘of the Centre and of the Provinces’. In fact this switch from districts to provinces and according the province a special status runs throughout the proposed draft constitution which no doubt will arouse suspicions about the real intent behind this exercise. Our present Constitution furthermore has a proviso in Article 5 stating that parliament may subdivide or amalgamate the existing administrative districts so as to constitute different administrative districts, but this proviso is missing in the proposed draft constitution and the province is envisaged and presented as a solidified territorial unit. What the draft constitution does have instead is a provision that "No Provincial Council or other authority may declare any part of the territory of Sri Lanka to be a separate State or advocate or take steps towards the secession of any Province or part thereof, from Sri Lanka."

Creating new friction

One gets the distinct impression that the drafters of this proposed constitution being only too well aware of the suspicions that their choice of words would evoke, have included this anti-separatist clause to assuage any suspicions that the people may naturally entertain about the intent behind this draft constitution. However in the context of what the new draft constitution actually proposes, as we will see in later installments of this analysis, this reassurance will sound quite hollow to all concerned.

According to the draft constitution, the National Anthem of Sri Lanka is to be "Sri Lanka Matha/ Sri Lanka Thaaye which means that the Sinhala and Tamil versions of the national anthem will have equal status in the constitution. Even India with its multiplicity of languages and ethnic groups and states bigger than most nation states, has only one national anthem and it is sung only in one language. It will therefore be difficult to convince the Sri Lankan public that Sri Lanka’s national anthem should be sung in two languages. If it has come to such situation that a minority that makes up about 15% of the country’s population refuses to sing the national anthem of the country in the language of the majority 75%, where is the unity in that country? The 10% of Tamil speaking Muslims have not expressed any reservations about singing the national anthem in Sinhala. Besides, more than half the Tamil population lives outside the north and east and among the majority Sinhalese. So this parity of status for the Sinhala and Tamil versions of the national anthem will in itself be a cause of friction. Would not caution require that the present provisions in our Constitution relating to the national anthem be allowed to remain as it is without further experimentation?

When it comes to Article 9 of the present Constitution which accords the foremost place to Buddhism, the draft constitution has proposed two alternatives. One is to retain the present formulation which goes as "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, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Article 10 and 14(1)(e)." However there is a preference indicated for a version which goes as follows: "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, while treating all religions and beliefs with honour and dignity, and without discrimination, and guaranteeing to all persons the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution." Most people in Sri Lanka including many non-Buddhists may prefer to retain the present formulation without trying to experiment with it. Even His Eminence Malcom Cardinal Ranjith has made indications to that effect.

Abolishing the executive presidency

One has to state that when it comes to abolishing the executive presidency, the present draft constitution has sought to fulfill the principal pledge given at the last presidential elections. The present executive presidency is to be replaced with a ceremonial presidency. Under the proposed draft constitution, the President will be the Head of State and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces but he will not be the head of the executive, head of the government or head of the cabinet of ministers. Under the proposed Article 18 of the draft constitution, the President is to always, except in the case of the appointment of the Prime Minister or as otherwise required by the Constitution, act on the advice of the Prime Minister. The president will also not be elected directly by the people of Sri Lanka but by Parliament on the exhaustive ballot system where if one candidate does not get an overall majority of the total number of MPs in both houses of parliament, the candidates with the lowest number of votes is eliminated from the race and a further round of voting takes place until somebody gets an overall majority. The person who is elected President can be either a member of parliament or any other individual. If he happens to be a member of parliament, he will have to relinquish his seat in parliament to take up the position of President.

Under the proposed draft constitution, during his tenure the ceremonial President should not be a member or office bearer of any political party. A president so appointed can be removed if a resolution of no-confidence against the President, is introduced by any MP and signed by at least half the total number of Members of Parliament, and this resolution of no-confidence is passed by two thirds of the whole number of members of the Second Chamber (including those not present). The first thing that the public got to hear about this new draft constitution was parliamentarian Dayasiri Jayasekera stating that under the terms of this proposed constitution the President could be removed by the Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition acting in concert.

This is a reference to the proposed Article 17(3)(c) in the draft constitution which says that the president can be removed from office ‘on a unanimous decision by a committee consisting of the Speaker, Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition that the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of the office of President by reason of mental or physical infirmity’. There is no cause for MP Jayasekera to worry, because this is not a reference to the present president but to a ceremonial president appointed under the proposed new constitution which has not been passed yet. Parliamentarian Dayasiri Jayasekera seems to have panicked because Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya and Opposition Leader R.Sampanthan have a tendency to collude, and he would have thought that the moment the new Constitution was passed, his boss would be flung out on to the street. Besides, this provision is to kick in only in the case of mental or physical infirmity. Since the new constitution will have only a ceremonial President one would say that there is nothing seriously objectionable in the proposed Article 17(3)(c).

What is highly objectionable however is the proposed Article 17(2) of the draft constitution which goes as follows: "Any person who has been twice elected to the office of President in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and / or in accordance with any previous Constitution, shall not be qualified thereafter to be elected to such office by Parliament." What is the purpose of such a provision? If the position of President is merely a ceremonial post with a constitutional requirement that he always should act on the advice of the Prime Minister, why should a former executive President not be allowed to become a ceremonial President? One thing that readers should take note of is that like everything that the yahapalana government does, the draft constitution that we are discussing now is also designed around the Rajapaksas. The only purpose of proposed Article 17(2) appears to be to keep former President Mahinda Rajapaksa out of that office even after it is turned into a ceremonial position.

(To be continued)

Rule of Law or the Law of Rule Our dilemma of Governing dichotomy

“Government can easily exist without laws, but the law cannot exist without government.”

~Bertrand Russell  

2018-07-25

‘We are all in the gutter’, so said Oscar Wilde. It may well be a fact that Wilde has a lot of company from a great number of Sri Lankans surrounding him in that stinking gutter. The gutter is filled with snakes of deceit; its decrepit condition is a birthplace for all infectious diseases; its floor is crumbling under the very feet of those who dwell in it as their chosen abode; its walls are dilapidated and cringing and threatening to engulf its inhabitants.


Whichever direction its inhabitants gaze, despair and depression reign as the only reality. A comical display of a pathetic bunch of populace, one climbing over the other while others are too preoccupied with our national pastime, pulling the ones who appear to be gaining ground to real ground, is fast reaching its final Act. A catastrophic tragedy might well be that final Act, peaking to a crescendo of wailing and desperate pleading of a miserable assembly of men and women.

Such is a macabre manifestation of a people who have willingly chosen to substitute ‘the Rule of Law’ with ‘the Law of Rule’.

An agonizing nation, attempting to rise from the ashes of a thirty-year-old war, never trying to conceal their displeasure with the obvious, corruption to an uncontrollable extent, petty nationalism replacing genuine patriotism and pathological swindling being accepted as the standard procedure, invariably finds herself in a living hell such as the ‘First Circle’ as described in the novel of the same name, First Circle, by Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

The inherent dignity in each human being living in the land was obliterated and shaded in unrecognizable colours so as to classify them as UNP, SLFP, and LSSP etc.  Politicians, the demigods of the post-Independence era, have taken hold of the collective mindset of a people; their bigoted policy positions, their extreme social and cultural beliefs and their inexhaustible avarice and other mundane luxuries have subordinated the needs and necessities of a subject people.

A culture that boasted about the story of a damsel traversing from the Southern tip of the country to Northern peninsula without being subjected to any form of waylaying or harassment is now immersed in an obscene orgy of corruption

This tragic transformation which has produced some drastic social and cultural consequences is as manifestly apparent as daylight each morning.

An ancient culture that boasted about the story of a damsel traversing from the Southern tip of the country to Northern peninsula without being subjected to any form of waylaying or harassment is now immersed in an obscene orgy of corruption and disobedience to traditional values.
Politicians and, they alone, should bear the unpleasant burden of that truth.

The truth that the politicians of all ages, barring a scarce few, from the dawn of the Twentieth Century to the present day, have never learnt the difficult skill of constraining the excesses of their own greed for more money and power and it is, for any generation, young or old, hard to live with that guilt in their conscience.

Yet, after all these reasonable reasoning, ‘the Law of Rule’ seems to have overwhelmed ‘the Rule of Law’.

The subjugation of the values that have been passed down the generations of our ancestors coupled with worshipping at the ‘temples of commission agents and corruption-merchants’ should not be tolerated as the norm. The more apathetic a populace looks and behaves, the more hardships and anguish they will suffer.

Such stark truths may not appeal to the already-subjugated, but ignorance of ‘the Rule of Law’ which is the most dynamic, fundamental and dispassionate principle that separates the human being from other animals, is no excuse for any politician to subject his voters to these abject levels of deceit and treachery.

As to exactly when this phenomenon of replacing ‘the Rule of Law by ‘the Law of Rule’ did begin to occur is as faint as the mist that is evaporating with each passing minute on a bright sunny morning.

The opening up of the economy and its attendant excesses surely have caused many alien concepts to be born and the real goods and services that reached our shores have expanded not only the scope of development they promised, they created in our collective mindset a nagging desire for more and more at the least possible cost. Colour television, three-wheelers, and high-rise buildings were among all these direct effects of the opening of the economy.

Yet, when we were slaves to a closed economy, the revolting hardships and sufferings that generation of Sri Lankans had to endure are no figments of imagination.

Those hardships were real and excruciating, even to describe, leave alone suffer. At the time, from 1970 to 1980, what reigned was not only excessive dearth of goods and services, ‘the Law of Rule’, manned and exorcised by Felix Dias Bandaranaike, with the full blessings of the then Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, also played more than a significant role in subjugating a people to exorbitant lengths and bredths in order for one single family to rule.

The concentration of political power in one person or one family is not only dangerous in the long run, it is even more so in the corruption of the systems and processes of social and economic movement of the country. We witnessed the immensely injurious effects of that ‘Law of Rule’ in the ’70 to ’77 period and it was even more evident in the 2005 to 2014 period. Ironically in both these phases political development of Sri Lanka, she was ruled, although democratically elected, by one single family- Bandaranaikes and Rajapaksas respectively. Accumulation of wealth during these epochs was totally centred on the ‘Family’ and its closest henchmen and women. During the Bandaranaike period, ’70 to ’77, it was a closed economy and those who were close to the Family only gained any access to wealth-making projects and programmes. The machinations of state-capitalism helped those who were close to the ‘Family’.

A comical display of a pathetic bunch of populace, one climbing over the other while others are too preoccupied with our national pastime, pulling the ones who appear to be gaining ground to real ground

However, during the ‘2005 to 2015 period, what was in the process was ‘crony capitalism’ during the operation of which, once again who was close to the ‘Family’ only gained access and ultimate ‘goodies’ from Family-sponsored projects and programs. Nevertheless, this state or ‘Family-sponsored capitalism’ generated sufficient wealth for the Family as well as its henchmen to boast of a growing economy. Those who were not academically or professionally qualified, yet being siblings of ‘King Rajapaksa’, overnight turned into deliverers of results thanks mainly to the fact that more than 65% of the annual budgetary appropriations were assigned to these two siblings. 

They are nothing but political scavengers of the Twenty-First Century. For them ‘the Rule of Law’ was of no material value. Assigned the Ministry of Defence to one and the Ministry of Economic Development to the other, they literally ran riot. White van syndrome, murder and insufferable harassment to members of the Fourth Estate, suppression of legitimate protesters, and murder of friends of their lovers were all among the alleged crimes committed during this ‘Family Rule’.

On the other hand, 10% to 30% commission accumulations even before a contract was awarded to their friends in the commercial field, First Lady’s brother running berserk in SriLankan Airline, sons making a mockery of democratic government and allegedly running wild in nightclubs and other places where erotic desires are fulfilled, conducted their own ‘Law of Rule’.

It remains one of the most inspiring quotations of all time. We may all find our own struggles excruciatingly painful and depressing, yet if we focus our energies towards one single goal- the Rule of Law- we might achieve it someday

What has followed their dramatic fall from power is a climate in which these political scavengers try to reap the harvest of a vicious and malignant campaign against the current Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremasinghe who is as guilty of providing his opponents with the fodder by way of the now infamous Bond-Scam scandal. Yet there is no evidence of ‘the Law of Rule’ being present within the confines of the current regime. Of course, there are a sufficient number of rumours and unproven allegations against some Ministers, including the Prime Minister, and other members of the coalition government.

But such allegations and the comparable amounts of corruption evaporate when taken into comparison with those committed by the Rajapaksa regime. If such allegations reach the levels of the past regime, rest assured, this columnist would be among the first to criticize and castigate the wrong-doers. The quotation by Oscar Wilde with which I commenced this column runs thus: “We are all in the Gutter but some of us are looking at the Stars”.

It remains one of the most inspiring quotations of all time. We may all find our own struggles excruciatingly painful and depressing, yet if we focus our energies towards one single goal- the Rule of Law- we might achieve it someday.

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com

President vows again he will lead ‘Maithri era’ into ‘era of murder’ ! But legal experts have other ideas

- Maithri setting everything on fire on his way out ?

(Lanka e News -23.July.2018, 11.00PM) President Sirisena while  giving way to ‘era of murder ’ replacing the ‘Maithri era’, drew    attention to capital punishment  again last 21st to announce , no matter who says what , death penalty will be implemented in respect of  those found guilty of heroin charges.

The president made this announcement at a function when inaugurating the hospital for renal care built with Chinese aid in Polonnaruwa , his village .  President spoke thus …

 ‘When building a virtuous society if people cannot be corrected by telling kindly, like in most other countries of the world , that goal has to be accomplished through unkindly actions  ,since  the aim is to achieve what is good . 1.4 % of the population of this country is  addicted to drugs.

I have got  the cabinet approval to implement capital punishment  against  drug dealers. Hence , I am vested with that   power now. I shall therefore see to it that  death sentence is implemented  against the drug dealers irrespective of whatever opposition mounted.

I have summoned the chiefs of the prisons, judicial and other relevant spheres on Tuesday next . I shall be appointing a committee represented by them. That committee only will  decide who are the individuals  to be subjected to   capital punishment as well as   the time frame.  

Those who are mounting opposition  have not even lent a hand to avert this national disaster in this country. Hence , I wish to state clearly I shall not endorse the  views of those opposing under any circumstances. I shall not yield to that. The decision we have taken  in this regard shall not be  changed’ the president emphasized.

It is well to recall on 2006-04-23 , an assassination bid was made on Maithripala Sirisena in Polonnaruwa when he was the minister of health . The accused Sivarasa Jeneevan was found guilty and was sentenced to 10 years in jail by the Polonnaruwa high court on 2015-07-03. However Sirisena after he became the president , during the early period of his term gave a presidential pardon to that youth demonstrating  that he stands by his ‘Maithri era’. But now , shockingly when he is on the verge of moving out from  his post , he has commenced the ‘era of murder ’

Are there provisions in the constitution to implement what president is saying ?

No sooner the president and the cabinet decided  to implement the capital punishment  than they have found themselves  in a thicket of difficulties with new issues springing up. The SL courts deliver death sentence only against those who committed murder , and large scale drug dealers.

It is worthy of note ,to implement the  capital punishment in SL there is are no  legal provisions to say there must be somebody’s   committee .Following the court verdict , simply with the president placing his signature , the decision can be implemented.  During the last 40 years such  presidential  signatures had not been  placed .

Therefore , if it is the   committee which is going to decide that the president shall sign the capital punishment against the drug dealers , then surely that committee  ought to be one vested with greater powers than the executive  and the  judiciary . In that case , who is appointing such a committee ? Is it the executive who is making that appointment?  Or the  Constitutional council ?  Is there room for such appointment under the laws?

Article 34 of the constitution stipulates clearly in regard to  how  the presidential pardon  ought to be  granted when the accused is confirmed guilty by court  though the  president has not indicated  what other way the capital punishment can be implemented by him. Therefore if the president is to appoint a committee to again decide on the death sentence which is to be implemented by him  , the latter has clearly laid himself bare  to the liability of  violating the constitution under article 35 (2)  (i) .

According to legal experts , as there is no provision in the present constitution to implement what  the president  said in Polonnaruwa, a prior constitutional amendment has to be made if the president wishes to stand  by his Polonnaruwa enunciation.

The second issue ..

If the capital punishment is to be implemented against the  drug dealers found  guilty   , that must also  apply to the prisoners who are found guilty  of committing murder  too. Otherwise the crime of dealing in drugs will become a graver crime than the crime of murdering another.

The laws however have to be implemented  fairly and justly in respect of everyone without discrimination . That is  capital punishment must be implemented indiscriminately against all those whom court decides  should be sentenced to death . Or else it will create a situation where the president or the committee can hang whomever they want , and refrain from hanging whom they do not want to.

Is this a perilous  journey towards  a volcanic eruption?

Meanwhile 9 powerful western countries including the Western Union had made a joint announcement requesting the president to change his decision . The media reported that if the decision is implemented , the GSP plus concessions will be withdrawn again.

It is well to recall the GSP plus concession  was withdrawn owing to the  lopsided policies  and untoward conduct of the Rajapakses then. This government however immediately after coming to power considered getting back the valuable GSP plus concession as its  most primary and paramount task for the  benefit of the country . Hence it  took steps within the first week itself  to put right what Rajapakses muddled up. Despite its prompt action , it took over a year to get back the GSP plus. It is thereafter the country earned a record revenue from exports last year.

President Sirisena who is going to last another several  months in power is apparently trying to overturn all these benefits , taking this  retrograde step.  President once said , ‘ if I am leaving  I shall do that only after setting fire to everything.’

In the circumstances it will be a matter for surprise , if the pro good governance masses do not  turn around to  ask from him, is that the destruction you threatened then you are trying to wreak now on the country ?

In the past , when the  politicians loudly bragged ‘ I shall do it no matter who opposes,’  it was proved  that those politicians  could not sell even a lottery Board ticket when the people turned against  them .

By a special correspondent

---------------------------
by     (2018-07-23 17:44:34)

Re-Enforcement Of The Death Penalty – A Point Of View

By P. Soma Palan –JULY 23, 2018

P. Soma Palan

Presidential action to re-enforce the Death Penalty for those convicted of Drug Trafficking, which is the decision of the ruling Government, has engendered much debate and controversy in the Media. It has also raised International concerns, as expressed by the European Union and the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Crime of Murder and Narcotic Drug Trafficking

It is not categorically stated that the Sentence of Death will be enforced for both crimes of Murder and Drug Trafficking, as media reports is only focusing on Drug trafficking. Thus, there is lack of clarity. If it is in respect of Drug Trafficking only, and not murder, then it is grossly iniquitous, because crime of murder is the most heinous and gravest than Drug Trafficking. Murder is killing a human being. The right to life is sacred and inviolable. Those who kill another human being forfeit the right to live. To protect the principle of the right to life,deterrent  punishment of death is a necessity. Drug trafficking and peddling is not a direct threat to right to life. It is a remote cause shortening the life of the drug user. But use of drugs destabilize the society by consequential criminal violence, murder, rape etc. Equating drug trafficking with homicidal murder is a grave injustice. It is against the judicial principle that punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. A longer sentence of imprisonment or life imprisonment is reasonable. Therefore, imposing and executing the death sentence for Drug trafficking is not maintainable on legal principle.

Destroy Drug Trafficking at its Source

The remedy for the Drug menace lies not in punishing the offenders with the death sentence, but in applying stronger and stringent methods of Policing by the law enforcement Agencies. Drug trafficking is a super-lucrative business. The enormous street value of narcotic drugs means, it requires vast capital investment. This could only be generated by the most resourceful individuals, enjoying power and influence. Drug trafficking, therefore, cannot be engaged in by lower and middle tiers of society. The actual physical traffickers of narcotic drugs are mere instruments/ accessories in the crime. In Law, any crime has two components, that is, the Principal and the Accessory.  The Principal and the Accessory could be one and the same person or two different persons. The “ doer” and the Mind behind the doer. This corresponds to the legal concept of “ Actus Reus” and “ Mens Rea”. In Drug trafficking the”doer” are mere instruments in the command of the “minds” behind the crime, who are resourceful  and influential people. It is said that some Politicians and even Monks are behind the Drug trade. In this scenario, is it justifiable to punish the smaller fry with death, while the big sharks get away. My argument against the death sentence for drug traffickers is not on the grounds of misplaced religious grounds, but on principles of law and justice.

Remedy is not enforcement of the death sentence to Drug traffickers, but effective and stringent Policing to destroy it at its source. Effective and innovative methodology should be employed to link the traffickers to its source, the Drug Mafia. It is through the traffickers that the Drug Mafia could be traced. In Drug trafficking, possession of Narcotic Drugs is vital to the evidence. The traffickers have the possession but not the Mafia, the brains behind the trade. Ingenuous investigative methods should be applied to link and rope in the real Traffickers, the organized Mafia.

Activate the Death Sentence for those convicted for Murder

It is not for Drug Trafficking, but for the crime of murder that re-enforcement of the death sentence , a vital necessity. The rising wave of murders taking place in the country can be arrested, if not eliminated. A deterrent punishment with death will make a potential murder think twice, before committing this diabolical crime. To say the death sentence has no effect on the rate of fall of crime is not the issue. The principle of justice demands that those who intentionally kill another fellow-human being, has no right to live. The sanctity of the right to life must not only be protected but also vindicated, if violated. If the right to life has to have any meaning, its violation should be punished by denial of that right to the violator by the State, which is lawful killing. To say such lawful killing of a human being is inhuman and barbaric is not rationally defensible, on moral and religious grounds. It is in furtherance of the Law of Dharma.

Read More

Sri Lanka: Death penalty for hardened criminals

Having regard to Sri Lanka’s alleged majoritarian commitment to safeguarding the sanctity of life, one is reminded of the story that, centuries ago, the Maha Sangha had assured a Buddhist prince that it was no sin to kill Tamil enemies because Tamils were not “human”! Why not add murderers, rapists and drug-dealers to this classification and, perhaps, get the Tamils out of it?

by Dr A.C.Visvalingam-Jul 22, 2018

( July 22, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Those who argue that implementing the death penalty for serious crimes would act as a deterrent against others who might want to commit such crimes are almost certainly mistaken. The reality is that a person who wants to commit a premeditated crime does so after careful study and in the confident belief that he will be able to do things in such a meticulously planned manner that he will not get caught. Thus the question of being deterred by the possibility of being apprehended and executed does not arise.

When it comes to a consideration of the implementation of the death sentence, there are those whose religious beliefs about not taking another’s life compel them to oppose the ultimate penalty without any reference to its deterrent effect or otherwise. However, their position is more often than not self-contradictory regarding this question because most of them would not hesitate to cheer on their armed forces to shoot, bomb or otherwise destroy enemies in order to support the State. This being so, the cry that we have no right to take another’s life, even after the most stringent investigational and judicial processes have been employed, is just plain hypocricy. One cannot help speculating as to whether their solicitousness for the condemned is not motivated, in the final analysis, by their anxiety to make certain of their own paths to heaven, paradise, moksha, nirvana or whatever else might be their goal.

Religion is a personal matter and it must be kept well separated from politics. Decisions taken for the maintenance of law and order, the integrity of the country and other matters of State should be done on the basic of day to day practicalities keeping in mind the fundamental and human rights of individual citizens. If we are foolish enough to bring religion into it, what are the religious norms that would have to be followed? Surely, it would not be democratic to force the views of any one religion on the followers of other faiths? The simple answer is to have a strongly secular Constitution and let legislators practice their respective religions in their own time and at their own expense without trying to tie down the State unilaterally. If this neutrality is attained, the question of hanging vile criminals or not can be taken without allowing callous, opportunistic politicians to exploit the support of bigots and extremists of the varying types who seem to flourish particularly well at present.

Having regard to Sri Lanka’s alleged majoritarian commitment to safeguarding the sanctity of life, one is reminded of the story that, centuries ago, the Maha Sangha had assured a Buddhist prince that it was no sin to kill Tamil enemies because Tamils were not “human”! Why not add murderers, rapists and drug-dealers to this classification and, perhaps, get the Tamils out of it?

Right at the outset, it is necessary to accept that, quite apart from the pressure from our own liberal intellectuals, countries such as Canada, the EU, Norway, UK and several others would strongly oppose Sri Lanka carrying out judicial killings. They are already pressurizing us by their quite open “threat” of the withdrawal of the financial and other types of assistance that they extend to us from time to time. However, this does not mean that independent citizens of this country have to leave their considered opinions and rational thoughts on this subject unexpressed.

Over many years, the informal opinions that have been sought by CIMOGG on this subject have been overwhelmingly in favour of implementing the death penalty for rape, murder or being a member of an organization that smuggles in hard drugs and gets the young and impressionable part of the population addicted. In getting to their goals, criminals of these types do not hesitate to resort to personal violence, killings and the large-scale purchasing of protection from powerful politicians and the law-enforcement authorities to keep their vile businesses flourishing.

It is our firm conviction that, with the rarest of exceptions, those who deal intensively in the import, distribution and sale of drugs would not have the faintest wish to be reformed because what they do is so lucrative that they cannot see themselves doing anything else equally attractive. The possibility that there may have been one drug lord somewhere who has now been redeemed and has become a good citizen is so far from being real that it must be taken as an axiom that any leader who has been into a drug-running operation or who has been an integral part of such an operation for more than a few years is too far gone in the business of building up and protecting such operations as to be incapable of adjusting to a law-abiding life.

We are informed periodically by our rightfully apprehensive media that certain powerful gangsters not only run their operations from overseas but also from within prisons where a few of their senior “executive assistants” are now held after conviction. The real masters of those in prison not only ensure that the families of these “executive assistants” are handsomely looked after but also bribe and simultaneously threaten the prison authorities to provide forbidden facilities to these inmates such as communication equipment, special food, drinks and secretly arranged leave to go outside once in a while. From their cells, these “executive assistants” continue to control the lower levels of the drug lords’ organizations, which usually remain substantially intact and are invariably used to threaten the parents, siblings, spouses and children of prison officials to get whatever favourable treatment is sought by these privileged prisoners.

It is one thing to show some consideration for a man who has committed murder under severe provocation but to equate to this recklessness the activities of a ruthless gang-leader who routinely and cold-bloodedly kills his competitors’ personnel, informants, their family members and law-enforcement personnel is not even remotely acceptable. Why should the average citizen’s taxes be consumed for long years to house, feed, clothe and medically look after totally unscrupulous and incorrigible criminals during long periods of imprisonment? Why should society incur huge infrastructural and administrative expenditures to prevent their escape instead of saving these moneys and spending them on helping the victims of these criminals? It is, of course, essential that lawful procedures have been followed, with thorough oversight measures in place, before one decides that a particular criminal has been properly convicted of such grave, premeditated crimes as to deserve to be sentenced to death. To maintain a measure of balanced judgment, we should ask ourselves whether these criminals would have shown any mercy at all to anyone that opposed their felonious activities. Surely not.

We need to remember that the death penalty is being implemented even today in many countries such as China, India, Russia and the USA. They do not care a hoot for what Canada, the EU, Norway, UK and other “liberal” countries have to say. An interesting thing to remember in this connection is that these liberal countries took more or less one or two centuries to give up their reliance on the death penalty to keep criminals under control. It is only as they became steadily richer that their affluence enabled them to have more efficient crime detection and control. In this connection, we may mention that Holland has been closing down some of its prisons because the amount of crime has been reduced progressively by really efficient law enforcement. This is a luxury that Sri Lanka will not be able to afford for a few decades more so as to be able to do away with the death penalty altogether; but certainly not just yet. The government must argue that desperate situations require desperate remedies and ask for more time from our donor countries to improve our crime prevention and detection systems and allow us meanwhile to get rid of the really hardened criminals who are running their drug-dealing empires with the present intolerable degree of impunity.

Dark clouds over the (investment) horizon; do we care enough to blow them away?

 Wednesday, 25 July 2018 

It is perhaps the dark clouds that appear over the horizon in Sri Lanka that made Jayakala Mahesvaran speak nostalgically about the return of the LTTE. It is a reference to the dark mood that prevails in the north and the east after the electorate voted against the present Government at the last Local Government elections and made reconciliation among communities as well as settlement of grievances in such areas impossible.

Promises,promises!

Dark clouds over the (investment) horizon; do we care enough to blow them away.docx by Thavam on Scribd

 President temporarily halts appointments and promotions to politically victimized in Education sector

Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 08:46 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.


July 25, Colombo: Sri Lanka's President Maithripala Sirisena has decided to temporarily halt giving appointments and promotions to employees in education sector based on political victimization.

The President has made several decisions in regard to the decision taken by the Ministry of Education to give appointments and promotions given to officers in Sri Lanka Education Administration and teacher education, Principals and Teacher Services based on political victimization.

This decision was taken after the President had a discussion with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe over the telephone.

Following a special discussion held this morning at the Presidential Secretariat with a number of trade union leaders, who protest the Education Ministry's decision, the President has taken following decisions.

1. To temporarily suspend appointments and promotions with immediate effect

2. To appoint a committee comprising several senior officials of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service and Education Administrative Service to review the official and personal files of the persons selected for the appointments and promotions to ascertain whether there was political revenge taken place and to obtain the committee's impartial recommendations within a month

3. To refer the recommendations made by the committee appointed by the President to the Public Service Commission for further approval

4. To allow the opportunity for the trade unions to express their opinions on the recommendations made by the presidential committee

It has also been decided, following the commission's measures, to rectify if a person is subjected to any injustices when appointments and promotions were made based on political victimization.


After discussions with the President today, the education sector trade unions called off the planned trade union action to protest the appointments and promotions given to politically victimized principals and teachers.

Palestinian child killings spike in 2018

Relatives of Arkan Mizher, killed by Israeli soldiers during a raid, mourn over his body during his funeral in Dheisheh refugee camp, near the West Bank city of Bethlehem, 23 July.

 Wisam HashlamounAPA images

Maureen Clare Murphy- 24 July 2018

Israeli occupation forces raiding a refugee camp in the West Bank shot a 14-year-old boy in the chest, killing him, on Monday.

Arkan Thaer Halami Mizher was wounded as residents of Dheisheh camp near the city of Bethlehem confronted raiding soldiers.

“Israeli forces closed the main road, preventing ambulances from reaching the area,” Defense for Children International Palestine stated. The boy was taken in a private car to a nearby hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Such raids are commonplace throughout the West Bank.

Israeli occupation forces conducted around 7,200 night raids on homes across the West Bank in the year 2010, according to Al-Haq, a human rights group based in the territory.

The pre-dawn raids, undertaken without a warrant or notice while residents are typically asleep, are used to ensure Israel’s “subjugation of the Palestinian population and as a method of social control,” Al-Haq states.

Palestinians living in Dheisheh refugee camp are constantly subjected to such raids.

Night raids

Arkan Mizher

Raed al-Salhi, a 22-year-old camp resident, died in September 2017, one month after being shot seven times at close range during a raid on his home.

“Night raids have become something usual for Dheisheh,” another camp resident told The Electronic Intifada last year. “We often wake up to the smell of tear gas and never sleep deeply – you must keep one eye open to protect your family as much as you can.”

The boy fatally wounded during Monday’s raid on Dheisheh was the sixth Palestinian child slain by Israeli forces in July.

“Israeli forces regularly fire live ammunition during night raids in the West Bank,” Ayed Abu Eqtaish of Defense for Children International Palestine stated.

“Live ammunition is a lethal amount of force and puts Palestinian children at grave risk.”

At least 31 Palestinian children have been killed by Israel so far this year, according to Defense for Children International Palestine. No children are among the nine Israelis killed by Palestinians in 2018.

Child fatalities spike

Defense for Children International Palestine has noted that the number of Palestinian child fatalities in the first half of 2018 was nearly three times that of the same period last year.

Eighteen of those killings took place in the context of the Great March of Return protests along Gaza’s eastern perimeter beginning in late March.

More than 150 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza since then, 115 of them during protests. Another 4,200 Palestinians in Gaza were wounded by live ammunition during that period.

The youngest among those killed was Yasir Abu al-Naja, 11, who died instantly after being shot in the head during protests east of Khan Younis on 29 June.

Five children in Gaza were killed with live fire and missiles in July.

Two 14-year-old boys sitting on the rooftop of a building were killed in an airstrike on 14 July.

Children’s bodies withheld

Israel is withholding the bodies of two Palestinian children killed by its forces.

Khaled Abd al-Al, 17, and three others were shot at after crossing the boundary fence with Israel and setting a military post on fire near Rafah, southernmost Gaza, on 2 July.

“An eyewitness told [Defense for Children International Palestine] that the group was running away toward the Palestinian side of the fence when they came under heavy fire and Khaled was struck by live ammunition,” the group reported.

“Israeli soldiers then dragged Khaled away by his hands, according to the eyewitness, and his family was later notified of his death,” Defense for Children International Palestine added.

Yusif Abu Jazar, 15, reportedly died in an Israeli hospital after he was shot while attempting to cross the boundary fence on 29 April. His body has not yet been returned to his family.

Senior Israeli officer Zvika Fogel explained that same month how army snipers take deliberate aim at children, only firing when given the order by a superior.

“To my great sorrow, sometimes when you shoot at a small body and you intended to hit his arm or shoulder, it goes even higher,” Fogel said in an attempt to justify the deaths of children.