Locals protest against Sri Lankan police officer attack on schoolchildren

Tamils in Kanakarayankulam gathered to protest on Tuesday after two Tamil schoolchildren and their father, a former cadre in the LTTE, were left hospitalised following an attack on them by a Sri Lankan police officer.

12Sep 2018

The protest, in front of Kanakarayankulam School, saw Tamil politicians, school children, civil society organisations and local residents gather to denounce the attack and call for the persons responsible to be apprehended.

The attack, which took place on Sunday evening, left 16-year-old Kirupakaran and 14-year-old Sharmil and their father P Vasanthakumar hospitalised, after the Officer-in-Charge of the Kanakarayankulam Police assaulted all three of them.

To date, no one has been charged over the attack.

Related Articles: 

12 September 2018 : Sri Lankan police officer assaults Tamil children and former cadre

The Right to Know

“I’m not worried about them. I want to know what happened to the one that has gone missing.”

SELVARAJA RAJASEGAR-09/12/2018

70 year old Yogaradhi says she cannot remember when her grandson, Alfred Thinu, went missing, or how. She remembers his birthday, August 6, 1992. She also recalls that he was with the family up until Mathalan.

“There were more than 200,000 people running for their lives. We don’t know where we lost him in that process. We were around eight to nine persons amidst thousands of people. We didn’t know what was happening. Our heads were heavy with the belongings that we were carrying.”

Yogaradhi and her family wrote to 40 Army camps from Chettikulam camp where they were stationed. At the time, the military said that her grandson was at Vavuniya Saivapragasam school.

She has not heard from him, to date.

The following Virtual Reality (VR) video was shot by Selvaraja Rajasegar, editor of Maatram, using the Gear 360, which records immersive photography and video. It is best watched with a VR headset.

This series was shot to mark the International Day of the Victims for Enforced Disappearances, held on August 30. It highlights the stories of two women, remembering their missing family members.

Yogaradhi believes her grandson was taken by the military – although the family had only referred to him as ‘Thinu’ when writing to the Army, they had referred to him by his full name in their response. They had even given them a file number – 303. Dharmarani on the other hand says she believes it was the LTTE who took two of her sons.

“Things would have been very different if both the boys were with us. They are smart boys. The people used to say that if they were here they would have got some machine or vehicle and earned for the family. They were very smart.”

Dharmarani still believes that the younger of her sons is alive. He’s street-smart, she says, and could have found a way to survive.

“I have walked from Mullaithivu to Vattuvaalpaarai to courts having taken part in various protests and demonstrations. In addition we went to the Kachcheri two or three times and staged hunger strikes.”

Apart from this, Dharmarani has even visited a soothsayer, who has given her some hope.

Both women are still waiting for answers.

Editor’s Note: Also read “Fragile Hope, Firm Resolve” and “In Their Absence: Families of the Disappeared Share Treasured Keepsakes“. 

Does SL really need new Hate Speech legislation?

What is hate in one country, may not be in the other. What was hate a few decades ago, may not be today

Speech is the means through which an individual finds his place in society 

We should ask ourselves whether it was Facebook that caused the riots in 1915, the 1970s, the 1980s

2018-09-14 

The question of hate speech legislation has been revived in Sri Lanka following recent communal tensions in the country. This represents an understandable reaction by the public to vitriolic rhetoric and violence from extremist segments of society. However, there is already an established range of speech laws in Sri Lanka. The incorporation of the ICCPR into domestic law, the speech provisions of the Constitution and the penal code actually provide quite extensive legislative provisions towards speech. The issue is therefore not one of new legislation, but enforcement of existing ones. Unfortunately, the targeting of hate speech often results in nothing but a pyrrhic victory, whilst ignoring the root causes of many problems. It is open to significant abuse and serves as a useful tool for governments wishing to stifle criticism and distract from the real issues.   

It is for this reason that at this juncture where Sri Lanka is contemplating the direction of its policy towards speech laws, it is worthwhile to consider the fundamentals of what hate speech is and why is the freedom of speech such an important concept.   

What is Hate Speech? 

In considering this question, we should first consider what ‘speech’ is. This is something that goes beyond mere verbal communication. It includes what you write, pictures, videos, music etc. According to US case law (Citizens United vs FEC (2010)), even the spending of money in the context of financing political campaign groups is viewed as a form of speech. Speech could therefore be described as the expression of ideas and viewpoints.   

What is ‘Hate’ in terms of Hate Speech? 

People often assume this is an obvious answer. They assume hate is just bad people saying bad things. But when you bring the weight of the law into the equation, definitions become incredibly important. Clear definitions are vital to ensure that the law can at least attempt to ensure consistency in its application.

It is arguably impossible to give the word hate a conclusive legal definition. The word is influenced by a wide spectrum of subjective, regional and societal factors. What is hate in one country, may not be in the other. What was hate a few decades ago, may not be today.   

If you refer to the dictionary, hate is described as an intense or extremely-strong dislike towards someone or something. It would be absurd to take this literally in a legal sense. It certainly should not be hate speech to say that you hate eating vegetables, or you hate our politicians.   

This is because true political and ideological discourse cannot exist without opposing parties attacking each others ideas, often laced with hyperbole and extreme dislike for the other person’s viewpoint.   

A quick look at the international treaties shows that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) targets speech that justify or promote racial hatred. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement. It is clear that the word hate is used as a tool to denote a certain threshold after which certain types of speech becomes unacceptable. 

The problem with this is that this threshold at which speech becomes hate, is determined by societal conventions. There are serious risks in relying on social norms of morality when restricting speech. Social norms are determined through social arguments which are contested through society. It is the interplay between contrasting ideologies that make up culture itself. They are therefore, constantly in a state of flux, where new social norms are born and old ones fade away through public discourse. It is something ever-evolving and is very difficult to officiate.   

Racist views used to be an official and accepted part of European cultural norms. In fact, one of the arguments against Jewish communities in Britain was that they could not assimilate into liberal Western culture due to their Old Testament values. In the past, and even today in certain parts of the world, blasphemous speech such as denying the existence of God would certainly be considered hateful -- and would get you imprisoned, or likely worse. Galileo, had to face the consequences of being convicted of heresy for his heliocentric views that it was actually the earth that revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around.   

Social norms are disproportionately shaped by the majority opinion. By deciding through legislation what is culturally acceptable based on popular opinion -- the intuitions of the hegemonic class will become entrenched in the societal system, at the expense of minority voices to the contrary. This ends up contradicting the original intention of protecting minority rights, and often could end up as a chimera for control over society.   

I will add here that there should at the very least be a distinction between racist and religious speech. The right to offend is something of great value to society, and the particular nature of religion is that it is entirely ideological in nature. It represents the deeply subjective ideas that people hold and any views to the contrary are inevitably offensive to them. The views of an atheist will inevitably be highly offensive to the majority of religious people, but it would be absurd to deem that hate speech.   

Hate Speech legislation is something that should be approached with extreme caution. At the end of the day it is a decision to be taken by society as to what degree of control over speech it is willing to give up in the name of security. History and culture often play a role in attitudes towards this -- and Europe’s more restrictive laws on speech can be explained by its colonial and WW2 past as opposed to the US’ more free speech-centred, first amendment approach.   

Whilst there may be certain instances where restriction is necessary (such as direct incitement to violence) -- mere offensiveness is a dangerous thing to legislate against. The chilling effect on democratic discourse that Hate Speech laws can have in the wrong hands provide plenty reason to be careful.   

Why is Free Speech so important?   

‘I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it’ – Evelyn Beatrice Hall  

‘Think for yourselves, and allow others the privilege to do so, too’ 

- Voltaire

It’s very easy in modern times to take this fundamental right for granted. People might question why they should defend the free speech of people who express views that they find so odious.   

Speech is the means through which an individual finds his place in society. By expressing oneself and contributing to public discourse, one is able to clarify what they think and to construct their own understanding of the world and their relationship to it.   

The work of John Stuart Mill, written in the 1800s, still remains incredibly-pertinent today. Here are three key points summarised from his essay ‘On Liberty’;   

1) Restricting speech always runs the risk of suppressing ideas which have value to society. It only strengthens the established view.   

2) In an argument with opposing sides, usually each side will contain at least some degree of truth. And it is only when ideologies clash that the real truth is revealed.   
3) Even if the established view is correct, if people are not repeatedly challenged by opposing views, they will only be indoctrinated and will be unable to justify their

position when faced with the other side. Their ideas will be fragile and they will be unable to construct their own or effectively advocate their own viewpoints.   

What Mill’s ideas show is that the restriction of free expression from public discourse always runs the risk of the stultification of societal progress.   

The thing is, everyone loves free speech. Or at least, their own free speech. It’s the speech of other people that they become most concerned about. 

Hate speech laws have a history of being a rather ineffective way of countering a society’s problems. In the Weimar Republic of Germany, during the rise of the Nazis, there were established hate speech laws in place. Some of the most prominent Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher were prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. The effect of this was that they received the kind of public platform and attention that they would not have otherwise. It ended up reinvigorating their supporters. This isn’t to deny the terrible effect of Nazi propaganda in bolstering anti-Semitic views -- but to show that hate speech laws aren’t always the magical answer to combatting dangerous ideologies.   

Here in Sri Lanka, the response to recent communal riots was to temporarily ban social media. An extraordinary move indeed. We should ask ourselves whether it was Facebook that caused the riots in 1915, the 1970s, the 1980s. Or is it a convenient excuse to stifle criticism of the government’s handling of the crisis and to ignore the root causes of these issues. It is often difficult to distinguish between speech that directly causes harmful views, and speech that is symptomatic of certain views developing within society.   

Whenever faced with the question of restricting speech, consider who judges the judges of speech? If we can’t even trust the government with the Central Bank,  can we be confident in giving up our personal autonomy to allow the government to decide what you can think and say? Would we give them the power to criminalise ideas over actions?  

In the legal field, people call this the slippery slope argument -- that allowing one thing will risk opening the floodgates for all sorts of other bad things. But I would perhaps suggest, that giving up the power over speech to a government such as this, would not only be a slippery slope, but a steep and dangerous cliff indeed.   

Important of Establishing a Constitutional Court

I suggest that the drafters of the proposed new constitution will pay their attention to this piece of legislation and allow the citizens of this country to challenge any bill or act which undermine people’s power, before a constitutional court.

by U. E. Perera-Sep 13, 2018

( September 13, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In most developed countries in the world, Constitutional Courts or Constitutions Councils have been set up with the prime motive of dispensing crucial constitutional matters by going though judicial reviews. In the words of political scientists, a constitutional court is a high court, that deals exclusively with constitutional law. It’s main function is to determine independently with sound caution whether the laws and enactments brought before the parliaments or legislatures are constitutionally valid. When they are challenged by various quarters, social groups and citizens the constitutional courts should decide whether those laws or resolutions are in conflict with constitutionally established rules, rights and freedoms, among other things.

In short, a constitutional court is an independent and autonomous state authority which carries-out constitutional review. It is well defined by constitutional expert, ALEC STONE SWEET as a “constitutionally established, independent organ of the state whose central purpose is to defend the normative superiority of constitutional law within the juridical order”.

History of constitutional courts

The recorded history of constitutional courts reveals that the first constitutional court was established by the First Austrian Republic in 1919. The Czechoslovakian Constitution of 1920, which came into effect on February 2, 1920, also established a dedicated constitutional court for judicial review of parliamentary affairs.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America is also equally regarded as a pioneer supreme court because it is regarded and honoured as a pioneer court in the world to invalidate a law as unconstitutional (MARLBURY VS MADISON). It is still maintaining the same status as a constitutional authority.

The concept or a proposal for the setting up of a constitutional court for Sri Lanka is NOT a new thing.

The 1972 first republication constitution, a brain child of Dr. Colvin R De Silva established a constitutional court under clause (54) of the new constitution. This constitution is firmly regarded as a home grown constitution, as it emerged through a constitutional assembly especially carved out for this purpose.

Clause 54(01) reads as thus:

“There shall be a Constitutional Court for the performance of functions assigned to it by the constitution. The President shall appoint, for a term of four years, five persons to be members of the Constitutional Court. Whatever occasion arises for the determination of any matter arising under section subsection (2) of this section or of section (55) three members of the Constitutional Court chosen in accordance with the rules of the Constitutional Court for decision if-

(a) The Attorney General communicates his opinion to the Speaker under section 53; or

(b) The Speaker receives within a week of the Bill being placed on the Agenda of the National State Assembly a written notice raising such a question signed by the leader in the National State Assembly of a recognized political party; or

(c) The question is raised within a week of the Bill being placed on the Agenda of the National State Assembly by written notice addressed to the Speaker and signed by at least such number of members of the National State Assembly as would constitute a quorum of the National State Assembly ; or

(d) The Speaker or, when he is unable perform the functions of his office, the Deputy Speaker takes the view that there is such a question; or

(e) The Constitutional Court on being moved by any citizen within a week of the Bill being placed on the Agenda of the National State Assembly, advises the Speaker that there is such a question.

(3) No proceedings shall be had in the National State Assembly in relation to a Bill referred to the Constitutional Court under sub-section (2) of this section or of section(55) until the decision of the Constitutional Court under sub-section (4) of this section or its opinion under section 55has been given.

(4) The decision of the Constitutional Court upon a reference under section (2) of this section shall bind the Speaker and shall be conclusive for all purposes. No institution administering justice and likewise no other institution, person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction to inquire into, pronounce upon or in any manner call in question a decision of the Constitutional Court.

55(4) If the Constitutional Court advises the Speaker that this Bill or any provision therein is inconsistent with the Constitution or that the Constitutional Court entertains a doubt whether the Bill or any provision therein is inconsistent with the Constitution such Bill shall not pass into law except with the special majority required for the amendment of the Constitution.

The following bills were referred to the first constitutional court thus established under the 1972 first republican constitution. (a) SRI LANKA PRESS COUNCIL BILL (b) BRIBERY (SPECIAL JURISDICTION) BILL (c) PLACES AND OBJECTS OF WORSHIP BILL (d) ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS OF CEYLON, LTD(SPECIAL PROVISION) BILL & (e) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL .

J.R. Jayewardene assumed political power in 1977 and in 1978 a new constitution was drafted and came into being, without going through a constituent assembly. The rationale behind the making of this constitution was to create a weak parliament and a strong Executive President.

However, even the United National Party which backed the 1978 constitution totally without questioning a single clause in the 02nd Republican Constitution now takes the leadership with other co-partners in the parliament to move for a new constitution. It insists that the executive presidential system of government with wide powers inherent in a single person is not suitable for a parliamentary system of government. It should be noted here, with appreciation that some of the powers exercised by the President were removed when the new government came in to power in 2015. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna very rightly had moved a private members motion in the parliament to do away with the executive presidential system of government and also to move all parties to establish an entirely a new constitution in accordance with enshrined principles of democracy, human and fundamental values.

One of the first critics of the executive system of presidential government was Dr. N. M. Perera, who is widely regarded as an constitutional authority. In this connection, the scientific analysis he is making in the ‘CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 1978 CONSTITUTION IN SRI LANKA’, is significant and the failure of the present constitution was analytically predicted long ago, actually speaking in the drafting stage of the present constitution.

The Jayewardene constitution

Dr. Colvin R De Silva, who has written a splendid forward to this valuable thesis says “In 1931 both males and females above the age of 21 in Sri Lanka were enfranchised. Thereafter, the 1948 constitution which granted Dominion status to Sri Lanka established a comprehensive parliamentary system of the British model. The status of the Governor approximated to that of the British constitutional monarch. The real centre of governmental power was the Cabinet of ministers, headed by the prime minister who functioned with responsibility to, and in accord with, the parliament. …….The Jayewardene constitution abolished the concentration of state power in the National State Assembly, now renamed Parliament, and reposed such power in an executive president elected directly by the people. With state power decisively in the President’s hand and with Parliament relegated to second place, there arises a dualism of power between the President and Parliament. ……..As indicated by Dr. N.M. Perera, such a conflicting situation that could arise out of the constitutional relationship between an elected president and an elected Parliament is a clear possibility”.

As predicted by Dr. N.M. Perera very correctly we have seen these conflicts happening throughout with the present system of government. This trend has hampered smooth functioning of democratic governance. Although the 1978 constitution consists only 117 pages, amendments of it goes up to more than 100 pages. This a classic example of the distorted legal character of this constitution. 17, 18 and 19 Amendments also can be classified as evidence of the unworthiness of this constitution. It is full of loopholes of the highest magnitude. Constitutional analysts are also of the opinion, that even the Supreme Court was perplexed, whether the 13th Amendment was consistent or not with the parameters of the 1978 constitution.

Therefore, it is clear that inherent weaknesses, legal impediments and excessive authority and concentration of power in the hands of a single person of the above pattern could have been avoided with the presence of a legally instituted constitutional court. I suggest that the drafters of the proposed new constitution will pay their attention to this piece of legislation and allow the citizens of this country to challenge any bill or act which undermine people’s power, before a constitutional court.

In this connection I would like to invite the attention of the interested groups and scholars to a considered view of eminent legal eagle, Dr Nihal Jayawickrema one time the Secretary of the Ministry of Justice- “The proposal to set up a Constitutional Court, at the apex of our judicial system, may well serve as a catalyst for change, but only if it is realistically constituted and its establishment is accompanied by vitally necessary reforms in respect of the language of the law and in establishing judicial accountability. One immediate consequence of the establishment of a constitutional court will also be to enable the other superior and first instance courts to focus entirely on civil, commercial and criminal litigation. That task, of course, need to be facilitated by long overdue structural and systematic reforms, responsibilities which neither the Ministry of Justice, nor the judiciary, has so far demonstrated any indication to undertake’.

Forgiveness is nothing but reconciliation

By Harsha Gunasena-Wednesday, 12 September 2018

Rahul Gandhi, President of the Congress Party, India said at the Bucerius Summer School in Hamburg, Germany on 22 August 2018 that he and his sister Priyanka Gandhi Vadra were not happy after the terror group LTTE’s chief Prabhakaran, who ordered the assassination of his father Rajiv Gandhi, was killed, as they felt “the violence inflicted upon him had impacted others, including his children”. (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/priyanka-and-i-werent-happy-about-ltte-chief-prabhakaran-death-rahul-gandhi-1904767)

“I am talking actually from experience. The only way you can move forward after violence is forgiveness. There is no other way. And to forgive you have to understand what exactly happened and why it happened,”

“To deal with it is to actually listen and act non-violently. People think this is weakness. But in fact this is strength. My father was killed by a terrorist in 1991. In 2009, I saw the person who killed my father lying in a field in Sri Lanka.”

Rahul Gandhi also said that the only way one can fight violence is by non-violence. “There is no other way. You might be under the illusion that you can fight violence with violence, but it will come back. You might think that you are very powerful and that you can subdue somebody else, but they will find a way of coming back.”

“I called up my sister Priyanka and said that this is very strange, but I am not happy. I should be celebrating that the person who is dead is the person who killed my father. But somehow I am not happy. She said ‘you are right, I am not happy either’,” the Congress chief said. “The reason I wasn’t happy was because I saw myself in his children. So, I realised, him lying there actually means that there are kids like me who are crying,” Gandhi added.

Gandhi is not a Buddhist but he was saying exactly what Buddha said. In verse 5 of Dhammapada it was stated: “Na hi verena verani sammantidha kudacanam averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano”. English translation is as follows: “Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.”

The same sentiments were expressed by J.R. Jayewardene at the San Francisco conference on 1 September 1951 where the Japanese peace treaty was signed after World War II.

Arguing in favour of the treaty which grated freedom to Japan Jayewardene said, “We in Ceylon were fortunate that we were not invaded, but the damage caused by air raids, by the stationing of enormous armies under the South-East Asian Command, and by the slaughter – tapping of one of our main commodities, rubber, when we were the only producers of natural rubber for the Allies, entitle us to ask that the damage so caused should be repaired. We do not intend to do so, for we believe in the words of the Great Teacher whose message has ennobled the lives of countless millions in Asia, that ‘hatred ceases not by hatred, but by love’. It is the message of the Buddha, the Great Teacher, the Founder of Buddhism, which spread a wave of humanism through South Asia, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Siam, Indonesia and Ceylon, and also northwards through the Himalayas into Tibet, China, and finally, Japan, which bound us together for hundreds of years with a common culture and heritage.” (https://talkaboutjapan.wordpress.com/truth/j-r-jayewardene/)

He concluded the speech with these words: “This treaty is as magnanimous as it is just to a defeated foe. We extend to Japan a hand of friendship, and trust that with the closing of this chapter in the history of man, the last page of which, we write today, and with the beginning of the new one, the first page together to enjoy the full dignity of human life in peace and prosperity.”

Jayewardene was not a born Buddhist. He was a Christian and converted to Buddhism later. The guardians of Buddhism of this country are nowhere as far as the sentiments expressed by Rahul Gandhi and J.R. Jayewardene.

We should ask ourselves the question, can we see issue of killing of Prabhakaran and the defeat of the LTTE in the same line of thinking of Rahul Gandhi, J.R. Jayewardene and finally the Buddha. After the defeat of the LTTE the Tamils of Sri Lanka lost all the bargaining strength to negotiate with the Centre to share the power within a unitary state. Japan was a defeated foe to the allied nations and to the world at large after the World War II. The world treated Japan well ignoring the opposition expressed by USSR but supported by Ceylon. As Rahul Gandhi said, to forgive you have to understand what exactly happened and why it happened. Did we treat Tamils after the defeat of the LTTE, the same way the world treated Japan after World War II?

Forgiveness is the beginning of reconciliation and the end of the reconciliation as well. Forgiveness is nothing but reconciliation. Reconciliation is a political decision and not a military decision. Military is there to fight a war and political leadership is there to bring peace. In Sri Lanka military has won and the political leadership up to now got defeated.

At this late stage there is still hope to change the course before Sampanthan et al got weakened politically. History should not repeat as Amirthalingam et al got weakened at the rise of militants. The country can select which way to go; the way of prosperity or the way of disparity. 

Two Sri Lankan soldiers caught breaking in to Kilinochchi home

13Sep 2018

Two Sri Lankan soldiers were caught breaking into a home in Kilinochchi in the early hours of Thursday morning.

The soldiers were caught trying to break into a home in Poonakary, Kilinochchi by residents at around 3am on Thursday.

The residents shouted for help causing neighbours to gather.

The soldiers were caught and handed over to Mulankavil police.

Locals of the area (Kariyalainagapaduvan - Ganesh Kudiyiruppu) said that they have been facing harassment and intimidation for a long time from the military camps in their midst and that this was the first time they had caught the culprits red-handed.

Related Articles: 

23 July 2018 : Sri Lankan army officer arrested in Vavuniya

02 June 2018 : Three soldiers arrested for possession of cannabis in Poonakary

03 April 2018 : Former soldier arrested over anti-Muslim attacks

Shame ! President again to the fore to rescue criminals scolds police and tells not to interrogate criminals!!

(Lanka e News -12.Sep.2018, 7.00PM) The president had once again berated the senior police officers who are duly enforcing the law ,and furiously ordered them not to interrogate RavindraWijegunaratne the former Navy Commander and present chief of staff who fled the country on the 10 th early morning when he was summoned to the CID on the same day to record his statement in connection with the murder of 11 individuals including students, based on reports reaching Lanka e News.

Ravindra was summoned by the CID to record a statement based on charges against him of aiding and abetting the brutal murderer Navy Sampath involved in the multiple murder of 11 individuals , after committing extortion . Ravindra is facing charges of harboring and hiding the prime suspect navy Sampath as well as smuggling him out of the country after paying him Rs.500,000.00.

The president had acted this unlawfully shielding and safeguarding the criminals involved in the most heinous crimes during a discussion held at his Paget road residence on 11 th night. The chiefs of the CID ,FCID, the Police and the defense secretary were present at this discussion . In addition , the minister of higher education and culture Wijedasa Rajapakse and minister of foreign affairs Thilak Marapone who had nothing to do officially with the subject were also present . Minister of justice Thalatha Atukorale arrived after the conclusion of the discussion .

He is totally averse to Ravindra being interrogated without any reasons, and because of this the Rajapakses are being strengthened ,Gamarala asserted while conveniently forgetting that it was he who hitherto blocked the investigations pertaining to the Rajapakse crooks and criminals.

The police officers conducting investigations said in response , it is not without grounds Ravindra is being interrogated , and is because there is clear and cogent evidence against him that he gave protection to Navy Sampath the criminal and aided him to flee the country. Despite this clear explanation , president Gamarala was insistent on his anti national lawless stance that he is strongly opposed to the interrogation of Ravindra.

Wijedasa Rajapakse and Thilak Marapone fuelling the fire in support of the president said , by questioning the members of the forces , Rajapakses are being strengthened. .

The senior police officers then cleared the fog of prejudice of president by saying it is not the duty of the police to concern themselves with who they are strengthening , and all what they do is conducting the investigations impartially . Yet owing to the stubborn stance of Sirisena alias Sillysena , the police chiefs had no choice but to put up with his obstinacy of a mule attitude and obnoxious nature until the discussion was over.

Even in the past Wijedasa has acted rascally and undermined the legal processes by saying he would not allow Gotabaya to be arrested when he was the minister of justice. He had to lose his justice ministry portfolio because the UNP MPs (except Daya Gamage) opposed his reprehensible attitude .He is such an anti national scoundrel that even after becoming the minister of cultural affairs he is a thorn in the side of those who perform their duties duly.

Thilak is also another villain of the same ilk of Wijedasa . Because he was appearing for cases on behalf of Rajapakses while being a minister he had to sacrifice his portfolio. But when he managed to secure another portfolio – minister of foreign affairs , he provided the necessary fuel to ASP Liyanage the notorious SL ambassador to Qatar to wreak havoc while engaging in official duties thereby tarnishing the entire image of the country.

Following the advent of good governance government the police department was brought under the Independent Police Commission . That is, it was taken out from the defense ministry and as a civil ministry it was brought under the purview of the ministry of law and order in order to rescue the police from the pressures brought to bear on it by the executive . Sadly now, worse pressures are being exerted by the shameless president after inviting the senior police chiefs to his residence . All Law abiding citizens should put their foot down and oppose such actions which are most portentous signs .

Lest President Gamarala is ignorant of the gravity of his despicable actions , let him be warned, his coming forward to rescue the criminals is itself giving authority to commit crimes.

---------------------------
by     (2018-09-12 13:32:53)

CDS could not have gone abroad without President's knowledge: Sumanthiran

2018-09-14 06:

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) yesterday struck a note of criticism at President Maithripala Sirisena over the incident in which Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Ravindra Wijegunaratne left the country for Mexico last Monday despite him being called by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to give a statement.

The CDS is accused of aiding Navy officer Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi who is a suspect in a case involving the abduction of 11 persons during the wartime. He had been summoned by the CID to record a statement last Monday.

Commenting on the incident, TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran told the Daily Mirror that Wijegunaratne could not have gone abroad without informing the President.

“There have been news reports in the Sinhala media that the President had instructed military high officials not to divulge information to the CID. The CID has been asking for details with regard to the abduction of 11 students and murder in Colombo. The CDS is suspected of having aided Hettiarachchi to escape the country. We are concerned about this,” he said.

“The President knows his involvement. These developments concern us. In these matters, the government assured the international community that the rule of law will prevail,” he said.

He said that this kind of interference confirmed that international involvement was necessary for judicial processes here. Mr. Sumanthiran said he enacted to send a strong message before the President reached the UN to address the annual general assembly. (Kelum Bandara)

Sri Lanka cabinet snubs President over arrest of military chief

By Our Political Correspondent-Sep 13, 2018

ECONOMYNEXT - President Maithripala Sirisena summoned an emergency cabinet meeting to defend the country’s senior-most military officer who is facing imminent arrest for allegedly shielding a mass murder suspect, but failed to secure agreement.

The noon meeting of the cabinet ended after heated exchanges, sources close to the administration said adding that the President failed in get support and the issue was put off until the return to the island of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Cabinet ministers had been told to maintain silence over the issue until the return of Wickremesinghe who is visiting Vietnam.

There had been no denial of recent media reports that Sirisena had advised military commanders not to cooperate with ongoing police investigations involving abduction, extortion and murder during the former regime.

Sirisena was miffed that the police Criminal Investigations Department (CID) had collected evidence against Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne and also obtained a court order for his arrest before he left the island for Mexico on Monday.

The Admiral had left the country to attend the national day of Mexico which is on September 16. He slipped out of the country even as he was summoned to the CID to record a statement about his alleged involvement in obstructing the arrest of a mass murder suspect.

The CID has already told court that Admiral Wijegunaratne gave half a million rupees in cash to help navy intelligence officer Hettiarachchi Mudiyanselage Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi, the main suspect in the abduction and murder of 11 children escape arrest.

The CID has uncovered chilling details of how children and young men of wealthy families were abducted for ransom by a gang of navy officers, allegedly led by Hettiarachchi, and subsequently killed after holding them at naval facilities in Colombo and Trincomalee between 2008 and 2009.

The alarm was raised by the then navy commander, Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda who complained to the CID during the former regime of President Mahinda Rajapaksa.  However, the case has dragged with powerful political interests protecting the suspects, police said.

It was not immediately clear Wijegunaratne would return to the country although he had asked the CID for a fresh date to make a statement.

Several other navy intelligence officers, including former navy spokesman D. K. P. Dassanayake who were arrested in connection with the murders have now been released on bail.

Admiral Wijegunaratne was caught on camera in December 2016 assaulting a television journalist at the Hambantota harbour, but despite a huge public outcry, President Maithripala Sirisena granted him an extension of service and later promoted him CDS.

His successor Travis Sinniah took office in August last year pledging no forgiveness for his officers who may have committed crimes taking the cover of the island's drawn out separatist war. 

But Sinniah, regarded as one of the most honourable officers in service, was terminated in just two months after he was denied an extension of service.

President Sirisena declared his opposition to both the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) and the CID in October 2016 during a meeting at the Sri Lanka Foundation.

"I condemn the actions of FCID, the CID and the Bribery Commission,"  Sirisena said.

"They should not work according to a political agenda. If they do, I will have to take stern action against them. I deplore their recent actions and I want to express my disgust."
  
Sirisena aid military commanders who led a successful campaign to crush separatist Tamil Tiger rebels in May 2009 should not be humiliated by bringing them to courts. (COLOMBO, September 13, 2018)

Nuts to you, my dear sir

PEANUT PRESIDENCY: Perhaps it’s not the chief executive’s fault that our national carrier’s cashew procurement process leaves something to be desired. Maybe our head of state on the other hand would consider doing more to ground SriLankan Airlines – cash strapped, corrupt, and in debt to the tune of one billion dollars – than less to make it ‘pancake’ or crash land over a packet of crispy nuts…

Thursday, 13 September 2018

We all know airline food isn’t much to write home about. So when a sitting president makes international headlines over it, you know something’s up. Whatever it is, it’s not our national carrier’s image or reputation. If it was low before and struggling to land without leaving pancake all over the country’s one serviceable set of runways, it’s at ground zero now. All for the sake of a small packet of nuts, ostensibly – and an evident lack of presidential self-control.

So what’s going on? A chief executive in transit expresses displeasure over an airline snack in no uncertain terms. These nuts are not fit for human consumption, let alone the diet of dogs, he is reported – widely – to have said… and he didn’t mean his cabinet, but rather a packet of what passes for crisps aboard our national carrier. International media pick it up like humanity’s most pressing problem is a pistachio pouting president of a former banana republic going to the dogs again.

It’s worrying what this all really means. Because this is not the first time that our prez’s shenanigans have threatened – or promised – to draw media attention away from issues that really matter. What’s the topic or theme that could be bigger than a bra-throwing incident that bars the Fourth Estate from covering serious socio-political subjects bedevilling Sri Lanka at the time… or economic issue-related policies that need course correction, rather than whipping recalcitrant floggers of Sri Lanka’s precious culture that wants safeguarding at the hands of a cat-o-nine-tails flailing president?


Bold as brass – or bras…

And what’s really going on with our head of state these days? Is the pressure proving to be too much when there’s so much at stake for a common candidate turning over a very common presidential mandate indeed? Go the distance with your strategic elector and lose him at the eleventh hour? Say the word snap poll now and take the plunge to feast with panthers with your former president as your future prime minster?

Now don’t get me wrong, folks. I feel that any fare-paying passenger has a right to vent about the offal some airlines dish out and expect flyers to take it lying down like a man. And if an elected leader of a nation travelling in economy – like the premier of Pakistan, for one – pressed a point about how putrid his packet of crisps is, it’s no skin off the national economy’s back.

But I draw the line at presidential and ministerial privilege continuing to expect the country to foot their bills and grin and bear it while they jet-set from entitlement at home to international media imbroglios while a mile high. The joyride our politicos take at our expense money and media image-wise must end. The sooner the better – as the skipper said to the stewardess.


Brass tacks

More to the point, perhaps, is what’s really going on with the state of our presidency these days… that’s a far more interesting question, especially after the managed spectacle of the Jana Bala juggernaut in Colombo last week.

On the one hand, it is clear that political ‘crown princes’ don’t need smarter strategies than their savvy papa’s charisma to draw a crowd demonstrably expressing its displeasure at the way things are with national leadership.

On the other, it is by no means clear whether anyone is prepared to go back to the way things were in order to go back to the future of some political utopia than can only be seen – or not – by the likes of the jackanapes who raided the city and climbed up lampposts like circus monkeys to see who would be president tomorrow. The daring pair are an apt symbol for the drudges at the helm of national enlightenment these days: the higher they climb, the less dignified they look. Not.

In the limit, it is clear that there are three types of president.

nThose who lose their cool over a corrupted cashew nut packet, when it is the national carrier’s corrupt senior management that should be cashiered –among other bad eggs in cabinet and parliamentary select committee.

nThose from Madras, I mean Mattala, whose testicular fortitude is as bold as brass, who can make no mistake with the media – for him, no publicity is bad publicity today, out in the doldrums as he is.

nThere are also, last but by no means least, the Machiavellis of machinations sitting quietly on the sidelines of the sundry scams they’ve engendered, as it were, not getting their pistachios in a twist; but waiting for these local yokels to emplane on their junkets again – so that he can go it alone from 2020, 20A in hand like a first class ticket to the wide blue yonder. No need to worry about the skeletons in his closet stinking up the corridors of power when his political partner goes, well, nuts enough to draw fire.


Bars to best behaviour

I suspect it is futile to invite incumbent heads of state to conduct themselves with a little more decorum and not lose their beans when presented with a tasty morsel that’s a bit off when there’s a tad more pressing concern or two to engage their attention. But it might be worthwhile to ponder why international media disport themselves like Charley’s Aunt from Brazil – “where all the nuts come from” – when a stalwart of a former banana republic turned coconut estate for China to plant its Martial Silk Road submarines underground goes nuclear.

Since Mahinda can do no wrong in socialist Sri Lanka, and neither he nor Maithripala can do no right elsewhere overseas in democratic-republicana, it behoves us to see that the writing is on the wall. Media make moghuls, mandarins and maharajahs. It also makes monkeys out of local yokels who can’t see that neoliberal neoconservative politics is king of the hill and as much a global empire as the near-anonymous ultra-rich big business club that runs the world’s military-industrial complex. We’re not talking peanuts here. We’d do well to remember that the next time we’re on the verge of making a nut case for national incontinence, I mean incompetence, look like something the baboons bring out at the zoo.


Brass tacks

SriLankan’s problems apart, Sri Lanka per se is in a pretty pickle. Perhaps the problem is not an international media conspiracy or global military-industrial movements to curb China’s burgeoning influence in the region by potting peanutty presidents likely to support them like goldfish in a barrel. Maybe the issue is – as ever – that we’ve got it entirely back to front (as the purser debriefed the cabin crew about the order of service).

The problem is this. When SriLankan began to struggle, the national carrier employed Sanga and Mahela, former star cricketers and each an erstwhile country skipper, to be the airline’s brand ambassadors. But given the fiascos that the national leadership is subjecting the state to, it would have been better to employ those brand ambassadors as Sri Lanka’s leaders and let incumbent skippers touchdown as salesmen for bras, bars or the bits that business class passengers throw up in the bulkhead bilge. Nuts to you, too, chum.

(Journalist | Editor-at-large of LMD | Writer #SpeakingTruthToPower)

Gota’s dream to become president goes up in smoke ! US Supreme Court delivers verdict …

(Lanka e News – 2018.Sep.13, 9.10PM) It was just yesterday (12) Mahinda Rajapakse announced while he was in India that if he cannot contest at the next presidential election , it will be one of his brothers who will be the presidential candidate. However based on a Supreme court decision delivered in 1999 in the U.S . neither Basil nor Gota , both of whom are dual citizens can be a presidential candidate in Sri Lanka(SL) .

Under the new laws in SL ,because a dual citizen cannot contest a parliamentary election , he/she cannot be a presidential candidate. Hence , if Basil or Gota is to contest the presidential election they must divest themselves of the dual citizenship . According to the 1999 US court verdict both of them definitely cannot surmount this disqualification attaching to them .

The case verdict …..

Alberto Lozada Colon was a lawyer born in Puerto Rico but obtained the American citizenship too subsequently like Basil and Gota. He wished to contest the Mayaguez mayoral elections in Puerto Rico in the bygone days . Alberto who was born in 1952 in Puerto Rico , a country belonging to the commonwealth (like SL) obtained his citizenship in 1996. Alberto planned to contest the mayoral post under the Puerto Rico freedom party in 1999.

As in SL (parliamentary elections) so in that country a dual citizen cannot contest the mayoral elections . Hence Alberto forwarded an affidavit to the American Consulate in Puerto Rico requesting to rescind his American citizenship.

As a rule , it is the US state secretariat which makes the final decision on such matters. Alberto’s application to cancel his US citizenship was declined by the secretariat.

Alberto being a lawyer filed an application in the US supreme court against that decision requesting a writ to be issued to the state secretariat to rescind his citizenship. The case number of ‘ US State department vs Lozada Colon ‘ was 99-259.

The US supreme court which heard Lozada’s case against the US state department dismissed Lozada’s petition confirming that the decision of the US state secretary is in order. The U.S. SC adducing reasons in support of its decision explained, the request made to withdraw US citizenship should be spontaneous and not based on any extraneous inducement. The request made citing the ground that Lozada wanted to contest elections is not a request which is spontaneous , the court highlighted .

Consequently Lozada ‘s dream to become mayor came a cropper. The relevant case proceeding can be read by clicking on the link below …

https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/lozada-colon-v-department-state-opposition.

In the circumstances neither Basil nor Gota can expect or get a verdict different from that of Alberto from the U.S. SC. As in SL so in the US laws are not flexed or twisted to suit individual needs.

Basil of course has said in no uncertain terms he will not withdraw his US citizenship. Whereas , Gota who is evasive and elusive always does not give a direct answer when questioned whether he will cancel his US citizenship. His answer is not in words but in hiccoughs because he knows deep within he has no way out – he cannot succeed in that direction. Since it is impossible to dupe the US courts , it is Gota ‘s hope that he will get an opportunity to tinker with the laws of his motherland , and he can somehow secure nominations as a presidential candidate.

We are revealing the stark facts with evidence pertaining to Gota’s vain attempts to be a presidential candidate in order to clear the clouds in the minds of the brutes and brats of brutal Gota who are still optimistic Gota can be president who crowed yankee doodle do for over a decade in the sleazy corners of the States without even thinking of his motherland until the war was over . It is best they look for another candidate from now on.

---------------------------
by     (2018-09-13 15:52:21)