‘Demons in Paradise’ Is Jaffna ready for full scope of freedom ?

2018-10-09 

Jaffna International Film Festival that began last week has removed Jude Ratnam’s internationally acclaimed ‘Demons in Paradise’ from screening. The decision to remove the film - that depicts the gradual but predictable degeneration of Tamil militancy into one of cannibalizing its own- was treated with a muted reaction in the South. In the North, save a few genuine, and time tested activists of the calibre of Rajan Hoole, the majority tended to justify the censorship of the movie.   
Silence of the civil society activists in the South may be due to the popular fallacy that some people and communities (and not others) ought to have safe spaces and trigger warnings. This notion has been cited by leftist student activists in American universities to justify the shutting off from universities, the opposing voices of populist and nationalist types. In Europe, same idea led the Islamic activists to demand safe space to discuss things ranging from martyrdom to Burkas away from the scrutiny of public security agencies.  

Jude Ratnam’s movie is uncomfortable for Jaffna’s LTTE rump and fringe Tamil nationalists for it challenges the received wisdom of the LTTE. The movie by the Tamil filmmaker first empathizes with the Tamil militancy, portraying it as a reaction to the suppression by the Sinhalese-led Colombo centric state. However, as the militancy unfolds, romance turns sour in an orgy of internecine violence, unleashed predominantly by the LTTE on the other groups.  

Jaffna’s Tamil nationalists cannot stomach this bitter reality. Organizers removed the movie from screening allegedly due to the pressure from a group only known as ‘ community.’  

Jaffna’s Tamil nationalists cannot stomach this bitter reality. Organizers removed the movie from screening allegedly due to the pressure from a group only known as ‘ community’

That is sad. However in many ways, that is quite understandable too. Jaffna was never a bastion of freedom expression, even before the emergence of the militancy it suppressed alternative views that promoted a less confrontational approach towards Colombo. Nor is it now- it is suppressed both by the state’s security apparatus and an exclusivist Tamil nationalist thought.   

Neither would it become free anytime in the immediate future. There are multiple mutually -reinforcing forces of political contrast that hamstrung Jaffna’s emergence as a free society.   

Jaffna’s opinion elites have gradually but unmistakably restored a culture that glorified Tamil militancy and nihilistic terrorism of the LTTE. Same folks who are disturbed by Jude Ratnam’s portrayal of the LTTE are commemorating the Black Tigers in July,Mahaveerar Week in November and another so-called genocide day in May. The LTTE nurtured and harnessed its culture of martyrdom through the same set of ritualistic commemorations.  

There is a second element which explains why this culture of fringe nationalism is likely to prevail: because, it suppresses all other rival, saner ideologies. After all that is how Jaffna succumbed to its current plight. A contemporary example would be students’ politics at our public universities. Even after being ruthlessly suppressed by two counter insurgency operations, this psudo-leftist tinted insular ideology of the JVP and its breakaway group has reestablished itself as the dominant force in the university politics. It has achieved that feat by exploiting the permissive atmosphere in the universities and passive university administrators who turned a blind eye to its violent maximizing approach.  

Its success in our universities is not because university students are a uniformed lot who have special grievances which others don’t. Instead, student activists of this myopic ideology have recreated a parallel universe where all these feigned grievances are floated, and trap the naïve and hapless majority within it.  

LTTE-loving Eelam apologists are also doing the same in Jaffna. They suppress other opinions and fill the vacuum with their bitterness.   

Third, politicians in both the South and the North have always found it easier to appease the hardline than to confront it. Vijayakala Maheswaran MP called for the revival of the LTTE to fight crime in Jaffna. Most those allegations of high rate of crime and rape (as she implied) are also exaggerated and intended to provide an immediate pretext to delegitimize the central government.  

Fourth, dynamism of those forces is bound to trigger a government response that would take back some of the civic freedoms and tighten the grip. (Maheswaran herself was arrested yesterday by the police over her remarks). The government’s response, though can be justified in the need to keep a tab on separatist sentiments, also make the Northern Tamils feel suppressed. These grievances can also fuel nationalism and play into the hands of the extreme Tamil nationalists.   
On the other hand, if you allow a free scope of activism, there is no guarantee, its degeneration would culminate in another bus bomb in the South – or a Catalonia-styled mayhem, and then to an armed struggle.  

LTTE-loving Eelam apologists are also doing the same in Jaffna. They suppress other opinions and fill the vacuum with their bitterness

Fifth, assume that Jaffna’s ‘community’ would open itself up to all shades of opinion, and is prepared for a civilized debate of all matters. That would cause a tricky situation. Those who oppose the removal of ‘Demons in Paradise’ as an assault of free speech, would also have to be ready to allow the screening of Channel 4’s ‘Sri Lanka killing fields’, no matter how concocted claims are in the documentary. That however offers a tough choice for the government. Nationalist outburst in the South over such a screening would not be nice. Therefore, effectively shutting Jaffna from a diverse spread of opinion, fringe nationalists have made it easier for the Sri Lankan government, at least in the short run to maintain the status quo.   

However, such conditions do not help the country in the long run. This brings to the final scenario. Post-conflict transition, including civil liberties, should be managed in an incremental manner. That would also mean, while according more freedom and space, the government should also nudge Jaffna’s opinion makers towards a more conciliatory line. At the same time, red lines of the discourse should also be clearly visible. Crossing that should be met with retributive cost, not in the form of white vans, but through the legal arm of the state.  

Until that time, Jaffna blocking out of ‘Demons in Paradise’ is Jaffna’s business.   

Follow @Rangajayasuriya on twitter   

Sri Lanka can still open the window of opportunity: Dr. Amarakoon Bandara

A dynamic analysis of Sri Lanka’s growth performance

Monday, 8 October 2018

My former colleague at the Central Bank and presently Senior Economic Advisor to UNDP, Dr. Amarakoon Bandara, delivering a public lecture at the Bank on Growth Dynamics, has opined that Sri Lanka can still open its window of opportunities if proper policies are adopted, despite its dismal economic performance since independence (available at: https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/node/2224 ). Growth dynamics refers to the area of economics that helps policy makers to understand how an economy has progressed over time – its achievements, failures, constraints and prospects. This is different from the typical static economic analysis in which an analyst will stop the clock and compare the situation in the economy between two time periods, known as comparative statics. It is not often an economy is viewed from a dynamic perspective and Bandara’s attempt was a rare instance.


A risk-reward game involving three players
Bandara commenced his lecture by presenting to his audience a hypothetical ‘risk-reward game’ involving three players. The three players had begun their game with more or less a similar resource endowment and, therefore, neither one was above or below another. The first player had 400, the second 150 and the third, 140 and this could have been anything from rice to rupees to dollars. They were supposed to play the game to reach three levels of rewards, again in the same respective measuring stick, say 53000, 27000 and 4000. This set of final rewards offer them a very high to very low return from where they had started. It was up to them to adopt the most effective and efficient strategy to grab the highest reward possible.
Singapore and Korea bagging the rewards


Ironically, the three players were Singapore, Sri Lanka and South Korea in 1960, in that order. The time span for the game was extended to 2015 but it could have been any other year earlier or later. Though they had begun with a similar endowment, Singapore emerged as the winner with the highest reward, Korea in the second place though less than Singapore but much more than Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka, the lowest and the laggard in the game. This is shown in figure 1. Bandara, then, has dug out the dynamic forces that had contributed to this excessively unequal outcome of rewards. There have been a number of socio-politico-economic factors that have helped both Singapore and Korea to bag the high reward and caused Sri Lanka to fail in its attempt to do so.


Economic ups and downs have to be corrected quickly


The annual real economic growth rates attained by these three players during 1960 to 2015, said Bandara, demonstrated that they all had experienced ups and downs in growth as shown in figure 2. However, the difference had been that both Singapore and Korea had been able to very quickly recover from the downs and place the respective economies back on the long term economic growth path, whereas Sri Lanka had failed to do so. Consequently, the attainment of Sri Lanka had not only been prolonged downs but also been lower by 4 to 5% than the other two players. As a result, though the initial endowment was the same, the end result had presented a massive gap in the final rewards. Thus, Sri Lanka could only savour in the past glory and not in any present day achievement.


Sri Lanka taking one step forward and two steps backward


Bandara had observed that in the case of Sri Lanka, both the political and economic growth cycles had coincided with each other. Whenever a pro-free market economy ushering political party had been in power, there had been a slight upward movement in economic performance. When the power had been shifted to the opposite camp, which had invariably happened almost alternatively, the initial gain had been reversed. Thus, according to Bandara, Sri Lanka had been in the habit of taking one step forward and taking two steps backward all throughout the period under consideration. This policy inconsistency and reversal had not been noticed in the case of both Singapore and Korea. As a result, both of them had been able to follow the same policy package by taking forward steps continuously. Any backward step had been only when they had been hit by some unavoidable external shocks like the East Asian financial crisis in 1997-8 or global economic downturn in early 2000s.


Promotion of savings through positive real interest rates 


Another stark difference in policy had been the use of monetary policy to promote savings for investment in these three countries. For any economy to grow, it has to invest a sizable proportion of its annual income to replace the worn-out capital on the one hand and expand the production capacity on the other. Those investments have to be funded either through savings generated by citizens by consuming a lesser amount out of incomes or by attracting savings made by foreigners by consuming less than their incomes or by resorting to both. A crucial requirement for promoting domestic savings has been, among others, the need for maintaining market interest rates sufficiently higher than the prevailing inflation rate – a situation known as having a positive real interest rate regime. Bandara had noted that in 1960 in both Singapore and Korea real interest rates had been negative but they were converted to positive soon after through a conscious monetary policy involving an increase in the market interest rates above the inflation rate. It delivered a miracle by increasing domestic savings which were in turn reinvested in the economy.


Sri Lanka’s anti-savings interest rate policy

But Sri Lanka had maintained nominal interest rates at constant levels resulting in the real interest rates fluctuating from positive to negative all the time. Hence, Sri Lanka had a wide savings investment gap which had to be filled by relying on foreign savings which were attracted basically to the country via external borrowings. According to Bandara, when a country uses domestic savings for investment, the return on capital remains within the country, enabling it to benefit from such investments on the one hand and reinvest the same for further economic growth, on the other. But when a country uses foreign savings, that country will experience an outflow of the return on capital and therefore for further investment, it has to continuously rely on foreign savings. It would then trap that country in a vicious circle of foreign borrowings which in later years would be reflected in an undue growth of its external debt stock. This is exactly what has happened to Sri Lanka today.

High total factor productivity through high investment in R&D

Because there was no burden on the budget in the form of extreme external debt repayment commitment, both Singapore and Korea were able to invest heavily in research and development or R&D and create a facilitating environment to convert the fruits of such R&D into commercially viable and exportable products. This was responsible in building up a huge technology base in both countries. But, Sri Lanka on the other hand, due to budgetary constraints, lagged behind in R&D and therefore had to depend on cheap labour concept for investment as well as attracting foreign investments. This has two implications on the growth of the three countries under consideration. First, in both Singapore and Korea, the incremental contribution to economic growth arising from the use of technology and the combined outcome of engaging both capital and labour, known as total factor productivity, was significantly higher than that in Sri Lanka. The corollary of this development is that a smaller addition of both capital and labour in Singapore and Korea would bring in a higher economic growth. To attain the same growth, Sri Lanka had to use more and more capital and labour in varying combinations.

Sri Lanka’s low technology base and getting snared in middle income trap

The second implication of low R&D was that Sri Lanka had to depend on cheap labour for its economic growth. But, Sri Lanka’s growth is constrained because the golden era of cheap labour has now disappeared. On one side, its labour is not cheap anymore and it cannot compete with other cheap labour countries such as Bangladesh and Myanmar. On the other, without technology, it cannot move up in the ladder from a lower middle income country to an upper middle income country and finally to a high income country. Sri Lanka is now trapped in what is known as the ‘middle income trap’ in which it cannot neither move forward nor remain competitive among its peers. This was the breakout point of departure for the three players who had started the game with the same endowment set. Both Singapore and Korea made a quantum leap to the rich world, while Sri Lanka was left behind as an emerging economy forever.

Sri Lanka’s missed opportunity in 1966 

This is in fact a sad story of missed opportunities. I have traced back this missed opportunity to 1966 when the Sri Lanka Government refused to follow a set of policy recommendations made by Gujarati economist B R Shenoy. I have discussed this missed opportunity in a previous article in this series under the title ‘The Ignored B R Shenoy Report: An instance of missed opportunity for Sri Lanka?’ (Available at: http://www.ft.lk/article/432905/The-ignored-B-R--Shenoy-Report-of-1966:-An-instance-of-missed-opportunity-for-Sri-Lanka). Shenoy who was hired by the then Minister of State and Deputy Prime Minister J R Jayewardene to report on the economic reforms needed to lift the economy from the depth to which it had fallen had submitted a rebellious report containing recommendations which had even outrivaled those that had been adopted by Singapore and Korea at that time.

Shenoy’s rebellious recommendations

In summary, his recommendations had been the following:

Balance the budget not by raising taxes which would further reduce the national savings but by halting the expenditure leakages in the form of unproductive subsidies, expansion of the state sector and non-rationalisation of the capital expenditure programs;

Denationalise the selected state corporations in fisheries, manufactures and trading areas so that they would not be a drain on the limited resources in the budget;

Generate surplus in the current account and use that surplus to finance increased capital expenditure programs thereby having a zero budget deficit;

Bring market discipline to other state enterprises by listing them in the stock exchange;

Give cash subsidies instead of commodity subsidies to the deserving;

Reduce the marginal tax rates since taxation destroys potential national savings into a bon-fire of public consumption;

Totally abolish import and export controls and float the Sri Lanka rupee. This was a totally rebellious recommendation since in 1966 even the developed countries had not gone for floating exchange rates;

Liberalise external trade fully to generate an assured inflow of raw materials for domestic industries which would in turn export quality goods to the market.

Compromising reforms through fear of losing power

It would be apparent that Shenoy’s recommendations were well ahead of the time, surpassing even those adopted by Singapore and Korea at that time. According to biographers of J R Jayewardene – K M de Silva and Howard Wriggins – JR had been impressed by these policy recommendations. However, when they were submitted to the Cabinet, according to JR’s biographers, Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake had chosen to kill them, believing that it was yet another ploy by JR to oust him from leadership.  Hence, the policy package was dismissed and it remained a dusty document with JR till it was transferred to J R Jayewardene Centre in Colombo as a vital document.

Regaining missed window of opportunity

This was a window of missed opportunity for Sri Lanka. Bandara thinks that Sri Lanka need not live with a series of missed opportunities. His prognosis has been that the country can regain what has been lost by adopting a proper set of economic reforms and consistent economic policies. In my view, the present Coalition Government is the best for introducing such a reform program. It was the Coalition Government of David Cameron that rescued the UK from imminent bankruptcy in 2010. They did so by having one voice on policy reforms. Hence, there is no choice for the two constituent parties in the government – UNP and SLFP – but to speak in one voice rather than expressing in a multitude of diverse voices.

(W A Wijewardena, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, can be reached at waw1949@gmail.com)

BBC Whoppers, Azzam Ameen Remains Gagged

OCTOBER 9, 2018

BBC Sandeshaya, the Sinhala service of BBC, has blatantly lied about their journalistic practice and ethics, Colombo Telegraph is now in a position to expose.

Azzam Ameen | File photo

Colombo Telegraph, in August, this year, revealed that BBC Sinhala has barred Azzam Ameen from conducting political interviews or attending press conferences.

Ameen, who has built a considerable reputation for being a fearless and probing journalist who was also recently adjudged the most popular journalist in social media, was informed by his superiors that he will not be allowed to do political interviews or attend press conferences.

BBC Sinhala Service Editor Sangeeth Kalubowila is a close associate of Dharmasiri Bandara Ekanayake, the Senior Media Director of the President. Both of them worked closely at Capital Maharaja Organization, the parent company of Sirasa, for many years.

Just after  Colombo Telegraph made the revelation, BBC issued a vague and ambiguous statement responding to our story. It said, “BBC News Sinhala is committed to impartial and accurate journalism in Sri Lanka and we will continue to conduct robust interviews with politicians and other newsmakers, which is exactly what our audiences expect.”

Despite this assurance, Ameen has not conducted a single political interview nor has he attended any press conference since we carried our story. The journalist has been sidelined by confining him to non-controversial and non-political stories that are below par by BBC’s international standards.

Meanwhile, BBC Sinhala Service has also hired an individual by the name of Kumudu Jayawardena as Video Journalist, through an opaque recruitment process. Jayawardena is a former colleague of Kalubowila at MTV/Sirasa. Although the service has advertised to recruit another Videographer, another former colleagues of Kalubowila’s, a former MTV/Sirasa employee has boasted with several parties that he had already being recruited for the post.

“What we see right now is an alarming trend,” a media observer told Colombo Telegraph, adding that BBC Sinhala Service was being ‘swallowed up’ by ex-MTV/Sirasa employees.

Read More

Sri Lanka: Liberal capitalism and currency depreciation

The government appeared to be unaware of the disadvantages of liberal capitalism for a country like ours. No country in the world that cares for its future generations would adopt unrestricted liberal capitalism.

by Janaki Chandraratna-Oct 9, 2018

( October 9, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is heartening to note that the government is paying serious attention to the rapid depreciation of the rupee and the deterioration of the economy. We are being told that the import of luxury cars and other luxury items will be suspended for a short period of six months to improve foreign exchange reserves. Financial analysts have already questioned the success of this strategy as they claim the current foreign exchange reserve amounting to USD 8000 million, including Chinese loans to the tune of USD 1000 million will not be sufficient to meet the outstanding payment commitments. The loan repayment for 2019 is estimated to be USD 4000 million and the import expenditure for the first six months of 2018 alone was at USD 11,400 million. Needless to say the free trade agreements with Singapore and India are likely to further exacerbate the situation.

The yahapalana government is responsible for the country’s current predicament. The liberal capitalist economy was in full force for politicians and the rich to get richer for about three years. The government went all out to import the best vehicles and enabled its leaders and their kith and kin to go on foreign junkets. Even those in the Provincial Councils followed suit. They have been doing so at the expense of the country’s foreign exchange reserves, which are replenished for the most part by the Sri Lankan workers in West Asia.

The government appeared to be unaware of the disadvantages of liberal capitalism for a country like ours. No country in the world that cares for its future generations would adopt unrestricted liberal capitalism. One of the most damaging outcomes of the market economy in recent times, in Sri Lanka, is the impact it has had on the agricultural sector, in general and on food production in particular. In fact, the production of rice, our staple food, has been neglected. Farmers are not provided with the required fertilizer in a timely manner. Instead, they are asked to diversify crops and grow potatoes.

Food security is of paramount importance to most of the developed nations in the world, and they are focused on safeguarding the agriculture sector. Generally, farmers are subsidized and encouraged to increase production for local and export markets. Australia and the US are good examples. The agriculture sector in these countries not only adds to foreign exchange reserves, but also assures a steady food supply in times of world recessions. Our yahapalana leaders ruined our paddy stocks by storing it in unsuitable environments such as at the Mattala airport.
The yahapalana government is lucky that the previous regime developed infrastructure. But the country has not progressed on the intended path of development. The increase in foreign reserves was mainly through added loans. The government was imprudent in halting investment projects of the previous regime without assessing the future consequences. The cancellation of the Sri Lankan Airlines aircraft purchases incurred a significant foreign exchange loss to the already down trodden economy.

The government keeps blaiming the previous regime for the borrowings for infrastructure development. It now holds American President Donald Trump responsible for the depreciation of the rupee. It is true the surge in the American dollar affected a number of countries, but most of them have sufficient reserves to address currency fluctuations. What we have in Sri Lanka, in part, are the evils of an unbalanced market economy under the yahapalana regime. It is well known that unrestricted market economies can lead to an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor, unbalanced economies, lack of investments, sale of assets, depreciation of currencies, increased taxes, and increased loans to sustain imports.

Stressed economies also are often pressured to create tax havens and encourage money laundering activities. Without investors to boost export earnings, the government may have to take further restrictive measures for much longer period than mere six months.

Nishantha Wickremasinghe allocated Dubai apartment for female officer

 

2018-10-09

Within the period from 2012 to 2014, the then SriLankan Airlines Chairman Nishantha Wickremasinghe had allocated Rs.2.4 million for an apartment for a female Sales Support Officer in Dubai but previously it was claimed as an accommodation for executive trainees, it was told at the SriLankan Airlines Commission yesterday.

SriLankan Airlines, Head of Finance, Yasantha Dissanayake informed the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) on irregularities at SriLankan airlines, SriLankan Catering and Mihin Lanka that the then Chairman Nishantha Wickremasinghe had directed the company finance division to allocate a monthly payment for an apartment in Dubai stating it was for executive trainees in Dubai but it was allocated for a person called Shehani Rodrigo, a Sales Support Officer in Dubai.

He said that the invoices of the particular apartment mentioned the particular female Sales Support Officer’s name and not the company name.

“By the time we got to know about the incident she has taken the apartment on lease and was not a member of any training program. Periodically when we checked the stations we noticed the name of the invoices given as Shehani Rodigo and she was also paid with housing allowance as specified in the appointment letter,” he said.

At the Commission, SriLankan Airlines Manager, Human Resources and Administration, Lasantha Liyanage informed that the particular female Sales Support Officer had previously served as a Flight Attendant at SriLankan and she had personally requested Chairman Nishantha Wickremasinghe to grant her no pay leave for a period of one year.

He said the Chairman had granted her one year no pay leave with a transfer to Airport Services and her first appointment was in Singapore as a Sales Support Officer. He said that this appointment was not informed to the HR division and it was not an approved position by the HR.

He also informed the Commission that by the time she resigned from SriLankan Airlines, the Company IT division had changed her designation to SriLankan Manager, Ticket office and Marketing in UAE, which was not approved by the HR division. (Yoshitha Perera)

The geopolitics of ports and the silk road of the sea

• “The age of the west is at a crossroads, if not at an end” – Peter Frankopan

 Wednesday, 10 October 2018

The expertise of a country’s diplomats and the effectiveness of its armed forces are not the only variables determining its rise. Geographical factors must also be considered. Influencing the overall prosperity of a nation are its access to raw materials and trade routes, its climate, and – most critical in informing foreign policy – its strategic location.

In this light, it was no coincidence that the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte commissioned the translation of the works of the ancient geographer Strabo. The ‘subordination’ of Asian countries to Western powers began in 1798 when Napoleon led a 40,000-strong French army into Egypt, ostensibly to protect French trade interests.

Shortly afterward, issues concerning trade resulted in Western countries driving a wedge between China and India. Economic interests have similarly followed military interests on several occasions in the arc of history, and history could repeat itself. This time, though, the difference will be an Eastern power as the most significant player in the global arena.

Southern Sri Lanka has become a geopolitical hotbed after the construction of the Hambantota harbour and the recent relocation of the Galle Southern Naval Command next to Hambantota Port. There are more than 700 naval officers engaged in maritime security efforts who are based next to the harbour premises leased by China. The relocated post in Galle will be occupied by the Sri Lankan coast guard to further protect the oceans using its new military hardware.

In doing so, scholars have suggested that Sri Lanka should opt for the P-3C Orion naval reconnaissance anti-submarine aircraft instead of Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs). This aircraft enables scanning a larger area and has been proven effective by many other countries. According to the latest statement by Prime Minister Wickramasinghe, Sri Lanka should prepare for anti-submarine warfare.

On a recent visit to the port of Hambantota, Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onedera stated, “Despite the lease there was an agreement that the port remains free of military activities.”

This statement reflects concerns over the leasing of the facility to China for 99 years. Onedera was the first Japanese defence minister to visit Sri Lanka in a period in which the island finds itself in the spheres of influence of India, the US, and China.

Unfortunately, the expectation that Hambantota should remain free of Chinese military activities – as well as the other details of the lease agreement– has received little attention from the general public of Sri Lanka.

China’s geopolitical presence is rapidly expanding under the aegis of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Starting with ports such as Sittwe, Gwadar, Djibouti, Hambantota, and Dar es Salaam, China is testing a strategy of using its economic influence to advance its security interests, much like Western powers have done in the past. To counter China’s influence through BRI, the ‘Quad’ (the US, India, Japan, Australia) was formed.

It has been argued that Sri Lanka has benefited from Japan’s hedging strategies in the South Asia region. A tactic that could unfold into a larger strategy was the agreement signed on 12 April 2017 aimed at the ‘Deepening and Expansion of Comprehensive Partnership between Japan and Sri Lanka’.

The agreement covers three areas: First, Japan is to expand its maritime cooperation with Sri Lanka; second, Japan is to improve Sri Lanka’s maritime capability by providing two OPVs in support of the bilateral defence partnership; and third, Sri Lanka is to participate as an observer in the next Japan-India joint exercise between coast guards. New alliances such as with Sri Lanka will further support and cement the core strategy between the US and Japan in the Indo-Pacific.

Djibouti is a former French colony with a small population and scarce natural resources. The country’s GDP remains below $ 1.8 billion and it has only one significant geopolitical offering: its strategic location. Sitting at the eastern edge of the African continent and the western shore of the Indian Ocean, Djibouti has become a multi-military base and logistics operational hub. Even Japan’s first overseas military base since World War II is found in this strategic location.

Within Djibouti, a Chinese logistics base also sits merely eight miles away from Camp Lemonnier. There are 4,000 personnel from the US Combined Joint Task Force stationed in the Horn of Africa. From a realist lens, of the various countries who have leased property for military bases, China has a strategic advantage due to the billions of dollars of financial support it has offered continuously to Djibouti. One example is an infrastructural mega-project in the form of a railway connecting Djibouti and Ethiopia.

Outside powers pledging non-interference to the region and neighbouring countries has significant economic and military implications. Other new ports emerging in the region could copy Djibouti’s model in the years to come. Sri Lanka is not unique in this sense.

Currently, Sri Lanka’s Trincomalee Port is planned to be jointly developed by India, Japan and Singapore; Hambantota Port is already leased to China, and the adjoining Mattala Airport will be operated by India, all in a bid to counter-balance China’s influence. Merely moving a Sri Lankan naval post next to the plot leased by China for 99 years will not guarantee the ability to secure economic or military interests in the future.

Fluctuations in the frequency, scope, and intensity of diplomatic and military engagements are inherent to a volatile, multipolar world. China’s rise, made possible by its economic advances, is seen by many observers also as a result of it winning every move on the geopolitical chess board. Djibouti was the initial victory in the Indian Ocean and presumably, other small states will give in to this tide.

[Views expressed are the author›s own. Asanga Abeyagoonasekera is a visiting lecturer at the Colombo University and Director General of INSSSL, the national security think tank of Sri Lanka. This article was initially published by the IPCS, New Delhi for Dateline Colombo (http://ipcs.org/comm_select.php?articleNo=5518).]

Colombo International School Homophobic Bullying Saga: Victimised Student Goes Public – Activists Commend

Special Coverage by Colombo Telegraph Editorial Team –

OCTOBER 8, 2018

Saakya Rajawasan, the student at Colombo International School who was subjected to blatantly homophobic bullying. “Saakya has issued a highly informative, diplomatic, dignified and in all senses of the term, an absolutely first-class public statement, said Dr Chamindra Weerawardhana.

Speaking to Colombo Telegraph Dr Weerawardhana said: “This statement, I believe, is a historic statement, made by a young Sri Lankan in public, for the very first time. This letter is an absolute eye-opener to many Sri Lankans stuck in Victorian conservatisms and colonial hangovers of ‘sticking to’ almighty rules. Future generations of non-cisnormative and non-heteronormative Sri Lankans and allies, and every Sri Lankan who stands for the fundamental rights and equality of all Sri Lankans will look up to the name Saakya Rajawasan, and take pride of this groundbreaking young pioneer who stood up, boldly, unbowed and unafraid, for the rights of all Sri Lankans in the SOGIESC spectrum”.

“I believe that the liberal LGBT+ rights organisations and individuals who initially sought to downgrade the entire issue, and ignored Saakya’s plight, will now desperately seek to capitalise upon Saakya, and ‘use’ her story for their advantage. We as intersectional gender justice activists will categorically condemn any such advances from LGBT+ NGOs and liberal LGBT+ leadership aspirants, and will call them out, vehemently”, Dr. Weerawardhana further added.

We publish below the statement issued by Saakya Rajawasan, with her permission, and with the consent of her father:

At the beginning of her statement, Rajawasan notes: 

My name is Saakya Rajawasan and I am a final year student at CIS. This is my statement about recent events which lead me to be given demerits, detention and be banned from all extracurricular school activities. I am also being threatened with suspension despite my excellent academic record. Three years ago I left a local school to join CIS. I was very happy because I thought CIS would be a far more progressive environment. [emboldened emphasis ours]. 

This statement points at a harsh reality in the schooling system of Sri Lanka, where strict conformity to an outdated, colonially-imposed cis-hetero-normativity is expected from ALL pupils. There is a long way to go in changing such dogmatic structures and creating a modern schooling system that is welcoming and inclusive. 

Rajawasan then narrates the exact incidents of intolerance, and visibly, homophobia and violent disposition of teachers towards herself, which we quote below in full:  At that time I asked for permission to wear trousers instead of the girls’ uniform. I identify as bi-sexual and gender-fluid so wearing trousers is a way of expressing myself. Additionally, wearing trousers instead of a skirt gives me more freedom of movement, and protection from dengue. The school administration told me that changes in the uniform system were unlikely.

It goes without saying that the Colombo International School’s uniform policy is extremely archaic for a cosmopolitan and internationally-oriented school. The school’s attitude negates the reason why Rajawasan wanted to join CIS in the first place – assuming that “CIS would be a far more progressive environment.” This series of incidents has clearly demonstrated that CIS is just as socially conservative and repressive as the rest of the schools in Sri Lanka when it comes to non-cisnormative and non-heteronormative Students. 

Read More

Removal of Inspector General, a Constitutional hiatus?

Professor M O A De Zoysa-Wednesday, October 10, 2018

“I feel sorry about the police force. The Inspector General of the Police has become a joker. Former IG’s never behaved like this. I don’t know whether a thing called the police exists now. Due to his behaviour, the Prime Minister and I have come under severe criticism. Something has to be done about this quickly. The IG’s behaviour is shameful. There are media reports saying that crimes have increased in this country. Serious action should be taken against this.” The person who criticized the IGP was none other than the Executive President of Sri Lanka, Maithripala Sirisena, the same person who appointed the current IGP three years ago. The President leveled this criticism against the IGP at the Cabinet meeting held last week.

Among the many issues faced by the current government, the issue related to the behaviour of the IGP is a serious one. The IGP’s behaviour and whatever he said came under serious public criticism and due to this, a call for his removal arose from the society. As he was not promptly removed, people also started to severely criticize the government. Some who present these accusations level it against the Prime Minister and the UNP leaving out the President and the other factions of the government and allege that the Prime Minister and the UNP are fundamental in shielding the IGP from being removed from office. Underlying these accusations is the idea that it is the Prime Minister and the UNP which is barring the President and the others in the government from removing the IGP. The statements made by the Joint Opposition in this regard are prime examples of the above. This group states that despite the President and his group wanting to remove the IGP from office, the UNP and the Prime Minister is protecting the IGP from being removed.

In reality, more than the Government, it is the UNP and the Prime Minister who has come under severe criticism due to the behaviour of the IGP. The reason behind this is that some label the IGP as a supporter of the UNP and many in the society subscribed to this notion without thinking about it critically and therefore still believe that the Prime Minister and the UNP are working towards protecting him. If a democratically elected government comes under the severe public criticism due to the behaviour of one public servant, that officer should be immediately removed from office. If any person or political party comes forward to protect such an officer covertly or overtly, it is needless to say that it is a serious crime. But it is questionable whether the accusations leveled against the Prime Minister and the UNP are fair because when appointing and removing the IGP, a person or a political party cannot interfere in it due to the constitutional provisions guiding them.

Constitutional provisions

The office of the IGP is a public service post laid out in the constitution i.e. it is one of the posts stipulated and enshrined in the constitution. According to the constitution, appointments to such positions should be done by the President. As these regulations have been changed time and again with the introduction of various amendments there is no consensus among the constitutional provisions laid out in relation to this. The first regulation in relation to this was the provisions laid out in the Constitution of 1978, under article 54. It stated that “the President shall appoint all public officers required by the Constitution or other written law to be appointed by the President, as well as the Attorney-General and the Heads of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Police Force.” The constitution did not provide guidelines as to who should be appointed and on what grounds those appointments should be based on allowing the President to make such appointments on his/her whims and fancies.

The 17th Amendment made to the Constitution of 1978 which came into effect in the year 2000 changed article 54 and stated that the President should make the appointments in consultation with the constitutional council. Accordingly, when appointments have to be made to the public service posts mentioned in the constitution, the President can only appoint them after following the directives of the Constitutional Council. The following are such posts where this process had to be followed when making appointments.

1. Members of the Election Commission
2. Members of the Public Service Commission
3. Members of the National Police Commission
4. Members of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
5. Members of the Bribery Commission
6. Members of the Monetary Commission
7. Members of the Delimitation Commission
For the following posts, the President could only appoint people only if the Constitutional Council approves the nominations made by the President to the said council.
1. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and other Judges
2. The President of the Appeals Court and other Judges
3. Members of the Judicial Service Commission except its President
4. The Attorney General
5. The Auditor General
6. The Inspector General of the Police
7. The Ombudsman
8. The Secretary General of the Parliament

The 18th Amendment to the Constitution brought out on September 8, 2010, by the former government headed by Mahinda Rajapaksa removed the checks imposed by the 17th Amendment on the President in appointing high ranking government officials on his/her whims and fancies and transferred the sole authority of appointing such officers back to the President. This was again repealed in 2015 by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution introduced by the current government which reversed the absolute authority given to the President in appointing high ranking public officials and brought back the method introduced by the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. As a result of this change, the President could only appoint the IGP if the Constitutional Council approves the nomination given by the President. But even though the Constitutional provisions clearly laid out as to how the IGP should be appointed none of the amendments laid down provisions as to how an IGP can be removed from office prior to his/her retirement.

Removal of Officers (Procedures) Act

So from the above discussion, it becomes clear that it is not the Prime Minister or the UNP who is actually working to keep the IGP in office but this particular crisis in the Constitutional provisions. Thus, how can the IGP then be removed? As lawyers point out, the only way to overcome this situation is to follow the directives given in the Removal of Officers (Procedures) Act number Five of 2002 which deals with the removal of officers mentioned in the constitution. According to this act, there are two ways which can be adopted to remove an IGP from office. Firstly, if the President is convinced that the IGP is guilty of the following offences, the President can remove the IGP from office. The said offences are:

(a) being adjudged an insolvent by a court of competent jurisdiction; (b) being unfit to continue in office by reason of ill health or physical or mental infirmity; (c) being convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, treason or bribery; (d) being found guilty of misconduct or corruption; (e) being found guilty of gross abuse of power of his office; (f) being found guilty of gross neglect of duty; (g) being found guilty of gross partiality in office; or (h) ceasing to be a citizen of Sri Lanka.
The second method is to remove the IGP through a motion passed in Parliament if he/she is found to be guilty of one or more of the following offenses:

(d) being found guilty of misconduct or corruption; (e) being found guilty of gross abuse of power of his office; (f) being found guilty of gross neglect of duty; (g) being found guilty of gross partiality in office.

For this to come into force, a resolution should be forwarded to Parliament by not less than 1/3 of the members of parliament (including those not present) claiming that an inquiry board should be appointed to inquire into the allegations (as mentioned above) and it should be approved by a majority vote in Parliament.

Accordingly, an inquiry board should be constituted and it should consist of three members, namely a supreme court judge appointed by the Chief Justice who will preside as the President, the Chairman of the National Police Commission and another member who will be an imminent person in the field of law or an eminent person in the field of public management appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader. If this inquiry board after conducting an inquiry deems that the IGP is guilty of the above mentioned charges, a motion should be brought before Parliament requesting his removal and it should be approved by a majority vote in Parliament. After that, the resolution should be forwarded to the President and the President should take the necessary steps to remove the IGP.

Therefore, it is extremely difficult to remove an IGP prior to his retirement as it is an extremely complex process. One thing becomes very clear and that is that the Prime Minister and the UNP cannot do anything much to keep or remove the current IGP from office and this fact should be understood by the members of the Joint Opposition and its followers.

The Joint Opposition should act responsibly and stop misleading the public by spreading false propaganda over and over again in relation to this and what they should do is to forward a resolution to the Parliament as mentioned above requesting to remove the IGP or pressurize the current government to bring forth such a motion. Finally, it is apt to state that such a move would be the ultimate litmus test to check the stance of the Prime Minister and the UNP with regard to the current IGP.

Is the coalition in crisis or is it fake-news? It is highly unlikely that any member would leave power for a ‘coming’ administration

“Any idiot can face a crisis - it’s day to day living that wears you out.”
- ~Anton Chekhov

2018-10-10

Those who are greedily awaiting the comeback of the Rajapaksas are intensely engaged in this campaign- one of gossip and rumour-mongering.

Their wish that the current Parliament led by the United National Party (UNP) could be defeated by this method or that has gained currency at many a quarter, especially amongst the Colombo-based commission-traders, whose only ambition is to facilitate a return of the Rajapaksas to the office. These ugly and avaricious merchants of political power seek no limits; they seem to be answerable to no one; their thirst for illegitimate commissions and ill-gotten money is unquenchable and the insatiable desire of the fairer gender of this commission-cabal has overtaken the commonsensical pursuit of a ‘place in the sun’ among the elite of Colombo.

Their sarees and jewellery purchased in the Indian marketplace cannot be left to gather dust. Attendance at the various cocktail parties hosted by the Rajapaksa allies is a must for that obscene ride to the top of the elite.

In order to topple the current coalition Government, crossover of a sizeable number of UNP Parliamentarians is indispensable; in the context of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s unchallenged leadership in the Party, it is unthinkable that, leave alone a sizeable number, a possibility of even one single Parliamentarian crossing over is far too remote. If there is one political party that is united today it is the United National Party; it is not owing to the genius of its leader but due to the fact that what is in power is a UNP-led Government.

It is never or highly unlikely that any member of the Government would leave power in search of or a mirage of position in a ‘coming’ administration. It doesn’t happen, period.

Most of these pundits and so-called intelligentsia do not understand that simple truth; political power is enormously attractive and its aphrodisiacal powers are unmatchable.  There is only one incident in our post-independence history that a number of parliamentarians crossed over from government ranks and joined the then Opposition and that was in 1964 when C P de Silva and some of his SLFP-clan did the political somersault. As was related to this writer by J. R. Jayewardene himself, the architect of that political coup de grace, the only concession C. P. de Silva demanded from Dudley/JR duo was that his crossover would result in the toppling of the then Sirimavo-led SLFP Government. And it did happen. Therefore, in the absence of such a defection of UNP Parliamentarians from the Party, it is inconceivable even to theorize that the ‘dream’ of the Joint Opposition (JO) could come true. Much trust and faith have been placed on Basil Rajapaksa, the younger brother of Mahinda, to negotiate a deal between the parties.

Basil, whose interest in politics had been sparked by his one-time close associate Anura Bandaranaike, when both were young. Basil’s performance as the virtual second-in-command in the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, has come into question since the fall of that regime in 2015.

His reputation now is one of suspect, to say the least. Being in charge of allegedly uncountable and unaccountable stash of cash, he, during the 2015 Presidential Election campaign, had apparently attempted to literally purchase the votes of an unsuspecting public. And he failed.

Once again, it is he who is supposed to have come forward to negotiate a deal between the opposing parties. What is even more astonishing than anything else is the inclusion of President Maithripala Sirisena as a piece in the proverbial political chess game. Whether President Maithripala Sirisena would willingly take part in such a diabolical political dynamic is anybody’s guess. What seems to have left the curious minds of all those who are grossly engaged in the current stream of politics is Sirisena’s pledge at the time he took oaths as the new President of Sri Lanka on January 9, 2015, that his Presidency would be limited to one term. As was reported in the breaking news at the time, ‘newly elected President Maithripala Sirisena says he will not contest for another term. Addressing the nation soon after being sworn in as the sixth President of Sri Lanka Maithripala Sirisena vouched he had no intention to run for a Presidential Election for the second time at the end of his first term’.

We are notorious for having rather a very short memory; what is broadcast from atop a political platform is, more often than not, considered frivolous and short-lived. Yet at a time when one dictatorial President, who Mahinda Rajapaksa was, was dethroned and a new Master is enthroned, the people would undoubtedly take the term of office as one of a grave character, not only of the nature of the pledge, but more so of the man who is making such a pledge.

It is still not officially known whether Maithripala Sirisena has any intention of offering himself as a candidate at the forthcoming Presidential Election in 2020.
But what we must essentially bear in mind is the corrupting character of the institution of political power. Political power, among its debasing features, has the total capacity to corrupt its holder beyond all imagination. The political power, as much as its capacity for corrupting its holders, also has that intrinsic ability to being an obsessive charm of luxurious life; its glories have been penned and stored in history books so that the readers themselves get glued to its riveting nuances and society-changing appeals. However, to place Maithripala Sirisena among such dregs of politics is a disservice to the man.

With all his shortcomings, one cannot discard his simplicity in character and be ever ready to be identified with the ‘commoner’, Maithripala Sirisena, in fact, is a blessing that befell our nation in 2015.

The fastened bond that put President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe together has apparently loosened and it’s not too late to bond them once again. Yet, what must be emphasized is the term of office President Sirisena talked about in the wake of his being sworn in on 2015 January 9 as the new President of Sri Lanka. But if President Sirisena has changed his mind about the term of office, due to whatever reason, it is his responsibility and burdensome duty to declare it to the country with valid and legitimate arguments.

If such arguments are forthcoming and they appear to be authentic and credible, then it’s up to the electorate firstly and the coalition partners secondly, to accept or reject those arguments. Keeping the whole electorate in limbo is neither favourable to the current political equilibrium nor is it acceptable in a real sense of morality and ethics. Taken in such a dubious context of political uncertainty, the rumoured discussions among the trio of Sirisena and Rajapaksa brothers do matter. It affects the marketplace badly. The most effective way of affecting the economy of the country, especially its equity market, is this lingering uncertainty among its key players.
It seems to have had its repercussions; coupled with the depreciation of the rupee, our currency, the ballooning prices of essential commodities, this uncertainty needs to be exiled in a hurry. If not, the worst material conditions to follow, would result in a crisis the current administration doesn’t look to be equipped to handle. Ranil Wickremesinghe, with all his reputation and experience in governance, seems to have lost his grip on priorities.

His abject failure to be realistic and down-to-earth is being exploited to the fullest by the JO and its chief propagandists. What is even more appalling is

Wickremesinghe’s failure to be decisive when it is of crucial significance. His failure to recognize the enormity of the ramifications of the infamous Bond-Scam has had its ill effects running to the core of the United National Party. What could have been nipped in the bud by asking the responsible parties to leave their respective offices, such as Governor of the Central Bank and the Minister of Finance is now coming to haunt not only Ranil Wickremesinghe himself, it is affecting the UNP and its parliamentarians in a thoroughly adverse way.

Dwelling on what has happened is of zero value unless one learns the lessons it teaches us. The UNP and its leadership seem to have lost their way down in the middle of their governing stretch.

Political power, as was repeatedly enunciated in this column itself, is a maddening dose that could either cleanse the whole system or act like an obsessive drug that can destroy very adventurous cells in a body. Right throughout history, its destructive powers have shown their ugly way. It has produced such cruel leaders as Hitler, Stalin and Idi Amin, to mention a very few in our post-industrial revolution times.

Although Ceylon has not had the misfortune of being cursed by such demonic leaders, we have also not been blessed with truly great ones whose moral compass had not been broken. The real tragedy is not realizing the nuanced characteristics of our own history and trying to follow them.

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com