Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Friday, November 16, 2018

Facebook Inc Colluding With Sirisena’s ‘Unconstitutional Rule’: Agrees To Share Confidential Information On 16 ‘Political Profiles’

logo
President Maithripala Sirisena’s office has demanded Facebook Inc to disclose confidential information pertaining to pages operated by 16 politicians, Colombo Telegraph can reveal.
Out of 16 politicians who are under scrutiny, 10 represent the United National Party (06) while others are from President Sirisena’s own camp – the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). Among those who are in the President’s office Facebook watch list are Sirisena’s recently-appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and his son, Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa.
Ousted Prime Minister Ranil Wickrmesinghe and several politicians who are closely associated with him are among the 10 UNP MPs selected by the President’s Office.
The details President Sirisena’s office has requested from Facebook Inc includes the names of Admins and Editors, their IP addresses and locations, details pertaining to the engagement of these pages, their demographics, and other confidential details that Facebook Inc. does not share with third parties.
Colombo Telegraph learns that Sirisena’s office has requested the details citing “national security concerns.”
We can also confirm that a senior representative from the Department of Government Policy and Public Affairs (South Asia) of Facebook Inc has met President Sirisena and his representatives last week for a meeting.
Sirisena, at the meeting, had insisted that the global tech company should present the requested details within two weeks or the government will resort to “drastic action”.
Facebook representative has agreed to comply with the Sri Lankan government’s request due to fears that if Sri Lanka adopts drastic measures against the social media platform, it will influence bigger markers in the region, such as Singapore, to follow suit.
However, if Facebook complies with the Sri Lankan government’s unethical demands, the company will seriously comprise its commitment to privacy of the users, a top company source said.
Sri Lanka shutdown Facebook Inc platforms and other online messaging platforms, during the outbreak of racial violence in the Kandy district, in March, this year.

Read More


Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 07:31 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.


Lankapage LogoNov 16, Colombo: For a second day pandemonium prevailed in Sri Lanka parliament with the lawmakers of President Maithripala Sirisena appointed government attacking the Speaker and the opposition lawmakers to disrupt the parliamentary proceedings.

Parliamentarians supporting the unconstitutionally appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa hurled water bottles filled with chili powder and chairs at the police who escorted the Speaker and parliamentary officials into the chamber and opposing MPs.

Following the chaos prevailed on Thursday at the assembly after the parliament passed a no confidence motion against the Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and the President's new government with a majority vote, the party leaders agreed to reconvene parliament today.
JVP MP Vijitha Herath was injured when he was attacked with a Constitution book and UNP MP Gamini Jayawickrama and the police officers were sprayed with chili powder mixed water. Several police officers also received injuries.

Despite the violence unleashed by the pro-Rajapaksa MPs to disrupt proceedings, parliament by a name vote passed another a no-confidence motion against Rajapaksa.

Following the chaos prevailed on Thursday at the assembly after the parliament passed a no confidence motion against the Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and the President's new government with a majority vote, the party leaders agreed to reconvene parliament today.



The President yesterday asked the Speaker to hold another vote by name to show his choice for the Prime Minister and his government has no majority in parliament.

Intervenient petitioners seek full SC bench to hear FR petitions on dissolution


2018-11-16
Five persons who filed intervenient petitions against the 13 fundamental rights petitions challenging the dissolution of Parliament by President Maithriapala Sirisena on November 9, requested the Supreme Court today through a motion to appoint a full bench to hear the said Fundamental Rights (FR) Petitions.
The intervenient petitioners had submitted in their motion that they requested under Article 132 of the Constitution a bench comprising five judges or seven judges or a full bench to hear the FR petitions against the Attorney General challenging the dissolution of the Parliament.
The intervenient petitioners who had made this request through Attorneys Nilantha Wijesinghe and Atula de Silva were Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) Chairman Prof. G.L. Peiris, Minister Udaya Gammanpila, Wellawatte Jagath, Professor Channa Jayasumana and Attorney Premnath C. Dolawatte.
They have submitted that the gazette issued by the President dissolving the Parliament has made a tremendous impact on the society and what is before the court is a nationally important Constitutional matter and as such it is appropriate to appoint a bench comprising more than five judges.
The three member bench of the Supreme Court that heard the fundamental rights petitions filed by the UNP, TNA, JVP, ACMC, former Parliamentarian Mano Ganeshan, Centre for Policy Alternatives, Attorney Aruna Laksiri and the member of the National Election Commission Professor Samuel Ratnajeevan Hoole, issued an order on Tuesday staying the President's gazette on the dissolution of Parliament and holding the general election under that gazette till December 7. (Thilani de Silva and Ranjan Katugampola)

The JR-MR effect



logo Saturday, 17 November 2018 

Sri Lanka over the last few weeks has experienced a twin crisis. One is political provoked by its Constitution, and the other economic engendered by its politics. However, this crisis is the combined effect of two previous presidencies, those of J.R. Jayewardene (1978-89) and Mahinda Rajapaksa (2005-15). I prefer to call it the JR-MR-Effect. This effect is destroying the island’s proud democratic heritage and debilitating its struggling economy and peoples’ welfare.

J.R. Jayewardene

In 1977, Jayewardene (JR), a paragon of neoliberal capitalism, and his United National Party (UNP) were swept to power at the elections with an outright majority to form a new government with JR as prime minister. The UNP won 140 of the 168 seats in the Parliament with 50.92% of the total votes. It was indeed a clear mandate.

However, this outcome did not satisfy JR who always had nightmares about the critical role ethnic minorities such as the Tamils and Muslims and political minorities such as the leftists like the Sama Samajists and Communists played in the Legislature to block, amend and even defeat what they considered as unfair legislations.

Being an arch enemy of Marxist socialism JR detested the previous SLFP-led socialist coalition Government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike. For over 30 years since the country’s independence he was biding his time for an opportunity to finish off once and for all the political influence of minorities. The 1977 elections provided him with that opportunity.

The first thing he did was to initiate a total U-turn in the country’s economic direction. More than 30 years of State-market mixed economic experiment was given up in favour of a competitive free market model without any restraint. Capitalism was reintroduced with a vengeance, reflecting JR’s all or nothing philosophy. As a result of this reversal economic inequality widened and poverty deepened to become a systemic phenomenon.

He wanted to transform Sri Lanka into another Singapore. The economic impact of his open economy would have become perilous for millions of Sri Lankans had it not been for a window of opportunity opened for the nation’s surplus labour to migrate to the Middle East. It is that opening which is sustaining the wellbeing of over a million households even today.

JR’s second epoch making measure was to abolish the Republican Colvin Constitution and introduce instead an all-powerful executive presidential constitution with proportional representation when electing members to the Legislature. Under this Constitution the president could do anything except, he bragged, “change a man into woman and vice versa”.

He also thought that with proportional representation he would kill the electoral power of minorities and the leftists. While the leftists on their part were predicting for years that JR would be the midwife for a socialist revolution in Sri Lanka, he actually became the father of an ethnic pogrom in 1983.

Although he failed to diminish the influence of minorities through his Proportional Representation model, the powers embedded in the Gaullist-like presidency has turned out to be a blessing to power-hungry and manipulative presidents who succeeded him.

In the late 1970s the then leader of the LSSP, Dr. N.M. Perera warned of the hidden dangers of JR’s executive presidency. Today, in the hands of a former village headman, NM’s prediction has come true. President Maithripala Sirisena has unmistakably demonstrated his egoistic desire for power, which has plunged the country into a constitutional and political crisis.

Mahinda Rajapaksa

Every president after JR, except Ranasinghe Premadasa, came to power by promising to abolish that presidency. Yet, having tasted the honeycomb, none of them dared to tamper with it. Today’s political crisis is JR’s contribution to a malediction that has descended on the nation. The rest of it was the handiwork of President Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR).

When MR became president in 2005 by default (he would not have won the election had the LTTE leadership not ordered Tamil voters to boycott the elections) he inherited a civil war. That civil war was the natural outgrowth of JR’s 1983 pogrom. Several attempts were made under previous presidents to seek a peaceful solution to the Tamil issue. MR too tried.

However, the LTTE leadership dreaming of an impossible military victory became arrogantly adamant and was not prepared for any compromise. To LTTE leadership it was an all or nothing choice for a separate Tamil Eelam. To MR therefore a military solution became unavoidable and that was when the current economic crisis had its immediate origins.

Any war is not a cheap affair and modern wars need expensive weapons to arm the soldiery. That requires enormous amount of money and no government today in a small country like Sri Lanka can raise that sort of money solely through taxing its people. The alternative therefore is to borrow.

However, in a democratic governance parliament has to approve government’s financial proposals. To MR that was not a problem, because it was an emergency situation and the Government’s propaganda machine portrayed the war not as one between a misguided rebellious group versus the rest, as it happened previously during the JVP insurrection in 1971, but as an existential confrontation between the Sinhalese and the Tamils.

That was how even JR justified his pogrom, as a legitimate Sinhalese response to Tamil atrocities. Thus the Sinhalese majority Parliament had no qualms in approving President MR’s requests. Irrespective of Parliament’s approval, JR’s executive presidency empowered the office holder to resort to any action to overcome an emergency. MR and his Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, went to the global arms bazaar with borrowed money to procure modern weapons. The civil war ensued in earnest and the rest is history.

No doubt MR won the war quite comprehensively although he lost the peace. He deserves to be congratulated for getting rid of the LTTE menace. Disappointingly though, he missed a golden opportunity to solve the Tamil issue once and for all and reunite the country. Instead, while sections of his party supporters were basking in the false warmth of schadenfreude, MR used the power of his office to go on a spending spree again with borrowed money to fund some of his questionable development projects.

A number of these projects were prestige oriented rather than growth oriented. As a result, the Mattala Airport for example, has turned out to be a white elephant, and the Hambantota Harbour project leased to the Chinese for 99 years has dragged Sri Lanka into the vortex of Indian Ocean geopolitics. Unsurprisingly, the spectre of re-colonisation has come to haunt the minds of some thinkers and writers in the country.

Above all, in the course of the nation’s war-associated but extravagant expenditure, the personal wealth that MR, his clan and cronies accumulated unleashed a wave of corruption and money laundering unprecedented in the history of the country. A kleptocracy was well and truly in the making during his regime. For this the people punished MR at the ballot box in 2015 when he recontested for the presidency; but his legacy of limitless borrowing, corruption and imprudent expenditure has continued under his successor President MS and Prime Minister RW.

What originated as a budgetary crisis in the wake of the civil war, because of profligate spending, reckless borrowing and pernicious corruption, all within JR’s neoliberal economic paradigm and his Gaullist presidency, has metamorphosed into a financial and economic crisis. This in short is the JR-MR effect that is now afflicting the country.

There is no magical solution to ward off the malediction. Instead, it requires hard and decisive rational thinking to redesign the national economic framework while at the same time rewriting the presidential Constitution. This is the immediate challenge facing the nation. 

(The writer is attached to the School of Business and Governance, Murdoch University, Western Australia.)

Sri Lanka: Sirisena rejects the NCM against Rajapaksa again


DEVELOPING STORY 
(November 17, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Maithripala Sirisena has written a letter to the Speaker of the Parliament by saying that he will not accept the No Confidence Motion against installed Prime Minister Rajapaksa passed by the majority of the parliament today, reliable sources in Presidential Office told the Sri Lanka Guardian.
This is the second time Sirisena refused to accept the Parliament verdict.
The letter will be sent to the Speaker shortly.
Meanwhile, Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena MP, says by quoting the President Sirisena, “the President will not appoint sitting Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe as the Prime Minister again”.
Related Stories:

Sri Lanka: I’m protecting democracy — Speaker

Sri Lanka: Rajapaksa lost the confidence once again

Sri Lanka: PM Ranil Wickremesinghe Declared Victory

Sri Lanka: Call for a Presidential Election

Sri Lankan President Sirisena Disrespected Democracy

Rival Sri Lankan lawmakers exchanging blows in Parliament in Colombo on Thursday.CreditCreditLahiru Harshana/Associated Press

By Dharisha Bastians and Jeffrey Gettleman-Nov. 15, 2018

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — When the parliamentary speaker tried to call a vote, several lawmakers heckled him, and a gang of them swarmed the podium and broke his microphone. Someone threw a garbage bin at him. Then a bound copy of the Sri Lankan Constitution soared through the air.

Fists swung wildly. Several lawmakers were injured. The speaker, Karu Jayasuriya, 78, had to be hurried out a back door and the session canceled. Several members of Parliament were left dabbing their wounds with tissue paper.

But the chaos on the floor of Sri Lanka’s Parliament on Thursday may have finally focused the deeply divided government. For the first time since a constitutional crisis erupted last month, pitting the president against his own prime minister, the two sides are meeting.

Lawmakers in Colombo, the seaside capital, said Thursday night that they had talked to the president, trying to find a way to break the deadlock.

“We expect proceedings to be conducted in a more respectful manner tomorrow,” Rajavarothiam Sampanthan, an opposition lawmaker, said Thursday night.

For several weeks now, Sri Lanka’s government has been cast into confusion. It’s not even clear who is prime minister.

In late October, the president, Maithripala Sirisena, abruptly sacked the prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, calling him inept and corrupt.
The president then appointed a new prime minister: Mahinda Rajapaksa, a former president who is considered something of a strongman. When lawmakers balked at this, the president simply dissolved the Parliament.

But the tide has turned in the past few days. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued an interim order vacating the president’s sacking of the Parliament.

On Wednesday, when the parliament reconvened, a majority of lawmakers passed a no-confidence vote in Mr. Rajapaksa, which, according to Sri Lankan constitutional experts, means he is no longer prime minister.

This Indian Ocean island nation of 22 million people, known for its tasty tea and plentiful coconuts, is seen as a prize by both India and China. India had a friendly relationship with Sri Lanka for years, but recently China has invested heavily in the country and lent the island money that it is struggling to pay back.

The Rajapaksa family is considered the most powerful on the island. Mr. Rajapaksa was an authoritarian president, criticized for stifling dissent and accused of war crimes at the end of Sri Lanka’s civil war, which he brought to a decisive close in 2009. Several of his brothers have served in high levels of government.

On Thursday, it was his supporters who attacked the speaker of Parliament, trying to block a vote that would have expressed disapproval with a speech Mr. Rajapaksa had just made, in which he called for fresh elections.

Sri Lankan lawmakers have brawled many times before. But this was the first time, many said, that the speaker had been assaulted.

Mr. Wickremesinghe still claims he is the rightful prime minister. Both Mr. Rajapaksa and Mr. Sirisena have said they didn’t accept the no-confidence motion against Mr. Rajapaksa, claiming that the speaker had no right to call such a vote or that he did it in the wrong way.

On Thursday night, a lawmaker allied to Mr. Sirisena said the president would accept a new no-confidence vote, if it were done properly.


Western ambassadors, who have joined the crowds in the parliament gallery over the past several days, have asked all sides to work out a political settlement in line with Sri Lankan law.


Dharisha Bastians reported from Colombo and Jeffrey Gettleman from New Delhi, India.
A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: Melee Erupts In Parliament Of Sri Lanka. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Democracy Hijacked; By Whom?

Raj Gonsalkorale
logoThe political impasse continues in Sri Lanka, and the country has virtually come to a halt. The economy, which was in a perilous state before the dismissal of Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, very likely would have worsened now. The rupee continues to slide and price of goods are rising in line with the rupe depreciation. 
So, while Sri Lanka is burning, metaphorically, our Nero’s are fiddling.
For the good of the future generations of the country, it is time all Nero’s took a step back and took stock of the damage they are doing to the country by their fiddling.
It is time President Sirisena, Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa, Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe, and Mr Sampanthan by whatever titles they wish to call themselves, and Speaker Mr Karu Jayasuriya sat together along with other party leaders, and worked out a solution to the political impasse in the country and stopped the bleeding that is going on now.
The dismissal of Mr Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister has not been challenged in the only forum where it can and should be, the Supreme Court of the country. This gives one the impression that this act was constitutional or those affected believed it was so. This is just a logical view and not a constitutional view as Mr Wickremesinghe himself, as the injured party, should have challenged this Presidential decision in the Supreme Court if he thought it was not constitutional.
The following clauses in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution appears to confirm that the Presidential decision was constitutional
46 (2) The Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution 
46 (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (1) of this Article, where the recognized political party or the independent group which obtains highest number of seats in Parliament forms a National Government, the number of Ministers in the Cabinet of Ministers, the number of Ministers who are not Cabinet of Ministers and the number of Deputy Ministers shall be determined by Parliament. 
(5) For the purpose of paragraph (4), National Government means, a Government formed by the recognized political party or the independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament together with the other recognized political parties or the independent groups. 
46 (2) seems to state that if a cabinet of ministers’ cease to function, then the Prime Minister ceases to hold office
The Sri Lankan Parliament approved the formation of a National Government on the 4th of September 2015 after the UPFA led by the SLFP and the UNF led by the UNP signed an MOU. So in effect, until the UPFA withdrew from the MOU on the 26th of October 2018, a National government existed in the country. Correspondingly, the National government ceased to exist once one party to the two party MOU withdrew from the MOU. Logical?
If there is no government, one cannot have a cabinet. Logical?
And, as per clause 46 (2) the Prime Minister ceases to hold office if there is no cabinet. Again, logical?
Then the President has to appoint a new Prime Minister and ask him/her to form a cabinet, and hence a new government
The President did so as per clause 42 (2) and appointed Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister. 
42 (4) The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament
This clause has been badly worded as it does not specifically and unambiguously require the Prime Minister so appointed, to seek a vote of confidence in the Parliament. The words “Presidents opinion”, “most likely” are neither here nor there and the onus is on those opposed to the Prime Minister and the government to move a vote of no confidence consistent with Parliamentary procedures and practices. There is no ambiguity about exercising this option.
In the current situation, the President has taken a stand that the vote of no confidence on Prime Minister Rajapaksa has not been done in conformity with standard Parliamentary procedures and practices.

Read More

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Israel kills Gaza fisher despite ceasefire

A young man pulls on a pile of fishing nets while standing next to docked boats
Palestinian fishing boats in the Gaza City seaport in July 2018.
 Ashraf AmraAPA images

Maureen Clare Murphy - 14 November 2018
Israel killed a fisherman in Gaza less than 24 hours after a ceasefire ended intensive bombing against and rocket fire from the territory.
Gaza’s health ministry identified the slain man as Nawaf Ahmad al-Attar, 20.
The head of Gaza’s fishers union said that Israeli soldiers positioned on land shot at al-Attar when he was only 30 meters into the sea in northern Gaza.
Israel restricted access to the sea for fishing since Monday evening, according to the rights group Gisha.
On Wednesday Israel partly lifted the restrictions but banned fishers from working in the waters of northern Gaza, accounting for one-third of the coastline.
The permitted fishing areas off of other areas of Gaza range from six to nine nautical miles.
Under the 1993 Oslo accords signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, Gaza’s fishing zone was supposed to extend 20 nautical miles out from shore. But Israel has never allowed this and the furthest Gaza’s fishers have been able to sail out has been 12 nautical miles.
“These restrictions and practices further impoverish fishers who live below the subsistence level,” the rights group Al Mezan stated on Wednesday.
Nine fishers have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza since the year 2000.
Two Palestinian fishers were killed by Egyptian naval forces this year, including Mustafa Khalil Abu Odeh, 30, who was shot dead off the coast of Rafah, southern Gaza, last week.
The use of lethal force against fishers in Gaza is part of a militarily enforced land, air and naval blockade imposed on the territory for more than 11 years.
The human rights group Al-Haq stated this week that the blockade, which amounts to unlawful collective punishment, has created “a human-made humanitarian crisis” for its two million residents, “more than half of whom are Palestinian refugees.”
The ceasefire agreement announced on Tuesday, essentially a return to the status quo that followed the ceasefire ending a massive assault on Gaza in 2014, is not enough to prevent further escalation and bring normal living conditions to the territory, Gisha stated on Wednesday.
“In the four-plus years since the ceasefire was reached, there has been a gaping chasm between Israel’s official rhetoric and its actions on the ground in Gaza,” Gisha stated.
“Israeli officials pay lip service to the difficult situation and the need for economic recovery in the Strip, while harsh restrictions on movement of people and goods continue in a way that renders recovery a distant dream.”
Over the past eight months nearly 175 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces during mass protests against the blockade. The protests also call for the realization of refugees’ right to return to lands of origin on the other side of the Gaza-Israel boundary.
This week Al-Haq reiterated its call for sanctions on Israel over its “systematic suppression of the Great Return March protests.”
A man holds a tray of sweets amid a crowd
Palestinians celebrate the resignation of Israeli defense minister Avigdor Lieberman outside the Gaza City home of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on 14 November.
 Ashraf AmraAPA images
Avigdor Lieberman, blamed by Hamas for the botched commando raid precipitating the crisis earlier this week, resigned from his post as defense minister on Wednesday in protest of Tuesday’s ceasefire and an influx of Qatari cash bringing economic relief to Gaza last week.
Weeks earlier Lieberman had advocated for another war on Gaza to enforce Israel’s blockade on the territory.
He had unilaterally halted fuel deliveries to Gaza, bringing essential services such as health and sanitation to near collapse, until Israel’s security cabinet hampered his ability to make such orders.
“There is no other definition, no other significance, but a capitulation to terror,” Lieberman said on Wednesday. “What we are doing now as a country is buying short-term quiet at the cost of our long-term security.”
Hamas greeted Lieberman’s resignation as an “admission of defeat and a political triumph for the Palestinian people,” in the words of spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri.
Education minister Naftali Bennett, who also opposed the ceasefire with Hamas, said that his far-right Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) party would quit Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition if he doesn’t get the defense minister portfolio.

When scholars turn slayers of reason


“… I think, that the intellectual is an individual endowed with a faculty of representing, embodying, articulating a message, a view, an attitude, philosophy or opinion to, as well as for, a public. And this role has an edge to it, and cannot be played without a sense of being someone whose place it is publically to raise embarrassing questions, to confront orthodoxy and dogma (rather than to produce them), TO BE SOMEONE WHO CANNOT BE EASILY BE CO-OPTED BY GOVERNMENTS OR CORPORATIONS, and whose raison d’etre is to represent all those people and issues that are routinely forgotten or swept under the rug. The intellectual does so on the basis of universal principles: that all human beings are entitled to expect decent standards of behaviour concerning freedom and justice from worldly powers or nations, and that deliberate or inadvertent violations of these standards need to be testified and fought against courageously” – Edward Said, Representations of the Intellectual, London: Vintage, 1994, p 9, capitals added

logoThursday, 15 November 2018

This lengthy quote from an impeccable and outstanding Palestinian-American scholar is a timely reminder to all intellectuals in Sri Lanka that the country’s destiny rests very heavily on their courage to speak truth in front of power.

Never in the history of this nation that its intellectuals are ethically, morally and above all patriotically forced to express their erudite but dispassionate, independent and fearless observations, views, opinions and philosophy, particularly in relation to the current constitutional and political crisis.

The stand they take in this time of unparalleled controversy will go to prove their intellectual integrity, honesty, dedication and love towards their fellow citizens. They can either stand on their own and be counted as a formidable force to depend upon for worthy advice in times of crisis and be respected by the society at large or become mercenary writers, speakers, opinion makers and apologists to a particular faction or group and mortgage their erudition for personal advantage.   

Scholarship, acquired through rigorous learning under dedicated teachers and scholar preachers over many years is an individual’s asset that cannot be stolen or destroyed. It is the ceaseless accumulation of that asset that pushes a nation, its society and culture to the apex of glory and civilisation, and bestows a proud legacy upon endless generations.

When that scholarship becomes a saleable product in the political market and bargained away for money, status and privilege the bearers of that scholarship not only lose their intellectual stature but also public respect. This is the unmitigated tragedy of Sri Lanka’s commercialised politics where some of its so called intellectuals have decided to market their intellect to the highest political bidder.

When social anthropologists, historians, political scientists, legalists, economists and experts in other fields look at their respective objects or data through politically warped lenses how can they claim that their explanations, arguments, logic and conclusions are objective and unprejudiced? They fail to educate their listeners and readers and deliberately deprive the latter the opportunity to make informed choices.

These comprador experts are hirelings who betray the society that produced them. Their pen is certainly not mightier than the sword. While one is astonished to witness the intellectual gymnastics of some of our renowned scholars to produce what Donald Trump would call “alternate facts”, one is also enthralled at the courage of some others who are daring to speak the truth at this critical point of time. 

Sri Lanka’s Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and Islamic traditions have a special and venerated place for esteemed intellectuals, teachers and preachers not only because the value they place on knowledge itself but also because of the expectation that this elite would stand up and fight against injustice, corruption, oppression and other intolerable evils. That expectation will be crushed when intellectuals become mercenaries working for power seeking politicians and fraudsters.

The country today stands at a T-junction. One direction points towards democracy, freedom and rule OF law and the other points towards dictatorship, oppression and rule BY law. It is the patriotic duty of the nation’s intellectuals to guide the masses to make the right choice. History will judge these intellectual class harshly if it fails to do so.

(The writer is attached to the School of Business and Governance, Murdoch University, Western Australia.)

Khashoggi case: US imposes sanctions on top MBS aides


Targeted individuals include senior adviser to the royal court and Saudi Arabia's consul general to Istanbul
Seventeen Saudi officials have been sanctioned under US's Magnitsky designations (AFP/ File photo)

Thursday 15 November 2018
The United States imposed sanctions on 17 Saudi officials, including Saud al-Qahtani, a confidant and senior adviser to powerful Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, in a first round of sanctions related to the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
The US Treasury Department blacklisted the individuals with Global Magnitsky designations on Thursday, which would block their assets in the US and ban US financial transactions with them.
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the Saudi officials targeted by the sanctions were involved in the "abhorrent killing" of Khashoggi.
"These individuals who targeted and brutally killed a journalist who resided and worked in the United States must face consequences for their actions," Mnuchin said in a statement.
READ MORE ►
Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen and prominent journalist who was critical of the Saudi government, was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October after entering to retrieve personal documents.
In its statement, the US Treasury described Qahtani as "a senior official of the Government of Saudi Arabia who was part of the planning and execution of the operation" that led to Khashoggi's killing.
The Saudi consul general to Istanbul, Mohammad al-Otaibi, who led early efforts by Saudi Arabia to convince journalists and critics that Khashoggi had left the consulate alive, is also on the list of individuals targeted by the US sanctions.
So is Maher Mutreb, an aide to bin Salman who has been spotted in the crown prince’s entourage during diplomatic trips abroad.
"The United States continues to diligently work to ascertain all of the facts and will hold accountable each of those we find responsible in order to achieve justice for Khashoggi’s fiancee, children, and the family he leaves behind," Mnuchin said.
He also called on Riyadh to take "appropriate steps" to end the targeting of dissidents and journalists.

Sanctions 'not enough'

The US sanctions come as Saudi Arabia announced on Thursday that it will be seeking the death penalty for five individuals accused of killing Khashoggi.
The Saudi indictments were welcomed by US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, who called them a "good first step".
"We regard the announcement that they made as a good first step. It's a step in the right direction," Nauert told reporters. "It is an initial investigation finding. It is important that those steps continue to be taken toward full accountability."
Still, the Saudi public prosector's office made no mention of bin Salman - commonly known as MBS - who, despite strong Saudi denials, is widely believed to have had knowledge of the plan to kill Khashoggi.
Critics say the involvement of senior officials who would normally report directly to MBS confirms that he ordered the assassination.
Qahtani has vast influence in the crown prince’s circle and once said he would never do anything without his boss's approval.
"Do you think I rebuke (others) on my own accord without direction? I am an employee and a loyal executor of the orders of my master, the king, and my master, his highness the crown prince," Qahtani tweeted last summer.
In an audio recording of Khashoggi's murder, Mutreb, who was part of a 15-member hit team sent to Turkey to kill Khashoggi and is also subject to Thursday's sanctions, told an aide of the crown prince to "tell your boss" after the killing, the New York Times reported earlier this week.
US intelligence officials told the newspaper they believe the "boss" in question was bin Salman.
Khashoggi's Washington Post editor, Karen Attiah, said on Thursday that US sanctions were "not enough".
"Sanctions will not fix this," Attiah tweeted, calling for an international investigation into what happened to the journalist.
The Washington Post’s publisher Fred Ryan said Washington and Riyadh want the world to take their word that the perpetrators of the murder have been punished, while important questions about the crime remain unanswered.
"From the start, the Saudi 'investigation' has been an effort to shield those ultimately responsible for this heinous crime when there is every reason to believe that it was authorized at the highest levels of the Saudi government," Ryan said in a statement.
He called on the US government to back an independent probe into the killing of Khashoggi. 

US under pressure to hold Saudis accountable

Saudi Arabia has so far presented various contradictory versions of the events that led to Khashoggi’s death.

Officials from the kingdom first rejected the now-validated claim that Khashoggi never left the consulate alive. It wasn’t until 17 days after the crime that Riyadh admitted the journalist was indeed killed inside the building.

Saudi officials then said Khashoggi was killed during an unauthorised interrogation that went wrong, and only later acknowledged that the murder was premeditated.
Saudi-US relations have been rocked amid the crisis over Khashoggi's killing, as politicians from both major US parties quickly denounced Saudi Arabia and called for Washington to rethink its relationship with Riyadh altogether.
Leading members on the US Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee triggered the Magnitsky Act in relation to Khashoggi’s case last month.
Under the human rights act, which was used against Russian nationals involved in serious crimes, Donald Trump was given 120 days to issue a report on the findings and impose appropriate measures.
The Trump White House, meanwhile, has approached the crisis cautiously. While branding the murder and subsequent attempt to hide it “the worst cover up ever”, the US president has repeatedly highlighted the importance of Washington’s economic ties with Riyadh, including billions of dollars worth of arms deals.
Trump has also said that it is important for him to know that bin Salman was involved in the murder.
I don’t think there’s any question that (MBS) directed it, knew it
-Bob Corker, outgoing Senate Foreign Affairs Committee chairman
Earlier this week, US National Security Adviser John Bolton said there was no evidence to tie the Saudi crown prince to the crime.
That has been disputed by several US politicians.
Republican Senator Bob Corker, the outgoing Senate Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, told The Hill the intelligence “points to” MBS. "I don’t think there’s any question that he directed it, knew it."
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham also expressed scepticism about Bolton's comment.
“It’s pretty hard for me to believe that 15 people just on their own fly to Turkey and chop somebody up in a consulate and never tell anybody in Saudi Arabia about it,” Graham said, as reported by The Hill.
“I’d be shocked if that turns out to be true.”