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, January 25, 2019

SriLankan Airlines’ HHR Pradeepa Kekulawela Transferred

logo
Controversial SriLankan Airlines‘ Head of Human Resources Pradeepa Kekulawela has finally been transferred and will now oversee the Properties and Logistics Department of the airline.
Pradeepa Kekulawala
The national carrier releasing a Human Resources communique to all staff revealed that the decision was taken by the Board of Directors on the 24th of January 2019 and will be in effect as of today.
Srimanthaka Senanayake the airline’s Senior Manager International Relations has been entrusted to oversee the Human Resources functions in addition to his current duties.
As the former Head of Human Resources, Kekulawela earlier drew severe flak when he was named in the “Weliamuna Report” by Lawyer J.C. Weliamuna and his team of lawyers who had conducted a government ordered investigation into the airline for fraud and corruption in 2015.
In February 2018, many employees of the national carrier voluntarily came forward to expose Kekulawela yet again in the ongoing Presidential Commission of Inquiry into fraud and corruption caused at SriLankan Airlines, Mihin Lanka and SriLankan Catering.
Notably it was Captain Ruwan Vithange the President of the Airline Pilots Guild of Sri Lanka, who handed a dossier of information to the current investigation commission on the alleged fraudulent corrupter.
Captain Vithanage also handed an official letter to the airline’s Chairman and Board of Directors stating that the APGSL had no confidence in Kekulawela continuing to be their Head of Human Resources. The letter stated 12 reasons as to why they wanted Kekulwela removed.
Earlier even the Flight Attendants Union (FAU) officially threatened the airline’s senior management that they would take legal action against the company as Kekulawela was instrumental in promoting employees much against documented clauses as stated in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which they had signed with the airline’s management.
Pradeepa Kekulawela was also reported in the media on several occasions for shelving reported cases, such as human smuggling, fraud and corruption committed by employees of the airline.
Much to the chagrin of many employees of the airline, Kekulawela’s role as Head of Human Resources continued to be protected, as he curried favour with the current Yahapalanaya government’s appointed former Chairman Ajith Dias and former CEO Suren Ratwatte and its former Board of Directors.

Read More

Making of strange political twins

 2019-01-25

Provincial Council (PC) elections withheld for far too long by both the Government and the Elections Commission (EC) not wanting to take responsibility is leading to a major political conflict yet to break into an open debate and public protests.


Joint Opposition Spokesperson MP Dinesh Gunawardena has repeatedly requested the EC to hold elections without further delay. Prof. G.L Peiris as President of the SLPP says he would go to Courts requesting an order to hold PC elections. Those who stood for democracy just four months ago from October to early December are no more interested in democracy.
Colombo as an uneasy spot of conflicts, is fast heating up. A leading hand in drafting the New Constitution TNA MP Sumanthiran is adamant it would be a reality soon. His initial promise was to have it adopted in Parliament before February Four. The PM now feels certain the required 2/3 vote in Parliament would not be possible. 
The two high priests of Malwatte and Asgiriya Chapters have also said elections were more important than a new Constitution. Others are joining in. Jaffna too is in political turmoil. An alternative political party to the TNA was launched as Thamil Makkal Kootani (Tamil People’s Alliance - TPA) in November 2018 with former Northern Province Chief Minister Justice Wigneswaran as its leader.

Their Executive Committee met in Jaffna for the first time last Sunday, 20 January. Though the Colombo mainstream media lost on its importance, this new political entity can change the face of Tamil politics.
They are more focussed on major issues the people of Vanni and North are struggling to find answers to issues for over nine years after the war had concluded.
The TPA and Wigneswaran have taken over almost all the promises the TNA made for the 2015 August Parliamentary elections but dumped for convenience in compromising with the Wickremesinghe Government.
The TNA’s polluted promise for a Federal form of Government for North-East had been enlarged upon by Wigneswaran at the first Exco meeting, incorporating a special Muslim Administrative Unit for East. A proposal Wigneswaran believes would give his TPA a new opening in the East.This comes in the wake of ITAK leadership wholly undermining the need of devolved power to provinces. 

Using this government’s most undemocratic strategy of suppressing elections for the six dissolved Provincial Councils including North and East, the ITAK leadership wants to substitute themselves as agents of the Central Government in Colombo for what they term development in North and East.
The Demand for devolved power for a merged North and East has been the mainstay in Tamil politics ever since Thimpu Discussions in 1984.
But as publicly stated by both Sumanthiran and Mavai Senathirajah, the Northern Province Development Ministry under PM Wickremesinghe would be renamed as Northern and Eastern Province Development Ministry to work in consultation with TNA Parliamentarians.
All Cabinet decisions regarding N-E development thereafter will be with TNA consent, they claim. That now makes the TNA look a clone of Sinhala extremism that says,

If Tamil people have issues, they have to sort them out in Colombo and stop demanding devolved power to provinces.
This in a way exposes the political contradiction in Sumanthiran’s claim for a new Constitution.If the TNA leadership can address development in North and East through a Joint Mechanism that allows for collaborative cabinet decisions within the present Unitary Constitution, why demand a new Constitution with new labels? Their stepping into State power in North and East is no different to that of Douglas Devananda, Angajan Ramanathan and till recent times to the role played byVijayakala Maheswaran. 

In the post-independent history of this country, the ITAK (Popularly called FP), the TULF and TNA parliamentarians till they gave up on their responsibility of representing post-war issues of Tamil people, were not directly involved in Colombo Centred State Power. With this new compromise in Colombo, ITAK would perhaps replace Devananda and Ramanathan in the North with Mavai Senathirajah and Sumanthiran.
The absence of ITAK leadership in North and Vanni, while people agitated and protested over post-war issues including the release of their land and family members detained for many years without charges, required an organic political representation to stand with the people.  The TPA cannot drag themselves without PC elections and fall into the political trap of facing a Presidential Election end of this year.
  • "Demand for immediate PC elections would bridge North, East and South

  • MP Sumanthiran is adamant the Constitution would be a reality soon

  • PM Ranil Wickremesinghe doubts 2/3 in Parliament"

A Presidential Election would leave the Tamil people in a dilemma as to whom they should vote for. They could run a Tamil candidate standing for a Federal form of Government. That would deny the anti-Rajapaksa candidate a vote mass of about 600,000 votes.
For Tamil emotions to allow a Rajapaksa comeback would be indigestible. Therefore, both the TNA and the TPA would have to stand against any Presidential candidate backed by Rajapaksa. That would make Sampanthan and Wigneswaran look like Political Twins. This makes PCs in North and East extremely important for Wigneswaran and the TPA to establish their political identity different to TNA, before any other election.That calls on the TPA to launch a People’s Campaign in North and East demanding immediate elections for PCs under the still valid law, Act No.02 of 1988.
Demanding immediate PC elections alone would make the TPA different to the politically corrupt ITAK leadership. This would make the TPA the Lotus Bud of Tamil politics.

In the Sinhala South, MR is also in a political dilemma no different to Wigneswaran’s. 
He has to go on a quick fix damage controlling tour since his October blunder.Back to a smaller square one, he cannot go on evading the question, who the SLPP Presidential candidate would be.
Black or white, the mainstream media would turn a nuisance asking him whom he would back as a presidential candidate. Meanwhile, the Western power bloc in Colombo would want Wickremesinghe to avoid all elections this year, to make sure Rajapaksa is left behind at the 2020 Presidential Elections.
Thus, MR is also hard-pressed to establish his political authority in the Sinhala South to bargain for his share at the next elections. That again is about PC elections to prove he still is the lead force in political bargains.

In the East, former Chief Minister Nazeer Zainulabdeen too needs to have PC elections to counter the newly appointed Governor M.L.M.A Hizbullah from encroaching into his political future. An ambitious Hizbullah he had always been in developing his political presence in the East, he would not remain as an independent ‘a-political governor of the Province.Thus, PC elections this Wickremesinghe Government and the Election Commission with its Chairman are withholding from the People pushing responsibility to each other’s shoulders is turning out to be the most important political issue, if not now, then after the 71st Independence Day celebrations. The SLPP and Rajapaksa will have to demand PC elections for the already dissolved six PCs to assert their popularity and political power before any other election.
That would depend on how they mobilise the provinces in demanding PC elections. There are no more shortcuts available for Rajapaksa and the judiciary cannot be trusted with time. It’s now a game of public power-play for the SLPP.

They have to openly lay blame with the Review Committee headed by PM for having stalled the whole process of enacting the new Act No.17 of 2017.
The Review Committee Report had to be presented within two months for the President to Gazette it as law.
The deadline was 28 October 2018. That was not honoured by the Review Committee thus leaving the new law in limbo. There is no tradition in democracies to shelve the prevailing law, expecting a new law to come in to force some day in the future.
As provided for in the Interpretation Ordinance, the prevailing law PC Election Act No. 02 of 1988 remains law. The SLPP will, therefore, have to give the EC a deadline to hold PC elections to all dissolved PCs under the PC Election Act No.02 of 1988. It needs no approval from any other for the EC to hold PC elections immediately.

The EC on its own or in connivance with any other, cannot suspend the Sovereign Right of the People to elect their representatives.
Sovereignty lies with the People and is inalienable according to the Constitution and Article 03 of Chapter I says, it includes the right to govern, fundamental rights and the right to vote. If the TPA and its leader Wigneswaran would demand elections for dissolved N-E PCs based on that inalienable right of the people, with former Eastern Province Chief Minister Nazeer Zainulabdeen also joining in and the same happens in the South with Rajapaksa and SLPP demanding PC elections immediately, bridging of the North, East and South divide on PC elections would be a new political phenomenon altogether.
It would be politically an interesting alliance, if Rajapaksa and the SLPP have the political gumption to collaborate with North and East on a popular people’s platform in forcing the EC to hold PC elections under the still operative and effective PC Elections Act No. 02 of 1988.
If they all see eye to eye, the month of February would be politically an interesting month to wait for.

Petitioning courts against President’s refusal to appoint some MPs as ministers

The Constitutional Madhouse – Part 1


article_image
By C. A. Chandraprema- 

When former minister Sarath Fonseka was denied a ministry by President Sirisena last December, he threatened to go before courts to obtain what he deems to be his rightful place in the UNP government, formed following the restoration of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe to that post. He has not yet followed up on that threat, but we now hear that some of the SLFP members who defected to the UNP recently are also contemplating petitioning courts because they, too, have been denied ministerial appointments. The fact is that after the 19th Amendment, these aggrieved parties do have provisions under which they can petition courts to seek redress.

Article 43(1) of the present Constitution, as amended by the 19th Amendment, states that the President shall, in consultation with the Prime Minister, where he considers such consultation to be necessary, determine the number of Cabinet Ministers and the assignment of subjects and functions to such Ministers. Thus, to determine the number of ministries in the government and the assignment of subjects to those ministries, the President is not bound to obtain the Prime Minister’s advice but can do so if he so wishes. However, under Article 43(2) when the President appoints individuals to the Cabinet slots determined in accordance with Article 43(1), he is mandatorily required to obtain the advice of the Prime Minister. Article 43(2) goes as follows: "The President shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint from among Members of Parliament, Ministers, to be in charge of the Ministries so determined." The word ‘shall’ denotes a mandatory requirement.

The 19th Amendment made the President’s actions justiciable and that is what gives certain individuals the confidence that they would be able to go to courts and obtain redress. According to the system that all Sri Lankans had got used to until the 19th Amendment came along, it was the President who would decide who got ministries and who didn’t, and there was no higher authority that could be appealed to if the President refused to appoint someone as a minister. What happened after 1994 and 2001 when the parliamentary elections of those years were won by political parties opposed to the incumbent President was that the latter bowed to the public will and appointed as Ministers anybody recommended by the Prime Minister. After 15 December 2018, we once again have a situation where the President represents one party and the Prime Minister another political party.

Where today’s situation differs from that of 1994 and 2001 is that in this case, the President tried to call a general election and was thwarted in that attempt due to new provisions, introduced into the Constitution by the 19th Amendment, and now he is constrained to work with the very people he had tried to get rid of. Thus, the new Article 43(2) now comes into play and though the President is required by the Constitution to heed the advice of the Prime Minister in appointing Ministers, he has not abided by that requirement. In the recent judgment in the fundamental rights case relating to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a general election, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

"Article 35 (1) of the 1978 Constitution stipulated that during the period when a President holds office, no proceedings can be instituted or continued against him in any court or tribunal in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in his official or private capacity. Thus, prior to the 19th Amendment, Article 35 (1) conferred a blanket immunity upon a President [so long as he holds office] from being sued in respect of any act or omission done by him in his official capacity qua President or in his private capacity. However, as is well known, the proviso to Article 35 (1) introduced by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution introduced a very significant change. It states, "Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be read and construed as restricting the right of any person to make an application under Article 126 against the Attorney-General, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, in his official capacity."

"Thus, the proviso to Article 35 (1) entitles any person who complains that an act or omission by the President in his official capacity has violated a fundamental right of that person to institute a fundamental rights application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution against the Hon. Attorney General and seek a determination by the Supreme Court with regard to his complaint. In other words, the proviso to Article 35 (1) makes acts or omissions by the President in his official capacity justiciable within the limited sphere of an invocation of the jurisdiction for the protection of fundamental rights conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 118 (b) read with Article 126 of the Constitution and subject to the stipulation that the Hon. Attorney General [and not the President] is to be made the Respondent to the fundamental rights application filed by that person."

Give and take: Giving and then taking, literally!

If the dissolution of parliament and the calling of a general election are deemed to be within the rubric of ‘executive and administrative’ action of the President, then the appointment of ministers also falls into the same category, and the parties, aggrieved by President Sirisena’s decision to refuse ministerial appointments to some MPs, recommended for appointment by the PM, can, in fact, move the courts. What then is preventing them from filing action in courts? We saw that in the wake of the SC suspending the gazette dissolving Parliament and calling a general election, some people were so emboldened as to actually file a petition in courts asking for an order to have the President’s mental health examined. Then why has no one yet gone to the Supreme Court to complain that there has been a fundamental rights violation due to the President’s refusal to appoint certain individuals as ministers?

The stumbling block is Article 43(3), which was also introduced to the Constitution by the 19th Amendment. What Article 43(3) says is that "the President may at any time change the assignment of subjects and functions and the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers. Such changes shall not affect the continuity of the Cabinet of Ministers and the continuity of its responsibility to Parliament." What this means is that even if the aggrieved parties go to courts and obtain a judgment to the effect that their fundamental rights have been violated because the President has not abided by Article 43(2) of the Constitution, and the President is forced to swear the said individuals in as ministers of varying rank to the few vacancies still available, the President can sack the whole lot under Article 43(3) even before they leave the Presidential secretariat after the swearing in! Article 43(3) does not restrict the President’s ability to change the composition of the Cabinet in any way he likes and at any time he wishes.

There is a practical issue here in that the 30 Cabinet slots available under the Constitution are already taken and those who have been left out may have to be satisfied with a non-Cabinet portfolio. What Article 44(1) says about non-cabinet Ministers is that "The President may, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint from among Members of Parliament, Ministers who shall not be members of the Cabinet of Ministers. The use of the word ‘may’ in this provision indicates that it will be the President who has the discretion to decide whether he is going to appoint any non-Cabinet ministers at all. Even if the Prime Minister advises him to appoint some non-cabinet ministers, the final decision whether to do so or not will be the President’s. If, by some chance, the President decides to have non-Cabinet ministers, under article 44(2) it will be the President who determines the assignment of subjects and functions to those no-Cabinet Ministers. He can consult the Prime Minister on the assignment of functions to those non-Cabinet ministers only if he deems such consultation to be necessary. Furthermore, under Article 44(3) the President may, at any time, change any assignment made to any non-Cabinet Minister. That basically leaves only the deputy minister slots. However, according to Article 45(1), it is the President who has the final discretion to decide whether there will be any deputy minister positions at all. What Article 45(1) says is that The President ‘may’ on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint from among Members of Parliament, Deputy Ministers to assist Cabinet Ministers in the performance of their duties. Once appointed, it will be the minister concerned who will assign subjects to his deputy and the President has no role in that. However, the initial decision to have a deputy minister for a given Cabinet minister will be with the President. Thus, we see that even though article 43(2) purports to empower the Prime Minister to appoint Cabinet Ministers, he actually has no such power in terms of the other provisions of the 19th Amendment. Welcome to the madhouse that is the Constitution of Sri Lanka today!

My life under threat


by Ali Sukhanver- 
Recently a write up appeared in the Washington Post titled, ‘I am a journalist who fled Pakistan, but I no longer feel safe in exile’ written by Mr. Taha Siddiqui, a journalist from Pakistan. Mr. Siddiqui claims that last year in January he survived an abduction and possible assassination attempt by armed men when he was on his way to the Islamabad airport in Pakistan. He believes the attack was orchestrated by the Pakistani army, which had been threatening him for years over his journalistic work on ‘military abuses’ in Pakistan.
After that ‘assault’ he somehow managed to move to France with his wife and five-year-old son. He is still there living a life of self-imposed exile. In his article he said, “ The U.S. intelligence officials told me they believe that, after Jamal Khashoggi’s killing, repressive regimes such as the one in Pakistan have been emboldened to silence critics, not only at home but also abroad.” He further said, “Now, after the warning I received, I once again fear for my life. Every time I leave my apartment, enter public places or simply walk on the streets in Paris, I am paranoid about being followed. Every time I stand on the subway platform, I fear that someone may push me on the tracks at the last moment.” Whatever Mr. Siddiqui said in his write-up is no doubt very horrible if true and very pathetic if not true; pathetic in a sense that blaming one’s own motherland and putting allegations on the security forces of one’s own country is usually a very uncommon rather rare practice. But unfortunately in Pakistan such practitioners are not very uncommon. I don’t remember the name of the writer but I remember someone had once said in a write up; just start shouting against the army, against the ISI or against the religious traditions if you wish to be blessed with a ‘long-term visa’ of US, UK, France or of other prosperous countries of the same category.
Spreading hatred against the security institutions of Pakistan has ever been a very favourite activity for all those who dream of a shattered and scattered Pakistan. Such ‘well-wishers’ of Pakistan are in abundance everywhere; inside Pakistan as well as outside Pakistan. If Pakistan didn’t have a strong army and if the ISI were professionally not so competent these ‘friends of Pakistan’ would have succeeded long ago but very interesting is the fact that spite of their continuous failure, these friends of Pakistan are never willing to surrender.
Just a week back, the Economist said in a report on Pakistan, “Since the founding of Pakistan in 1947, the army has not just defended state ideology but defined it, in two destructive ways. The country exists to safeguard Islam, not a tolerant, prosperous citizenry. And the army, believing the country to be surrounded by enemies, promotes a doctrine of persecution and paranoia.” The paper further said, “The paranoid doctrine helps the armed forces commandeer resources. More money goes to them than on development. Worse, it has bred a habit of geopolitical blackmail: help us financially or we might add to your perils in a very dangerous part of the world. This is at the root of Pakistan’s addiction to aid, despite its prickly nationalism.” In short the Economist did all its best to fix and frame the Pakistan Army behind all problems faced by Pakistan at present. What is false if the Pakistan Army says that Pakistan is surrounded by enemies; certainly the experts at The Economist could be asked this question. And what is wrong if Pakistan warns the world around of the dangers and perils the world will have to face in case Pakistan becomes financially weak. Certainly this all is simply a part of that blame-game which is being played since long to disrepute and to defame Pakistan.
The forces hostile to Pakistan have all rights to use all tools against Pakistan as all is fair in love and war; but what about those who claim to be Pakistanis but always stand with the enemies of Pakistan. Such unlucky ones enjoy all possible benefits of being a citizen of Pakistan but whenever they get a chance of defaming Pakistan, they waste not even a single moment. Same is the case with Taha Siddiqui who admits in his write-up, “I left Pakistan, where I had a stable job, a comfortable home and a strong journalism network.” Unfortunately today he is known to the world as a person dissatisfied with his own motherland.
There is another very important question; why do we need a license to shout against the Pakistan Army and the Inter Services Intelligence in the name of freedom of expression? Do the countries like the US, UK and France also allow every Tom Dick and Harry to defame their army and the intelligence agencies? Freedom and liberty of expression is important no doubt but in the name of such liberty, no country could allow anyone to vomit venom against those who sacrifice their lives for the safety and security of the country. The fact of the matter is that Pakistan is in dire need of reshaping the rules and regulations regarding the so-called freedom of expression. If we are blessed with a tongue in our mouth or a pen in our hand, that doesn’t mean we have a license to kill everyone with our spoken or written words.

Bribery and corruption come to the fore in an emotionally charged political climate


Disna Mudalige-Saturday, January 26, 2019

Outspoken MP Hirunika Premachandra stole the limelight in Parliament this week with a bold and blistering speech pouring out her anger and frustration over a whirl of speculation on an attempt to grant a Presidential Pardon to former MP Duminda Silva.

It was obvious that she was disturbed by the speculation that moves are underway to Pardon her arch-rival Duminda Silva, who was convicted after having found guilty for the murder of her father Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra.

She waged an arduous legal battle against former Defence Ministry Monitoring MP Duminda Silva, who had a lot of clout under the previous Rajapaksa administration, to finally mete out justice in the Colombo High Court in September 2016 and to seal it up in the Supreme Court in October last year.

Signing petitions

The young lawyer, recalling that those historical court rulings upheld the independence of judiciary, expressed her disappointment on the attempts to undermine them. In an emotionally-charged 20-minute speech, UNP MP Premachandra took the government to task for allegedly premeditating to release “a dominant drug baron in the country” serving life sentence.

“This is no longer a personal issue of mine. Whether Duminda Silva is now in the prison hospital for no other illness but obesity due to homemade food, whether he gets preferential treatment and whether he is allowed to go home once in a while are not of my concern. He is continuing illicit drug business from within the prison.

“He helps to pay the fine of other prisoners involved in minor drug offences and uses them as agents to continue his illegal business. President Sirisena after his recent visit to the Philippines vowed to wage a war against the drug menace. What will happen to the youth of this country if former MP Silva comes out of prison?”, a seemingly irate MP Premachandra questioned in a hard-hitting speech.
She said that she has reliable information and evidence that a group of people were going from house to house collecting signatures for a petition in the Colombo district, including Kolonnawa, to get a Presidential Pardon to former MP Silva on Independence Day.

Sharp criticism

However, MP Premachandra pointed out that the law requires the recommendation of the Attorney General, the Justice Minister and the judges who convicted former MP Silva to proceed with a Presidential Pardon. “I am convinced that Justice Minister Thalatha Athukorala is a woman with integrity who cannot be bought over. But I do not know whether the others will find a way to circumvent this law,” she remarked.

If former MP Silva is pardoned, Premachandra cautioned, other prisoners convicted for drug trafficking and serious crimes would also seek similar redresses. “How are you going to handle the situation then?,” she asked.

“After seeing the series of unconstitutional acts on and after October 26, I have enough reason to believe that Duminda Silva would also be granted a Pardon,” she said emitting her sad feelings.
She was taking the floor during the debate on the Commissions of Inquiry (Amendment) Bill, which the President had a special interest in. Her speech, though a divergence from the topic of fighting bribery and corruption, made all in the Chamber and the gallery sit up and take notice.

CIABOC gets more teeth

The Bill before the House that day was meant to widen the powers of the Bribery Commission to file cases based on the facts revealed by Commissions of Inquiry (CoI). An interesting debate ensued with many who took the floor complaining on the sluggish pace of legal actions against those accused of bribery and corruption.

It was encouraging to see that the legislation received the unanimous nod of the House, despite the fact that both the main parties are marred with MPs mired in corruption charges. According to the Amendments, Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) gets the power to file cases under the Bribery Act or Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law based on the findings of Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the President. The main purpose of the Bill is to avoid witnesses being re-called before the CIABOC, thus circumventing undue delays in the legal system.

Parliament took up the CoI Amendment Bill hot on the heels of President Sirisena appointing a new CoI to probe allegations of large scale corruption and fraud between January 15, 2015-December 31, 2018. The new Commission is said to be the next step of the PRECIFAC which inquired into the allegations of serious acts of fraud, corruption and abuse of power, state resources and privileges from January 10, 2010 to January 10, 2015.

The PRECIFAC presented its final report on January 2, 2018. The report, which deals with 34 specific cases, has named the wrongdoers in each case and has also recommended the actions against them.

The financial irregularities in SriLankan and Mihin Lanka Airlines and SriLankan Catering Ltd. are also being probed by a CoI appointed by the President on January 31, 2018. The amendment to the CoI Act came to the fore when legal barriers on taking action against those responsible in the Bond scam surfaced.

The much talked-of ‘Bond Report’ produced following thorough investigation by a CoI was handed over to the President in December 2017.

“Follow up actions a must”

Dispelling doubts harboured by some, Justice Minister Thalatha Athukorala assured that the Bill applies with retrospective effect. This means that the CIABOC can now re-open 30 odd CoI reports which had been gathering dust on the shelves with no substantial progress.

JVP MP Sunil Handunnetti, who joined in the debate soon after receiving the mantle of COPE Chairmanship for the third time, emphasised the importance of following up the recommendations in the hefty reports of CoI and parliamentary watchdog committees if the country to yield the expected results from them. “Otherwise the time and effort to produce those reports are wasted,” he commented.

Noteworthy, the JVP’s stake in the 16-member COPE has significantly reduced from four to one this time as the UPFA chose to sit in the Opposition as one group. Given the active contribution of the JVP MPs in the parliamentary watchdog committees, this was disheartening news. MP Handunnetti is the only JVP representative in the new COPE which got down to work this week. He tabled another COPE report in Parliament on Thursday putting a spotlight on staggering losses in several key public enterprises including the SriLankan Airlines.

New Year resolution: Attaining financial freedom in 2019!



logoThursday, 24 January 2019 

It is that time of the year when everyone, young and old is journaling their new-year resolutions, and reflecting on the past year. You might be disappointed if you are carrying forward a few resolutions from the past years. You could be thinking, what if you had a little bit more money in your bank account, or what if you had the job your friend or neighbour has, how it would have made you to feel accomplished.

If you are looking for a way to get money to work for you and not be enslaved to the financial burdens, this article would give you an insight on how to manage your money to achieve your resolutions and not feel disappointed in December 2019. As the first step toward achieving your 2019 resolutions, I would encourage you to take on the resolution: “Invest in being financially literate”.

‘Finance’ is not a specialised knowledge that is only relevant to the finance professionals. Rather, it is common knowledge required by everyone who encounters money. That is, irrespective of your profession, age, gender or marital status, all of us need to know how to interact with money, just like how we would acquire skills to socialise with people and get our daily tasks accomplished.

We were taught how to behave; at a school, at a religious place, at a business meeting, etc. But, is there anywhere we learn how to behave with our money? For most of us the answer would be ‘no’, because we learnt about money through trial and error. In the rest of the article we will discuss how to attain ‘Financial Freedom’ by looking at what is financial literacy, its importance and ways to achieve it.

Financial literacy? 

‘Financial literacy’ is a phrase that has been appearing on media recently. But, what does it mean to be financially literate? According to commonly accepted definitions of financial literacy, an individual who is financially literate would be able to; read, analyse, manage and communicate about personal financial conditions; recognise financial choices; plan for the future; respond competently to life events that affect every-day financial decisions and changes in the economy.

Therefore, financial literacy is of mainly two facets, ‘gaining financial knowledge’ and ‘learning a way of living or a lifestyle’. One without the other will not make an individual financially literate. Ability to understand financial decisions and financial choices could be achieved by gaining knowledge related to the basic financial concepts (interest, inflation and risk management).
Financial literacy is of mainly two categories. "Gaining financial knowledge" and a "lifestyle."
On the other hand, planning for future needs, and making appropriate financial decisions on every-day life events and economic conditions are influenced by an individual’s behaviour patterns, as these are a way of living (i.e. lifestyle) one needs to be chosen to follow. Just like our decisions and viewpoints on different life events are influenced by us and our upbringing, financial decisions and behaviours are affected by both, the level of financial knowledge one has on financial concepts and how well one practice what they know about money.


How do you achieve your new-year resolution of being financially literate?
Financial literacy as explained before encompasses both ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Lifestyle’. Therefore, in order to be financially literate one would require to obtain knowledge about financial concepts through formal education programs such as; schools, employer sponsored workshops and financial counselling. Due to the dynamic nature of the economy and developments in the field of finance not only do we need to include financial literacy in to our school curriculum but also, encourage workshops for adults, which would encourage continuous learning about the developments in the world of finance and the economy.

Knowledge alone will not ensure a behavioural change in an individual. It takes a lot of practice. As one of the old saying says, “Practice makes you perfect”, you got to put your financial knowledge in to continuous practice and embrace it as a lifestyle in order to be financially literate.


Teaching about ‘Money’ to your children!

We often overlook the contributions the family makes towards influencing behaviour of an individual. Every one of us have a role model in our lives, and most often than not parents become our role models. This is because parents are involved in laying the foundation of shaping our behaviour. From simple acts such as the way we hold the pencil to how we behave at the dinner table and how we respond to situation in our work places and families. The parents play a key role in shaping the value systems of their children. Therefore, when children are encountered with a decision, the thought process that leads to the decision is affected by their up brining.

Financial decisions are one of the most common decisions one would require to make in life. But, most of us are not socialised in to understanding what money is, how to behave around money, and how not to fall in to financial traps such as, impulse buying and marketing tricks.

Our family systems play an important role in shaping the behaviour of the young in appropriate financial behaviours just like it instils moral values and beliefs. In a future article we will look in to how to teach about money to your children. ‘Money’ is not a taboo topic to be discussed with your children, rather, it is one of the important life skills parents could impart to their children.


Cost of a low financial literacy to the workplace and economy

Being financially illiterate will have immediate consequences on an individual’s financial situation. But, we forget the ripple effect unfavourable financial situation will have on the employers and the greater economy. Today’s employers are faced with the problem of high staff turnover. Employers often experience employees switching jobs even for insignificant increments in employment benefits. Staff turnover comes at a cost to the employer. These costs involve (but not limited to) the cost of new recruitment, loss of internally generated knowledge, bottle necks in the process during the transition period, reduced employee morale, flow of skill and knowledge to competitors, etc. and many more.

Additionally, employers today also face a higher number of requests for staff loans and salary advances, which not only require a high administrative capacity, but also affect the bottom line of the company. Most employers fail to identify the root cause of the problem, keeping most companies away from providing a sustainable solution that will regain the company performance. Just like the golden rule in Human Resources says to ‘train’ your staff in the job related skills in order to retain them, I would encourage the employers to ‘train’ your employees in finance by investing in providing knowledge of finance to your employees.

This will put both the employers and employees in a win-win situation, where the employee is freed from ‘financial burden’ through better management of their personal financial situations, and the employer is provided with a satisfied work force which pave the way to overcome employee related problems and be on track to achieve company goals.

Poor financial decisions will have a ripple effect on the economy at large. For example, in the past, scandals in finance companies which ended in bankruptcy were made possible because the depositors of these institutions failed to conduct fact check and test financial principles on justification of high interest rates. In these situations not only did the individuals lose money, the entire financial system was at risk of instability, insecurity and lack of trust in the financial system at large. Today we see that lack of knowledge in finance concepts have a much far-reaching impact on our country’s financial and economic development. One such example is, how each political party is seen providing election promises of various subsidies, and now it has become a competition to provide the best package of subsidies to win an election. But, as a nation we do not understand that these subsidies comes at the cost of government debt, which has currently risen to an extent that it will take multiple generations to pay off.

Therefore, it is in my opinion that we as individuals, groups of individuals and as a nation is required to invest in Financial Education. Financial education not only provide personal benefits, it has an impact on enrich the experiences we create for ourselves and for our families, it will increase productivity and profitability of our economy and enable to break the vicious cycle of poverty as a nation in the long run.

(The writer is a co-trainer at Mani Talks Money, Sri Lanka. She holds a BBA in Finance from University of Colombo and currently is studying for Masters in Family Finance at University of Kentucky, USA. She can be reached at manitalksmoney@gmail.com.)

UNP Minister Jayawickrama Perera Colludes With Sirisena On Securing Release BBS Gnanasara

logo
 Senior Parliamentarian and Buddha Sasana Minister Gamini Jayawickrama Perera had confirmed to the Mahanayakes that he would discuss with President Maithripala Sirisena on seeking a Presidential pardon for the convicted Buddhist monk Galagoda Atte Gnanasara.
Gnanasara
Perera said he had received letters from Ramanna Nikaya, Diyawadana Nilame Pradeep Nilanga Dela of the Sri Dalada Maligawa, Kotte Sri Kalayani Samagi Dharma Maha Sangha Sabha, Mahanayake of the Asgiriya Chapter of the Siam Nikaya, and the Mahanayake of the Malwatte Chapter of the Siam Nikaya for the release of the controversial monk.
Gnanasara, the General Secretary of the Bodu Bala Senaorganization is convicted of contempt of court, as he threatened missing person Prageeth Ekneligoda‘s wife, Sandhya Ekneligoda, within the Homagama Magistrate’s Court premises. He is also facing several other court cases on different charges.
It is widely believed that Sirisena will grant Ganasara Presidential pardon on February 04. Jayawickrama Perera told the media he would discuss the possibility of the monk’s release after the President’s return from Singapore.
Jayawickrama Perera is the UNP MP to openly support the release of the Buddhist monk who is directly involved in instigating communal violence in Sri Lanka which has destroyed the lives of properties of many Muslims in several parts of the country.
“Jayawickrama Perera’s explicit support for Ganansara Thera is alarming. Although President Sirisena wants to release Ganansara Thera, he treads carefully on the matter as he is worried about the reaction of minorities. Jayawickrama Perera’s erratic behaviour gives Sirisena the opportunity to state that even the UNP supported Ganasara Thera’s release. It positions the UNP in a negative light from the standpoint of minorities,” a senior UNP Parliamentarian explained.
SLFP National Organizer Duminda Dissanayake has already requested President Sirisena to release Gnanasara. Dissanayake told the media last week he was confident that the President would release Gnnasara on February 04.

Read More

Why Lanka needs a NewsGuard like body to rate media

 2019-01-25
he double whammy that jolted journalism this week exposed the wide gap between what journalism is and what it should be. In an ideal sense, journalism is a noble vocation, the voice of the voiceless and the watchdog or the fourth estate.The first blow came when Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor investigating Russia’s alleged involvement in the election of Donald Trump as the United States President, denied an exclusive story carried in the popular news website BuzzFeed, which claims it has a 650 million plus global audience. The story claimed President Trump had advised his embattled former lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to the Congress. The story created a major uproar, pushing from the margin to the mainstream calls for the President’s impeachment. The discredited ‘scoop’ had stirred a debate on news websites’ reliability as they forge ahead to be the main source of news in the digital era while engaging in a stiff competition with the traditional mainstream media.  Notwithstanding BuzzFeed’s popularity, sensationalism or yellow journalism vindicates Trump and his coterie who scoff at the media, calling them fake news manufacturers.


The second blow to journalism came in the form a Microsoft browser plug-in. On Wednesday, the talk of the media circles was that the Microsoft browser Edge’s NewsGuard plug-in carried a ‘Proceed with Caution’ tag to warn visitors to mailonline, one of the world’s most popular websites. Of course, mailonline, the web arm of Britain’s Daily Mail, questioned the reliability of the NewsGuard rating, joining the Russia government mouthpiece sputnik and several anti-establishment websites which also had questioned the Microsoft’s motive. 
NewsGuard, an industry-based body consisting of veteran journalists, in response said the website rated one out of five because the mailonline “generally fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability”. 

When asked by the BBC, NewsGuard’s co-chief executive Gordon Crovitz, who used to oversee the Wall Street Journal’s business and journalism operations, said, “Our journalist analysts always contact websites if they get a negative rating on any of our nine journalistic criteria. The Mail Online chose not to reply.”
According to the watcher of the watchdog, based on its journalistic criteria on credibility and transparency, dozens of news websites had changed their practices to become more reliable sources of news.

"If media outlets declare their endorsement of a candidate or a political party, then their bias or partiality is somewhat acceptable. "

Journalism has evolved from tom-tom beaters of the ancient times to today’s ‘fast and quick’ news alerts via mobile devices. Along with the progress evolved professionalism and high standards in news dissemination.  Facts are sacred, comments are free. This is basic journalism. But do journalists follow this hallowed principle? To answer this question, one needs to be media literate. Shorn of media literacy, most people swallow, hook, line and sinker, whatever the media churn out.
Take Sri Lanka where virtual anarchy reins in web and tv journalism. The unsuspecting and ‘innocent’ people, most of them in rural areas, believe as the truth what they hear on radio and television and read in newspapers.  They know little about media ownership and possible agendas with which some private media outlets operate. During the recent 52-day political crisis, the partisan manner in which some media outlets presented news made those who had a modicum of media literacy wonder whether these media outlets were against democracy. 

If media outlets declare their endorsement of a candidate or a political party, then their bias or partiality is somewhat acceptable. In this case, at least they are honest and have no intention of deceiving their readers, listeners or viewers when they present coloured and loaded news, while serving the agenda of a person or a party, instead of public interest. But even in such instances, their right to be partial is challengeable. This is because journalism, in an ideal sense, is based on a commitment to tell the truth and a journalist’s loyalty is primarily to the people. This is more so in the case of radio and television journalism, because they are given the licence to operate a business based on an air frequency, which is essentially public property given to them by the people through the government as a trust on an undertaking that they would use it to empower the people with truth and correct information.

How many of us are media literate to discern that beneath the façade of independent media, there could be an agenda. Take, for instance, the BBC.  A few years after it was founded in 1922, Britain’s post-World War I Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin saw a strategic purpose in BBC’s independence. He believed that if the government preserved the BBC’s independence, it would be much easier for the government to get its way on important questions and use the news outlet to broadcast 
Government propaganda. 

Many private media, too, adopt this strategy. It is easy to sell propaganda as facts, once they earn the reputation as ‘fearless’ newspapers or channels. 
Against this backdrop, a NewsGuard like monitoring body is an urgent need in Sri Lanka to protect the people from the poison being dished out by media chefs. Sri Lanka has quality journalists known for their commitment to media freedom and independence.  They should come together or be brought together not only to monitor the media, but also to name and shame the errant media outlets, by rating their trustworthiness and warning the people that they generally fail to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability. 

"Our journalist analysts always contact websites if they get a negative rating on any of our nine journalistic criteria. The Mail Online chose not to reply"


This newspaper has started publishing fact checks carried out by Verite Research. They expose the exaggerations politicians make or the falsehood they utter. The Daily Mirror has won much public praise for this new feature on its Page one. But this is an exercise every news outlet should do as a practice.
Fact-checking is part of journalism. Parroting some one’s views or publishing it verbatim is not journalism. If a newsmaker utters a falsehood or makes a claim, it is the journalist’s duty to inform the people of the correct position. Top US media channels do this often, especially with regard to President Trump’s bizarre claims. But sadly this practice is not adopted when Israel makes egregious statements vilifying the Palestinian freedom struggle or reproving Iran. 
Also in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion by the US and Britain, most Western media outlets deliberately or otherwise made no effort to fact check the claims about Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). 

The well-known war correspondent and media activist John Pilger asked Charles Lewis, the distinguished American investigative journalist: “What if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and investigated their claims {about the WMDs}, instead of channeling what turned out to be crude propaganda?”
He replied that if we journalists had done our job “there is a very, very good chance we would have not gone to war in Iraq.” In Sri Lanka, we would have prevented an unconstitutional coup in October last year.

Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 08:11 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.


Lankapage Logo

Jan 25, Colombo: Two Sri Lankan army personnel deployed for UN peacekeeping in Mali were killed on Friday morning when their armored vehicle came under attack, Sri Lankan army said.

The Army said an armored vehicle, WMZ carrying Sri Lankan Peacekeeping troops on patrol in the general area of Douentza in West Africa's trouble-torn Mali, came under a remote-controlled Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attack around 6.30 a.m. local time.

The attack on the WMZ and the convoy which was returning after a mission killed one Sri Lankan Army Captain, one Corporal and injured three more Sri Lankan soldiers.

The two army personnel died in the explosion have been identified as Captain H.W.D Jayawickrama of 11 Sri Lanka Light Infantry from Polonnaruwa and Corporal S.S Wijekumara of 1 Mechanized Infantry Regiment from Thalakolawewa, Polpithigama of the Sri Lankan Army Contingent in Mali.
The attack has caused damages to the ill-fated WMZ vehicle and another that followed behind.


UN Peacekeeping Mission Headquarters in Mali is conducting investigations into the incident, the Army said.

Nagananda before SC over contempt case

Consequence of petition against abuse of NL


article_image
By Shamindra Ferdinando- 

Attorney-at-law Nagananda Kodituwakku, yesterday, said in open court that he was the only lawyer in the country fighting corruption, in all three organs of the government namely, legislature, executive and judiciary as well as in the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) and the Attorney General.

Kodituwakku said so when a case against him filed by Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya over contempt of court during Justice K. Sripavan tenure as the Chief Justice was taken up in the Supreme Court. The bench comprised Justice Sisira de Abrew (Chairman), Lakshman T.B. Dehideniya and Preethi Padman Surasena.

The public interest litigation lawyer said that the Attorney General had abused his office by providing wrong opinion to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya to put off Provincial Council polls.

The Attorney General has initiated proceedings against Koditiwakku for allegedly derogatory remark that the then CJ Sripavan abused his Office to confer a favor to President Maithripala Sirisena. Kodituwakku has made the statement before Sripavan in the wake of the latter asserting that a case filed in respect of defeated candidates being accommodated in Parliament through the National List ‘is not a matter of national importance.’

The Chief Justice said so in response to Kodituwakku’s appeal for a five judge bench to hear the abuse of National List by the SLFP led UPFA.

Kodituwakku said in court the judiciary should know the abuse of power by the Attorney General in total disregard to the law. He said that the Attorney General should be dis-enrolled. When the presiding judge Abrew queried ‘Dis-enrolled’?, Kodituwakku said that he would soon make an application to the Chief Justice seeking to remove the Attorney General from the office of attorney-at-law.

The court was also told that the case would be taken up again on May 27, 2019 before Chief Justice Nalin Perera, Prasanna Jayawardena and Lakshman T.B. Dehideniya. The Chief Justice constituted a special bench consequent to Kodituwakku’s appeal.

Following the last general election in August 2015, several defeated candidates were accommodated on the National List at the expense of those already named in the lists submitted to the Elections Commissioner/now the National Election Commission (NEC). Kodituwakku moved court against those responsible for the inclusion of the defeated candidates on the National List.

Defeated candidates accommodated through the National List are Mahinda Samarasinghe (Kalutara), Tilanga Sumathipala (Colombo), Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena (Matara), S.B. Dissanayake (Kandy), Lakshman Seneviratne (Badulla) and two JVPers, Bimal Ratnayake (Kurunegala) and Sunil Handunetti (Matara). In addition to them, one defeated candidate has been appointed on the UNP National List as well.

The parliament consists of 196 elected and 29 National List members.