The Fallacy Of Independence & Hypocrisy Of The Independence Day!

By Mohamed Harees –FEBRUARY 4, 2019

Lukman Harees

The Declaration of Independence is among the most profoundly interpreted and fiercely discussed topics in modern history. Although Independence remains a sacred and an emotive concept, it still remains a poorly understood one to numerous people. When the UN was founded in 1945, some 750 million people, nearly a third of the world’s population, lived in Territories that were dependent on colonial Powers. Today, fewer than 2 million people live under colonial rule in the 17 remaining non-self-governing territories. The wave of decolonization, which changed the face of the planet, was born with the UN and represents the world body’s first great success. Since the creation of the United Nations, 80 former colonies have gained their independence. As a result of decolonization many countries became independent and joined the UN.

In the case of Sri Lanka (then Ceylon), after colonial rulers Portuguese and the Dutch left, the British came to control coastal Sri Lanka in an era when the internal politics of the Kandyan Kingdom were in a state of crisis, due to the growing rift between the native aristocracy and the Nayakkars. The British signed the Kandyan Convention in 1815, with the Kandyan disawes (the powerful nobility in charge of running the provinces) which made Kandy a protectorate, preserving its system of government and customs.  Consequent to a breakthrough for the path back to self-determination, with the appointment of British socialist Sidney Webb as the British Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, there was the establishment of the Donoughmore Commission, which effected a new constitution for Sri Lanka in 1931. The constitution aimed to address the unique multi-cultural challenges Ceylon then faced. Ceylon also had universal suffrage before even the UK and the USA. 

Moving further on, by 1947 the new Soulbury Constitution came into effect, with general Elections being held, and DS Senanayake was appointed the first Prime Minister. Sri Lanka gained independence within the British Commonwealth on the 4th of February, 1948. Gaining freedom was the joint effort of all communities, all of whom subscribed to the idea of an independent Ceylon, on the basis of equal rights to all and not on a majoritarian platform.  Then, Sri Lanka became a republic in 1972, finally becoming ‘fully independent’ and severing all constitutional links with the United Kingdom, including the shared monarch and the authority of the Privy council. This 1972, incidentally withdrew the Section 29 clause in the Soulbury constitution which granted some safeguards for minority rights. 

This Independence Day  on the 4th February has since been  commemorated for the last 70 years with a national but politicized event in Colombo and many religious events marking the day.  But, apart of this day being a national holiday, to what extent has this D day being a day of reflection for Sri Lankans across communities, as the country commemorates the 71st year of Independence from British colonial rule.? Has it been of any good for  the people of Sri Lanka yearning for an inclusive and socially just country where all of them can live and reap its’ fruits of progress as equal citizens after this so-called Independence? After all,  political leaders of all communities practically chipped in, to make it a reality.

Sometime back, when an African friend was asked: “When do you celebrate your Independence Day?”, he, without hesitation or bitterness, said: “We don’t celebrate our Independence Day… it is meaningless”. Although  I then found it difficult to digest his answer, I however tried to reflect on  the Independence fallacy focusing my attention to Sri Lanka. Ceylon Independence Day is depicted as a milestone separating two periods: the colonial era of oppression and impoverishment AND the independence era of freedom and ‘our brand of progress’. Further, through subtle and not so subtle indoctrination, Independence day also became indivisibly connected with the way we think about ourselves so much so that our own concept of our Lankan –ness can only be understood only in relation to colonialism, the struggle against colonialism and eventual independence. Thus, our identity became inextricably linked to our Independence. 

After seven decades of Independence, we have come to see Independence as an essential marker of  our Lankan-ness. To our utter disappointment, even after 71 years, independence did not however bring socio-political freedom or economic progress; only disaster  after disaster in these areas. There is a poignant lament expressed by writers and analysts about the collapse of  the vision of equality and prosperity which inspired the Independence struggle. But no one has questioned the validity of the Independence Day and exposed its’ cultural, political and psychological underpinnings and associations as false. Yet, this falsehood has been maintained year after year over the Post- Independence period in our history. 

Every Independence Day, national and local political leaders in the tongue in the cheek fashion engage in national events and other symbolic functions as the nation get suffocated by its’ own un-doings. We hoist and wave our national flags while the very lofty ideals like equality, justice and fair-play symbolized in them are being blatantly desecrated. As the national leaders hasten to stress their resolve and their commitment to national reconciliation and Lankan-ness, the governments of the day  have been violating them with impunity using racism as a tool to achieve power. They have been allowing extremist groups to roam the streets freely to engage in the infamous 1983 Anti Tamil pogrom, Aluthgama and Digana anti-Muslim communal violence. They were certainly being shameful episodes in our Post Independent history. As our leaders talk of social justice and stress on the need to eliminate poverty and inequality, the equality gap has been widening as never before while the corrupt top has been squandering millions of public money to fatten their nests. Rule of law has become ineffective with some are more equal than others. 

Read More

Good, bad and complacency

71 years of independence

 2019-02-05

As Sri Lanka celebrated her 71st anniversary of independence, there are two competing schools of thought that take stock of the performance of the foregone period. One is blinded by a heavy dose of patriotism, and the other, by an overdose of bitterness and acrimony.  

The former selectively crows about accomplishments, especially in the broader area of social justice at the same time, glossing over the manifest underachievement in a much larger area, primarily of the economy and national unity.  

Their opponents consider independence as a sordid farce, a period of majoritarian discrimination against ethnic minorities. The most vocal typed there also bankrolled an armed struggle that fought for the division of this country and, now lament the annihilation of the terrorists.  

Leave aside supposed political correctness and put a face on the two opposing types: The majority of those who hold an unquestionably favourable opinion is primarily of Sinhalese (Perhaps Buddhist, often rural) background. The disgruntled lot are overwhelmingly Tamil, most vocal and venomous of whom have already emigrated.  

This dichotomy of opinion is manifest in the contrasting reactions: There was a grand independence day parade in Colombo, and celebrations in many other cities and black flags were hosted in Jaffna.  

Equally, an intriguing question is whether post-independent Sri Lanka managed to keep the momentum of these achievements, lately. In contrast to Sri Lanka’s unassertive achievements, countries that lagged behind in social indicators have made tremendous progress

However, a more nuisance assessment of Sri Lanka’s track record over the past 71 years is that it is modest, but not spectacular, troublesome, but not evil. It is one of the middle ground. An average C pass or B-.  

In the most account, Sri Lanka’s achievements in social justice remain significant, however, the interesting point is that the foundation for these achievements was laid long before the independence. Equally, an intriguing question is whether post-independent Sri Lanka managed to keep the momentum of these achievements, lately. In contrast to Sri Lanka’s unassertive achievements, countries that lagged behind in social indicators have made tremendous progress.  

For instance, in 1945, the literacy rate of Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) was 57 per cent and in 2017 it is 93 per cent. That is modest progress and is in line with the world; world literacy rose from 56 per cent in 1950 to 86 per cent in 2017. Whereas the literacy rate of India at the independence was 18 per cent. In spite of overall wretchedness of the vast majority of its teeming masses, India’s literacy has risen to 74% in 2017. Similarly, only one in five could read and write in China in 1950. Today, China’s literacy rate is per cent.  

Similarly, Sri Lanka lost out qualitatively. In the 1960s, the then the University of Ceylon, ( now Peradeniya) ranked among the top 100 universities in the world. Now, none of the Sri Lankan universities is anywhere near there.  

This explains another less-talked about aspect of Sri Lanka’s social progress. i.e. rather than being a well thought- out an economic plan, Sri Lanka’s social progress was a result of one big populist policy, which allocated scare economic resources to social projects as an election ploy- to win votes.  

The populist narrative- rather than a long term coherent long term economic vision- of these policies should also be assessed in the context of bloated welfare measures, such as rice rations etc. also in offer at the time. Such dole outs came at the expense of long term economic development.  

In the end, the economy grew at a modest 4.2 per cent in a yearly average during the last seven decades, which is less than ideal for a country of a low GDP base of 80 USD at the time of independence. Sri Lanka’s Per Capital GDP of an estimated 4000 USD as of now is a lot less compared to the performance of other states which had a similar economic standard in the 1950s, such as South Korea, Taiwan or Malaysia.  

Performance of nations should be viewed in relative terms, in comparison to the achievement of their peers. Sri Lanka is an underachiever. Now it risks the prospect of losing its hither- too held relative advantage in secondary education and health.  

Sri Lankans may kowtow, various politicians, dead and living, as fathers of this nation. But in reality what Sri Lanka had at the helm of political power during the past seven decades were mere passengers, than any transformative leaders.  

The venom of the other group of interlocutors is a product of two intertwined factors.  

First, the Northern Tamils, the most articulate of minorities, were an exceedingly primordial lot, deeply ingrained in the Dravidian civilization which had metamorphosed into a unique sense of Tamil exceptionalism. Second, Tamils, perhaps only second to Burghers, were favoured by the colonial British and were disproportionately represented in the government service. That was in part, because they were hard working, had access to better education facilities thanks to American missionaries, but also, because they were willing to pay the second fiddle to the British, more enthusiastically than the Sinhalese.  

However, the independence unleashed the political empowerment of the Sinhalese Buddhists, who at last wanted their due share in their country. Tamil elites did not want to share the spoil, nor did a certain sense of entitlement and superiority allow them to cooperate and cohabit. Tamil nationalist opposition emerged the very day the country gained independence- much earlier than the much demeaned Sinhalese Only Act was passed in 1956.  

Sri Lanka’s process of political empowerment and mobilization of its people was premature. It also overwhelmed its nascent political institutions and infused political elites with a populist idealism that blinded them from the realities of governance.  

This enhanced scope of political activism was too much for a nascent nation-state to cope with. It weakened the central government and tied its hands.  
Northern Tamils were better off in Ceylon in the 1950s than their compatriots in Malaysia, which still maintains a Bhumiputra system that favours the native Malays over the other races, or Singapore. Yet, why it was in Sri Lanka that the Tamil elites played the most destabilizing role and refused to take a role in the Central Government (even as of now) is because the Sri Lankan state allowed space for dissent which neither Malaysia nor Singapore did. However, that unrestrained space of political activism effectively weakened the Central government, both to confront the excesses of dissent and accommodate the reasonable demands of protestors. Whereas if Sri Lanka had a rightwing autocrat who cracked the whip and herded everyone, to a unified policy, a good deal of Northern Tamil elites could well have vied for positions in his Cabinet. Singapore strikes a chord.  

In the end, in the absence of adequate state response, Tamil opposition metamorphosed into a nihilistic and self-destructive terrorist campaign which robbed this country two decades of its prosperity. It had its worst toll on the Tamils themselves.  

This explains another less-talked about aspect of Sri Lanka’s social progress. i.e. rather than being a well thought- out an economic plan, Sri Lanka’s social progress was a result of one big populist policy, which allocated scare economic resources to social projects as an election ploy

At its seventh decade since the independence, Sri Lanka is still riven by the mismanagement of its history of independence. It is also blessed by certain, ( perhaps even populist measures) that built a largely functional welfare society. However, continued mismanagement of things would rob the last glimmer of hope.  

Just like their predecessors over the seven decades, politicians at present remain to be mere passengers riding the gravy train down the precipice. Electoral populism has distorted the policy coherence. Opportunism has its toll on the economy. Fifty-odd days of the constitutional crisis triggered by the President saw an over 1 billion USD of FDI flight out of the country and downgrading of credit status by three credit rankers, making it further expensive to borrow.  

Tamil politics though subdued by the military defeat of the armed struggle may revive in the opportune moment. Their perceived grievances are not addressed, and given the primordial factors of Tamil exceptionalism, there is no guarantee as to whether addressing those demands would satiate the l nationalist quest or fuel further confrontation.  

Countries learn from successful experiences of peer states and emulate them. Sri Lanka can learn from the experience of countries which were in similar economic standards decades ago and since then surpassed us in leaps and bounds.  

The first lesson is that the government should regain a good deal of social and political autonomy to make policy changes in a disorganized polity like ours. That can be achieved through new laws and a bit of Gotabaya styled heavy-handedness. Policies should be pursued in a utilitarian, goal achieving manner, rather than them being excessively rule-following, which delay economic development in corrosive societies.  

The Second should be to disentangle obsessive populism from economic policy. Third would be to build a cohesive structure vested with powers for policy and project implementation and monitoring.  

The fourth ethnic question needs to be addressed since it remains a major distraction. Genuine grievances should be addressed through a constitutional amendment. However red lines should be drawn and enforced. The solution should entail a mixture of accommodation and threat or actual repression, where it is mandated, preemptively.  

Ignoring these national priorities or mishandling them would result in other several decades of underachievement.

Justice and people

BY Fr. Augustine Fernando-February 3, 2019, 10:52 pm 

Diocese of Badulla

In a democracy each one of the people is recognized as equal to any other in human dignity and therefore has equal honour and respect as citizens. One person could, through reason or reasonable attraction, persuade another to be of the same mind with him; if it is a just, upright and an inspiring mind, so much the better. Persuasion cannot be forced despotically on anyone by anyone else. Megalomaniacs often resort to trickery to create opinions favourable to themselves. That would be akin to invading immorally into the personal and autonomous sanctum of someone. Just as there could be the possibility of attraction, there could also be dislike. Such dislike could be on the part of one person or it could be mutual. Such dislike could arise due to varied factors. It could be due to certain views and attitudes not being shared or tolerated, but resisted and repulsed even vehemently.

However, in the social context of the 21st Century we are constantly moved to accept that any problematic differences between individuals and among groups of people are not to be resolved violently, but through dialogue and striving to arrive at better understanding. Today, to be considered civilized and cultured, everyone is called to be genuinely humane, tolerant, honest and socio-civically mature. There should be humanness and justice if peace is desired. "Pax opus justiciae" - Peace is the work of justice. Justice could be established when right and fair relationships among all sections of people, individually and collectively, become its basis. When the natural norm and principle of human fraternity is accepted as an operative principle in the making of a Constitution, and a Constitution with the participation of the People could be drafted and accepted, we would have formalized the basis of justice, unity and peace, and be firmly together on the path of human enhancement and economic progress.

Rules of war

It is this attitude of human fraternity that has developed in people their refraining from inflicting harm to people subdued, even during armed conflict and war. The defeated are taken prisoner, they are not exterminated. This means that all those who engage in war should know to follow conventions that have been developed by the community of nations, to keep even bellicose rivalry at an internationally acceptable standard of conduct, so that human comportment may never be lowered to levels of cruelty, wickedness and brutality unworthy of human beings. All those who engage in war from Commanders-in-Chief, Ministers of Defense (and War?) to Generals, Admirals, Commanders and soldiers are supposed to know these

‘Rules of war’ and adhere

to them strictly.

Unfortunately, we in Sri Lanka have found some of these international conventions not to our liking and therefore inconvenient at crucial moments of our history, recently. And so the power holders of Sri Lanka and some in the Armed Forces have been accused of unjustly, inhumanly and mercilessly eliminating not only non-combatant innocent Tamil people during the last war, but also Sinhala and Muslim people when crushing the insurrections of 1971 and 1988-89.

The wife, daughter and very young son of Prabhakaran were killed

. Though the wife and children of Rohana Wijeweera had the fortune of having their lives saved, Wijeweera himself was brutally murdered and his body burned in the crematorium at Kanatte.

Politicization distorts reasoning

Politicians and all citizens have still to understand that crimes of citizens do not permit the State to retaliate and punish citizens with crimes similar to what some citizens have committed. While some chauvinist politicians refuse to act according to human decency, fraternity, equality and reason, some army personnel who had fought in the concluded war have also not understood and accepted such civilized stances yet. When politicization through distorted partisan reasoning has corrupted well established traditions, it is sometimes very difficult to guide the minds of people with entrenched prejudices to common sense. Yet prejudices of a national scale can never be elevated to be made national policy.

Many politicians in power, including the President and Prime Minister, have also not understood that to disregard the law, to by-pass the law, to request that the law be not applied, to save a dishonest friend, a corrupt politician, a corrupt politician’s kith and kin, is to subvert the law and undermine society’s law and order for which the law has been established.

They do not understand that their questionable friendship with political opponents not only undermine the authority of State agencies enforcing the law, they are also unjust by the silent majority of law-abiding tax-paying citizens and also by the State by undermining the collection of fines and revenues. Meanwhile when a non-profit-making non-governmental organization, the Church or a religious institution that provide free help to the distressed, the poor, the aged and the orphaned request a tax concession giving very valid reasons, such courteous requests are peremptorily turned down. It is no wonder that almost all top politicians, whose whims and fancies are satisfied at State expense, are looked down upon contemptuously by the people for their unjust, unfair and anti-social irresponsible attitudes.

Corruption in UNP & SLFP

Sri Lanka needs elected representatives who are capable, honest and just, who wouldn’t break the law or disregard it even to help a brother or a family member. It is up to the people to elect men and women of unassailable integrity to positions of high responsibility. The growing number of civic conscious citizens, highly sensitive to the demands of social justice should by various means communicate to their fellow citizens the urgency of standing together in fraternal solidarity and cleaning up the political arena. That arena ushered in 1956 an era of degeneration that malformed into decades of racial and religious discrimination and bloodletting war and stinking political corruption. The degenerating and divisive trends began to culminate with the 1972 Constitution and reached dictatorial zeniths after 1978, when politicians of the UNP and SLFP led regimes indulged in unprecedented levels of corruption. From 1994 the corrupt tradition continued with their leadership and top rungs, aided and abetted by the Marxists of yore who had lost their political spine, and allowed themselves to be swallowed by ‘capitalist-socialist political greed’.

Today, the newly voting young people and other citizens should be led to a keen social consciousness by civic conscious leaders, and asked not to sell their souls to any political party for a mess of pottage and align themselves to any political manifesto of the major parties; but to be independent supporters of honest politicians who uphold democratic values, and are free of prejudices and unjust discrimination that distort and disrupt even the legitimate ethnic, religious and cultural identities of the people of Sri Lanka. The people should save Sri Lanka from the long-standing saboteurs and corrupt humbugs in politics who wish to entrench themselves in power.

DEMOCRACY BUTTRESSED BY RECTITUDE

All gifts, the gift of Truth excels;
All tastes, the taste of Truth excels
All joys, the joy of Truth excels.

(The Dhammapada 24.21)

Truth will make you free. (Jesus Christ in the Gospel according to St. John Ch. 8 v 32)
Truth is compatibility of knowledge to reality. When genuine seekers search for truth they find it. Things knowable come to be known; the existential state of reality is perceived; the true state of affairs is seen. Change towards the better becomes possible.

Fr. Augustine Fernando (Diocese of Badulla)-Tuesday, February 5, 2019

For Sri Lanka to subsist as a vibrant democratic state, the community of the people through its public servants led by the legislators and the statesmen should be the ‘carriers’ of the State. Serious legislators should have a social philosophy, a philosophy of government, an understanding of anthropology, human relationships and of law. Many of the elected representatives rather than having serious ideas of government and public administration and the law, seem to have ideas of enhancing their privileges, advantages and means of illicit gains uppermost in their heads. The people actually see in the august place a preponderance of uneducated and defectively educated selfish scoundrels who not having succeeded in a decent profession have made their way into party politics and exploited it through shady means to make easy money in a big way.

When the corrupt become rulers they turn the offices and institutions of the State, meant for good administration and service, into sources of plunder for private gain. They break the backbone of the democratic State by their corruption. Politicians who indulge in such exercises show their desire to climb and cling to power at any cost, even sowing communalism and bigotry and doing any mean thing and conducting themselves in the most unbecoming manner ill-fitting any legislator. Thus they display their hidden intellectual debility, their incapacity to fathom the yearnings of the people for the common good and their lack of true commitment to the whole nation due to their prioritizing self-interest and nepotism, even while flying national flags on their vehicles and residences. The lousy fellows who bastardize citizenship and do not know behaviour appropriate to the Chamber of the highest legislature do not have the capacity for rectitude to uphold democracy.

MEDIA THAT MISINFORM

The people normally come to know of the state of affairs of the country through the accepted norm of today, the mass media of communications: newspapers, radio and television and internet. Many people uncritically accept all that is presented to them through these media. So the scheming and manipulative politicians publish and propagate the biased news and stories favourable to them. Some of their newspapers and television channels actually misinform and communicate only what they like the people to accept and believe. The politicians wishing to show that they are very competent always try to show how their projected plans will bear fruit in the future and benefit the people and even eradicate poverty.

As elections approach they also grandly declare that once they come to power a cleaner, a more satisfactory and a more people friendly administration will be in operation. They promise that all the agents of corruption, all evil doers who made their critics disappear, who killed journalists in broad day light, in high security zones at that, who planned and violently ended the lives of rivals to look as if they met with unfortunate accidents, will be thoroughly investigated and those guilty of crimes will be detected, brought before the law and dealt with.

The promise of ending corruption and freeing the people from its bondage is so attractive that even the corrupt fellows who have been ousted from power, with the prospect of coming elections, pledge to end all bribery and corruption and use the pledge as a handy gimmick. The hidden truth is that they are cleverly covering up the mega corruption they indulged in by focusing on the suspected corrupt deals of the current rulers.

COURAGEOUS TRUE JOURNALISTS

In this context, the people’s real friends and upholders of democracy are the investigative journalists who reveal the truth of the politicians manufacturing lies to distract the people to cover up their vicious undemocratic plans.

The investigative journalists underline that all politicians and public servants in administration are accountable to the people, that there should be transparency in important transactions. They emphasize that the established right procedures should be followed and in everything justice should be done. As upright journalists are a threat to corrupt politicians, they are hounded, persecuted and even assassinated. Politicians and their henchmen are at the bottom of these crimes.

The citizens of Sri Lanka need to become knowledgeable, discerning, perceptive and astute in discovering the true state of affairs. They need to read the narratives of journalists who report on current affairs truthfully. These journalists display a thirst for justice and provoke unbiased, rational thinking while some newspapers uncritically promote a chauvinist party line or politicians of even unsavoury repute. People should be conscientious and civically responsible to get rid of loquacious marauders who pose as nationalists and patriots.

POLITICS MINUS SINCERITY AND TRUTH

Corrupt politicians try to pose also as defenders of religion when religion could be defended only by those who uphold religion by their faithful adherence and ways of truth, justice, loving kindness and fraternal relationship. As the Buddha has very clearly said, ‘By deeds one is a Brahman. By deeds one an outcast. (Vasala Sutta). By that norm, most of our politicians are repulsively very low caste fellows because of their insincerity, dishonesty and thievery. They should be scorned, spurned and banished from politics. Many politicians on the national stage today are in the bondage and slavery of wrong doing, corruption and crime. To be corrupt and degenerate is to be flawed and untrue.

Politicians too like the rest of human beings should respond to the call of truth, recover the dignity of authentic human beings and be liberated of falsehood, of wrong doing, of cruelty, dishonesty, wickedness and corruption and become persons of graciousness and virtue. That is to live sincerely, be true and free. Though many politicians may not be sincere and truthful, they like to pose as very virtuous people.

Though ethnicity may have given rise to peoplehood, today several ethnic communities living in and belonging to a distinct territory could go to form a distinct people as a national family and be a united nation. Ethnic homogeneity is not required for a people with claims to a common territory to be a community and a nation. Of course the sense of common aspirations, sharing of visions and future hopes, camaraderie in activating them, certainly promotes solidarity and unity as a nation. This needs to be recognized, cultivated and safe-guarded especially in a Constitution.

Self-denials, renunciations and even dying for the sake of others are sacrifices made in fraternal solidarity.

They become energy and power expended to build good relations, cohesion and harmony needed to advance in development and progress in community.

Vigorous, dynamic and meaningful politics concerns itself with these values. Many politicians are indeed bankrupt not only politically but are also in genuine social commitment due to their penurious intellectual capacity and lack of a sense of obligation to be authentic, civically responsible, human and fraternal. It is up to the citizens to choose the true and honest men and women to be their elected representatives and forthwith discard the dishonest, untrue, unjust and corrupt scamps in the political arena. 

Politics of presidential election

Col R Hariharan | 31-1-2019 

Media is agog with speculative articles on the next presidential election after President Maithripala Sirisena completed four years in office on January 8, 2019. According to the Constitution, the President may at any time after the four years declare from “the commencement of his first term of office by proclamation declare his intention of appealing to the people for a mandate to hold office, by election, for a further term.” The Constitution further stipulates that the poll for the Presidential election shall be held not less than one month and not more than two months before the expiration of the term of office of the President in office.  This means the presidential election has to be held between November 8 and December 8, 2019.

This has triggered widespread expectation that President Sirisena would call for the presidential election to restore his political credibility eroded after the failure of his misconceived “constitutional coup” to replace Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe with former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Though President Sirisena had initially declared that he was not interested in a second term, the changed political equation with the PM may force him to seek a second term to restore his reputation as the leader of the SLFP. Having burnt his bridges with PM Wickremesinghe and the United National Party (UNP) who support him to come to power, Sirisena needs the support of both the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and Rajapaksa-loyalists within the SLFP.

This was further confirmed when SLFP secretary Dayasiri Jayasekara had announced that President Sirisena would be the SLFP candidate in the forthcoming presidential poll. The President’s close confidante and SLFP deputy leader Nirmal Siripala de Silva also has said the same. These announcements, probably made with the consent of President Sirisena, have not been well received by the SLPP. Many of the SLPP members have declared that Sirisena should not be backed by the SLPP and the presidential candidate should be from the SLPP.

Probably, President Sirisena still seems to be hopeful of winning back the  support of right wing Buddhist lobby. He is reported to be favourably considering a recommendation from the Minister for Buddha Sasana to pardon Gnanasara Thera, leader of the Bodu Bala Sena, a Buddhist fringe group, involved in hate campaign and attacks on Muslims during the Rajapaksa rule. The monk was convicted in August 2018 by the Court of Appeal on four charges of contempt of court for disturbing and threatening the state counsel in Homogama magistrate’s court subsequent to the refusal of bail to military intelligence officers suspected to be involved in a case of disappearance. The monk was sentenced to 19 years rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently and completed within 6 years. Earlier in May 2018, the monk was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment for intimidating victim-witness Mrs Sandya Ekneligoda in the case of enforced disappearance of political cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda. 

The controversial former defence secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa also appears to be nursing ambitions to contest the presidential election as he is said to enjoy the support of Sinhala nationalist elements and Buddhist clergy.  However, Rajapaksas do not seem to be keen to propose him as the Pohotuwa party (as SLPP is known) candidate, presumably because Mahinda Rajapaksa does not seem to have made up his mind on his own future.  Moreover, Gotabaya is a US citizen and will not be eligible to contest the poll unless he renounces his American citizenship. He does not seem to have taken a decision on this issue so far.

Increasing external economic vulnerability

Sri Lanka has paid a high cost for the 51-day political crisis that brought the country’s economic activity to a grinding halt. The October 26, 2018 crisis not only exposed Sri Lanka’s limitations in servicing its huge foreign debt burden but underlined the country’s strategic dependence upon India and China, which chipped in with money to ward off Central Bank’s imminent financial crisis.  This is likely to aggravate Sri Lanka’s problems in delicately balancing its relations with the two Asian giants.

Sri Lanka Central Bank Governor Indrajit Coomaraswamy addressing the 33rd annual sessions of the Sri Lanka Economic Association, explained the measures he had taken to overcome the  “political tsunami” as he called the economic crisis. He said the country’s good international and regional relations, especially with India and China, enabled the country to escape serious debt crisis it face in the wake of the political crisis. Sri Lanka will have to pay $ 5.9 billion in foreign debt repayments in 2019 and the first instalment was $1.6 billion. Sri Lanka had repaid $1 billion by drawing on its foreign reserves; this has brought it to a “critically low level.”

He said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had halted the release of the final tranche of the Extended Credit Facility when the political crisis occurred. However, the IMF was now supportive of the government’s stabilization measures and he expected the IMF to release the fund in mid-February when the fiscal data for 2018 would be available.

The Governor stressed the importance of the assistance of India and China in supporting the reserves. “Sri Lanka’s friends, the two regional giants, have stepped in to support us when we were pushed into a rather difficult corner.” Their combined assistance should replenish the reserves in the next few months.  The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) agreed to provide a $400 million currency swap facility to the Central Bank. He said “The RBI’s very rapid and timely assistance will serve to boost investor confidence by supporting Sri Lanka to maintain an adequate level of external reserves.” The RBI was likely to provide a line of credit of US$ 1 billion early.

The Bank of China (BOC) has offered $300 million loan tied over the immediate need. Dr Coomaraswamy said both the RBI and the BOC were considering plans to scale up their offers to $1 billion each. He stated that the Chinese loan was likely to come at an interest of about 5.5 percent.  In addition to this, the Central was also trying to scale up a $1 billion loan received from China Development Bank in 2018 by a further sum of $500 million, which was expected to be available in February.

He further explained other measures taken to be prepared for “the worst and we learnt a lesson on October 26, 2018. We don’t know what political tsunami might come next. So we have to plan and get the money as fast as possible.” The proposed measures included issue of an International Sovereign Bond (ISB) to borrow up to $2 billion; the Bank of Ceylon and the Peoples Bank raising lines of credit on behalf of the government. However, these would further raise the debt burden of the country.

Col R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, served as the head of Intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies, South Asia Analysis Group and the International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute, Chennai. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com  Blog: http://col.hariharan.info

In dependence – Are we really free?

A Sri Lankan military member marches at the flag square as they lower the National Flag ahead of Sri Lanka›s 71st Independence Day celebrations in Colombo 31 January – Reuters


 Monday, 4 February 2019


Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) became free from British colonial rule on 4 February 1948. Many opine that ours was more of an after effect of independence granted to India rather than a consequence of a struggle for independence. Be that as it may, we celebrate our 71st year of independence on 4 February 2019.
But, are we really free?

Are we free of communal disharmony? Are we free from discrimination? Are we free from gender inequality? Are we free from poverty? Are we free from food insecurity? Are we free from debt? The list can be endless.

Of course some strides have been made and we can be proud that we have a very high literacy rate and good health indicators. We are the envy of other developing countries in regard to health and education. Our GDP at times had reached a height of 7% (2015) and last year we were voted as the world’s best tourist destination. The list of positives too is long.

We celebrate our 71st year of independence on 4 February 2019. But, are we really free? Are we free of communal disharmony? Are we free from discrimination? Are we free from gender inequality? Are we free from poverty? Are we free from food insecurity? Are we free from debt? The list can be endless

However, on this momentous day, Sri Lankans must consider whether they are really free and independent or whether they are in fact “in dependence”.

In regard to the economy, an article titled ‘Sri Lanka seeks regional bailout as balance of payments crisis looms’ published in the Nikkei Asian Review on 21 January, written by Asia Regional Correspondent Marwaan Macan-Markar, paints a very dire picture. Some excerpts are quoted here:

“Sri Lanka’s foreign exchange reserves were down to $6.9 billion at the end of last year, when investors were spooked by political turmoil that brought down the island nation’s ratings. Last week, CBSL revealed that Sri Lanka has paid back a $1 billion international sovereign bond by dipping into foreign exchange reserves after attempts to raise funds from the international bond market failed. There is a record debt of $ 5.9 billion that must be met by the end of 2019, and foreign reserves will be severely depleted if Sri Lanka has to carry on in this way. The $87 billion economy is saddled with unprecedented debt. Banking sources in Colombo estimate maturing loans between 2019 and 2022 to be around $20.9 billion.
“Chinese banks have financed a number of major infrastructure projects in recent years. Verite Research, a Colombo-based think tank, estimates that China accounts for nearly 15% of Sri Lanka’s external debt, which was estimated to be around $53.1 billion at the end of 2018.
“The largest part of the country’s foreign loan portfolio is in dollar-denominated international sovereign bonds, estimated to be nearly 50%, followed by debts to Japan, the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank.

“Indrajit Coomaraswamy, the Governor of Sri Lanka’s Central Bank, told a public forum in Colombo that both the RBI and the Bank of China are considering plans to scale up their respective offers to $1 billion each. ‘Sri Lanka’s friends, the two regional giants, have stepped up to support us in this time when we were pushed into a rather difficult corner,’ he told the meeting hosted by the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce.”

According to this, 53.7 $ billion out of our total economy of $87 billion or 61.7% of it is external debt, with $5.9 billion due for repayment in 2019. The writer is no economist, hence unable to see how this repayment can be made unless we borrow more to pay for existing borrowings or our productivity and foreign exchange earnings goes up miraculously and we pay our loans with our own money. Alternatively, recalling Dr. N.M. Perera’s prescription, we tighten our belts hard and save money!

53.7 $ billion out of our total economy of $87 billion or 61.7% of it is external debt, with $5.9 billion due for repayment in 2019. The writer is no economist, hence unable to see how this repayment can be made unless we borrow more to pay for existing borrowings or our productivity and foreign exchange earnings goes up miraculously and we pay our loans with our own money. Alternatively, recalling Dr. N.M. Perera’s prescription, we tighten our belts hard and save money! We could do this, but it requires honesty and guts

We could do this, but it requires honesty and guts. We could stop imports of all motor vehicles including, very importantly, those for Members of Parliament say for three years. We could thereafter standardise vehicles for politicians and ban the import of any vehicle over an engine capacity of say over 2,500 CC. We could close down the bleeding dinosaur SriLankan Airlines or operate it only as a regional airline flying to India, Singapore, China, Thailand and the Middle East. We could stop subsidising loss-making Government corporations so that they operate as breakeven entities as a minimum.
We could stop food imports progressively and enforce a ban on imports within a reasonable timeframe. We could go after tax dodgers and bring in harsh penalties for those are caught. There is no doubt that the country is flushed with black money from bribes and commissions and there is no accountability.

If we wish to be serious, we can find ways and means to make people accountable. We could provide incentives for selected industries that are export oriented and import substitution oriented, and for agriculture and agriculture linked industries.

In regard to the most important indicator that determines our survival as a “free” nation, we are indeed in dire straits and in dependence to China, India, the IMF and other lenders. Of course we can celebrate with all the pomp and pageantry and continue pretending as we are accustomed to doing as a habit. This dependence corners us at every turn. Sri Lanka is today hemmed in by our lenders

Can we get out of the mess we are in? Of course we can. But, perhaps only our politicians could also be banned for three years!

Sri Lanka’s foreign exchange earnings primarily comes from tourism, remittances from those working overseas and of course the traditional tea and rubber exports.

While garment exports bring in foreign currency as well, the net earnings from this industry may not be contributing much to the bottom line as we are primarily a processing location where most, if not all inputs are imported.

Politicians of course would blame each other for this crisis and accuse each other as to who borrowed, how much, and for what purpose. Leaving such a political debate out of this, it is clear that we are negotiating with China, India and the IMF to secure more loans to pay off existing loans and consequently become more indebted as a country. So, in regard to the most important indicator that determines our survival as a “free” nation, we are indeed in dire straits and in dependence to China, India, the IMF and other lenders. Of course we can celebrate with all the pomp and pageantry and continue pretending as we are accustomed to doing as a habit.

This dependence corners us at every turn. As King Dutugemunu as a Prince had reportedly told his father why he was curled up in bed and why he needed to go to battle to free the country, Sri Lanka is today hemmed in by our lenders to the East, North and West. There is nothing but the sea to the South.

Sri Lanka is hardly free in any international economic or political forums and has to make compromises that are disadvantageous to the country in the longer term. A good example was the co-sponsoring of the last UNHRC resolution and placing the noose around our own neck.

Should we celebrate independence as if there is no crisis? Or should we accept the reality that we are in dependence and are drowning in debt and resolve to do something about it?

More bombs drop on the ‘MiG Deal’

3 February, 2019

The controversial ‘MiG Deal’ remains in the public spotlight as evidence continues to surface of the Rajapaksa Government’s complicity in engineering the dubious 2006 arms deal, and of scandalous attempts to hide the truth of the deal from the public.

Sunday Times Defence Correspondent, Iqbal Athas, who first exposed the alleged scam in December 2006, has now revealed that his reporting on the ‘MiG Deal’ led to the withdrawal of security, overt death threats, and a brutal state-sponsored campaign to identify and silence his sources.

In his keynote address at the opening of the Centre for Investigative Reporting (CIR), Athas spoke publicly for the first time about the price he and his family had to pay for his reporting on the MiG deal. “Just two weeks before Lasantha Wickrematunge was murdered, a very highly placed source asked me to flee the country. That very night, I flew to Thailand,” the senior journalist recalled. “The next morning, my driver saw a man in an oversized bush shirt riding a motorcycle outside my house. There was a pistol in his waist-band.” Athas pointed out that when he checked the registration number of the motorcycle, he found that it was registered to a lorry.

Two weeks later, on January 8, 2009, Lasantha Wickrematunge, whose sequential exposes on the ‘MiG Deal’ had led to a defamation lawsuit by the then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, was murdered by a motor bike squad which intercepted his vehicle and attacked him on the street. In Wickrematunge’s murder investigation also, the license plate numbers associated with the motor cycles led to dead ends. Wickrematunge’s daughter, Ahimsa Wickrematunge has told the CID that her father believed he would be killed by Gotabaya Rajapaksa to cover up the ‘MiG deal’, a fact that the CID has reported to the Mount Lavinia Magistrate’s Court.
Rajapaksa has repeatedly denied any foreknowledge or complicity in the murder. He has accused his army commander, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka of masterminding the killing, and stated that he did not investigate or prosecute Fonseka for this crime while he was Defence Secretary as he did not want to gain political mileage against his own former army commander.

Last month, in an article published to mark the ten-year anniversary of her father’s murder, Ahimsa Wickrematunge drew the public’s attention for the first time to a television interview given by Gotabaya Rajapaksa to Derana TV in August 2007, in which he discussed the ‘MiG Deal’ extensively. The young Wickrematunge drew the CID’s attention to this video interview because of a passage in which the former defence secretary speaks, in the context of the MiG deal, about journalists who criticise him being able to drive themselves around freely in their cars without anything happening to them. The slain journalist’s daughter believed that the interview could be a key piece of evidence for the CID.

On January 7 2019, the CID obtained a production order from the Mount Lavinia Magistrate’s Court to compel Derana TV to produce the original archive footage of the interview with Rajapaksa. Ten days later on January 17, the CID informed the court that Derana had failed to produce the recording of the interview. A Derana official told the Sunday Observer that they only received the court order last week and are in the process of locating the video footage. “Once we locate it, we will hand it over to the court,” the official said.

The Sunday Observer has obtained an excerpt of the interview in which Derana anchor Dilka Samanmali extensively questions Gotabaya Rajapaksa about his involvement in the ‘MiG Deal’. Rajapaksa laments to the interviewer that the media coverage of the ‘MiG Deal’ was part of an effort to accuse him of personally having “pocketed” a commission on the transaction, or of “someone else from the so-called ‘Brothers Inc’ (Sahodarasamagama)” having done the same. “For me to have obtained a portion of the money, I have to have used my influence,” he says, denying that he did so at any stage of the deal.

“Where the MiGs will be purchased from was a decision made by the Air Force,” Rajapaksa said. “If I were to bring a proposal and tell the Air Force to buy a particular item, on such an occasion it might be said that I did that to earn money, but in this instance no such thing happened,” the then Defence Secretary insisted. Investigations by the Sunday Observer have raised serious questions about the veracity of this claim.

There is no denying the Defence Secretary’s claim that the Air Force and its commander, Donald Perera, were enthusiastic about increasing the size of the Air Force’s squadron of MiG-27 aircraft. As far back as May 2005, six months before Rajapaksa took office as Defence Secretary, Perera had written to the Defence Ministry urging the procurement of additional MiG-27 aircraft. However, the air force commander was wary of unsolicited proposals, such as the one received from Ukrinmash the previous year which had been rejected by a tender board.

“I am of the view that instead of obtaining another proposal, a tender with adequate publicity should be invited, which may be more advantageous in procuring suitable aircraft to the fleet,” Perera suggested. The Air Force commander repeated this request to incoming Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa in writing in January 2006.

He wrote to Rajapaksa requesting “that approval be granted for the SLAF to procure four additional MiG-27 aircraft through normal tender procedure.” However, instead of normal tender procedure, the air force commander found himself summoned to the office of the Defence Secretary on February 6, 2006 for a meeting with Rajapaksa, his cousin Udayanga Weeratunga and officials of Ukraine’s Ukrinmash.

After this meeting, Donald Perera gave up his crusade for a “tender with adequate publicity” or “normal tender procedure” that would have allowed for multiple competitive bids to be obtained as when MiG-27 aircraft were purchased in 2000. Instead, he accepted the unsolicited proposal from Ukrinmash, and wrote a letter “requesting” the proposal so that it would not be considered unsolicited.

No other bidders

This was a proposal to sell four MiG-27 aircraft at US $ 2.5 million each and to overhaul four existing air force craft between $860,000 and $1.14 million per aircraft. Once the proposal had been formally received by the Air Force “through the Ministry of Defence”, the Defence Secretary called for the appointment of a Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) to evaluate only this single proposal for the purchase of MiG-27 aircraft without calling for or seeking similar proposals from other bidders through a normal tender procedure.

While this TEC was appointed to evaluate the purchase and overhaul of MiG aircraft, at Rajapaksa’s request, there was an impediment to the TEC evaluating the overhaul proposal. At the time the TEC was appointed, on February 21, 2006, there were already separate tenders underway for the overhaul of the Air Force’s MiG aircraft. This is a fact that Rajapaksa himself was acutely aware of, as he was a member of the Cabinet Appointed Tender Board (CATB) supervising those overhaul tenders.

That CATB had met on January 20, 2006. According to the minutes of that meeting, the board recommended that the Cabinet “cancel the tenders and call for a fresh proposal from the Indian overhaul facility M/s HAL on a Government to Government basis.” This is a recommendation that Rajapaksa ignored. The Cabinet memorandum dated March 21, 2006 drafted by the Defence Ministry for Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa’s signature reached a different conclusion.

“I agree with the recommendations of the CATB,” the conclusion began. “However, I am of the view that calling for a fresh proposal even under the framework of Govt. to Govt. basis as suggested by the T.E.C. has to be decided after an indepth study.” The memo sought the approval of Cabinet “to cancel the four independent tenders for the overhaul” of MiG aircraft “and to call for a fresh proposal from appropriate institution /s most preferably on a Government to Government basis.”

By the time the Cabinet approved this recommendation on April 6, 2006, Rajapaksa had already received the unsolicited proposal from Ukrinmash and his cousin, passed it on to the Air Force and sought and obtained the assistance of the National Procurement Authority to appoint a TEC to evaluate the Ukrainian proposal alongside one from the Indian firm, M/s HAL Aerospace.

The TEC, with no competing bids to evaluate for the purchase of MiGs, on April 26, 2006 recommended that the Air Force proceed with the Ukrinmash proposal, despite the aircraft being older than those purchased in 2000 and being significantly higher priced.

An interesting feature of the TEC report was the disparity in detail between which the report described the “Financial” components of the Ukrinmash proposal from Ukraine and the HAL proposal from India.

This section of the report about the Ukrinmash proposal makes no reference as to whom the payment would be made. In contrast, the description of the Terms of Payment to HAL says specifically that funds are “to be paid to HAL” even going so far as to specify the bank in India that would receive the payment.

In fact, the purported “Ukrinmash” proposal made clear from the outset that funds were to be paid not to the Ukrainian Government but to an unnamed third-party whose identity would be revealed before signing a contract. This fact was delicately omitted in the TEC report. Had it been included, it would have drawn scrutiny to the fact that the proposal was not one between Governments, but one in which it was very clear that a third party would benefit.

The CATB, which included Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Nation Building and Development Ministry Secretary M.S. Jayasinghe and Deputy Treasury Secretary S.B. Divaratne, took up the TEC report at its meeting on May 5, 2006. Of the three members of the CATB, Rajapaksa, who had received the initial proposal, was the only one who was privy to the fact omitted in the TEC report, that payment was to be made to a third party.

The CATB report too, omitted the fact that payment was to be made to a third party, couching the deal instead as a strictly Government-to-Government affair. Indeed, Rajapaksa presented the CATB report to Cabinet, requesting, and receiving Cabinet approval to proceed with the Ukrinmash proposal “as applicable under the Government to Government transaction”.

This was not the only way in which this proposal misled the Cabinet of Ministers. Over two weeks after the CATB had concluded its decision to recommend the Ukrinmash proposal to the Cabinet, Ukrinmash Director D.A. Peregudov wrote to the Air Force to inform them that the engines that had been offered in their proposal “for installation in MiG-27M aircrafts have been sold to another foreign customer.” Peregudov instead proposed four different engines that had not been earlier proposed to the Air Force, evaluated by the TEC or recommended to the CATB. Nevertheless, this material change in the goods being offered was never notified to the Cabinet by the Defence Ministry.

When the contract was finally signed in July 2006, only then was the beneficiary of the payment identified, a company named “Bellimissa Holdings Limited” with a London address and fax number that were never verified by the Air Force or Defence Ministry.

According to Iqbal Athas, barely two months after the contract was signed, “In September 2006, a source in the Sri Lanka Air Force gave me a bulky document – a so-called contract for the procurement of four MiG-27 fighter jets.” Athas said he investigated the matter for many weeks, discussing it with his sources and diplomats who specialized in defence and security. “A clear picture emerged,” he said.

“After the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became its own state. A fleet of MiG-27s lay in a parking lot exposed to snow, sun and rain. A company based in Singapore was among those who were wanting to sell these aircraft to Sri Lanka and there appeared to be many irregularities.”
In December 2006, Athas broke news of the ‘MiG Deal’ exposing the fact that it was a commercial wolf of a deal in ‘government to government’ clothing. Athas pointed out that the aircraft purchased at a higher price in 2006 “were those left over from two different purchases” made by the Air Force in 2000. “And now they have been contracted for higher prices.”

In response to his expose, Athas said, “powerful persons with a bottomless reservoir of arrogance, vengeance and vendetta unleashed a campaign of terror on me.” The Ministry of Defence officially branded Athas as a ‘traitor’ in public statements. His security was withdrawn and he came under government surveillance. “I knew that someone somewhere was deeply hurt by my embarrassing disclosures,” Athas revealed.

In July 2007, The Sunday Leader and Lasantha Wickrematunge struck yet another blow to the legitimacy of the MiG deal, by reporting that “Bellimissa Holdings Limited”, the company to whom the Air Force eventually paid nearly US $15 million, did not exist in the United Kingdom. Bellimissa, Wickrematunge reported, had used a fictitious London-based mail forwarding address and fax number in its contract with the Air Force.

It was after this expose, in August 2007, that Rajapaksa went on Derana TV’s 360 program with Dilka Samanmali and claimed that he had no direct involvement the MiG deal. Ahimsa Wickrematunge recalled that her father, having watched this interview, was excited about “the follow up article he was planning.”

Rajapaksa also defended the price difference by pointing out that the aircraft purchased in 2000 came with a lifespan of two years. The ones purchased in 2006, Rajapaksa stressed, had a lifespan of eight years, which justified the substantial price hike. A study of documents connected to the ‘MiG Deal’ by the Sunday Observer, however, reveals that the devil is in the details.

Lifespan

The six cheaper, newer aircraft that were purchased in 2000 were given to the Air Force with a service life of 750 to 850 flying hours over a one to two year period. This meant the aircraft would require overhaul either after being in the air for 750 to 850 hours, or after being in service for a one to two year period before they would require another overhaul. The contract indicated that the Air Force intended to use the aircraft for up to 100 hours a month.

The aircraft purchased in 2006, however, which would be freshly overhauled, would have a service life of eight years instead of one or two, before an overhaul was required, exactly as Rajapaksa claimed. However, the number of flying hours available was in the same range as the aircraft that were purchased in 2000. Each could be flown for up to 850 hours. However, the new aircraft could spread this flying time over eight years.

Neither Rajapaksa, nor the Air Force, nor Defence Ministry pointed out that it would be atypical to expect that the Air Force would not exhaust 850 hours of flying time well before an eight year period, especially with a war against the LTTE on the horizon. This would mean flying the aircraft for no more than eight hours a month.

The engines too, came with a lifespan of only between 500 and 550 flying hours before overhaul, in both 2000 and 2006. The calendar time between overhaul for the engines was given as seven years in 2006, instead of two years in 2000. Again, to last seven years, the engine would have to be used by the Air Force for no longer than six and a half hours a month, which was an extraordinarily unlikely proposition.

Another new feature of the 2006 contract that was absent in the 2000 contracts were certain caveats to the service life guarantee of the aircraft. While in 2000, there were no loopholes around the guarantee of calendar life or flying hours, the 2006 contract contained a clear asterisk. Clause 13.4 of the 2006 contract pointed to a “List of components with Time Between Overhaul different from that specified in points 13.1 and 13.2 provided in Annex 4” to the contract.

This was another dimension of the deal that was not considered by the TEC, CATB or the Cabinet of Ministers.

Some of the components listed in Annex 4 of the contract include the landing gear, shock absorbers, wheels, brakes, anti-skid detectors, fire warning system, piston pumps, hydraulic boosters, aircraft starter generator, oxygen regulator, temperature regulator and the guns. Had more bids been obtained for additional entities, such discrepancies would have been clear to the officials evaluating the proposal.

The month after the Derana interview, in September 2007, Wickrematunge and The Sunday Leader reported on the degree of Rajapaksa’s involvement, from the fact that the then Defence Secretary had initially received the proposal with the involvement of his first-cousin Udayanga Weeratunga, and that several regular procurement procedures had been bypassed.

In response to these articles and mounting pressure from the Opposition in Parliament, the government pledged to appoint a Parliamentary Select Committee to examine the MiG deal. However, the committee never materialised.

Instead, in response to these articles, Gotabaya Rajapaksa sued Wickrematunge and his newspaper for defamation. It was on the eve of the defamation trial in the Mount Lavinia District Court, that Athas was warned to flee the country, and Wickrematunge was killed.

The MiG deal largely stayed out of the news until 2015, when Iqbal Athas made a statement to the Police Financial Crime Investigation Division (FCID), whose investigation has vindicated much of Wickrematunge’s and Athas’ reporting. The FCID has reported that Weeratunga was directly involved in the deal and named him a suspect. Sleuths have also exposed the Singaporean businessmen behind Bellimissa Holdings and found the shell company’s corporate roots in the British Virgin Islands.

The FCID also visited Ukraine and obtained evidence from the Ukraine government, who said they never entered into any agreement with Sri Lanka in 2006 to sell or overhaul MiGs. The contract signed by the Air Force was a forgery. The Ukrainian government had sold the MiGs to the Singaporeans T.S. Lee and Ng Lay Khim, who had provided them to the Air Force.

The Ukrainian government has told the FCID that they were paid just over US $1.2 million per aircraft by the Singaporeans, or half of the US $2.4 million that the Air Force paid to Bellimissa Holdings for each aircraft. The FCID is investigating who profited from this 100% commission on each MiG.

Former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who initiated the procurement process, and former Air Force Commander Roshan Goonetilake, who chaired the TEC, have both been questioned by the FCID. Neither has been named a suspect in the investigation. Rajapaksa has filed a petition in the Supreme Court and obtained an order preventing his arrest by the FCID in connection with the ‘MiG deal.’