The Working Relationship I Had With Congress Government Did Not Roll Over To Modi Govt In 2014: MR Says In India

FEBRUARY 9, 2019

In his inaugural address at ‘The Huddle’ forum in Bengaluru, Opposition Leader and former President Mahinda Rajapaska admitted that the working relationship that existed between his government and the outgoing government of India did not roll over to the new government of India formed in 2014.

“Lack of communication between both parties seems to have led to this situation. Communication is such a vital factor that can be the make-or-break [factor] in strengthening our countries’ relations. Therefore, an open line of healthy and constant communication should always be the focus even in the coming years,” Rajapaksa said, in his speech.

He also added, “Because we know now in hindsight that the misunderstandings of the 1980s as well as that of 2014 were aberrations that could easily have been avoided, it’s key that India and Sri Lanka evolve a mechanism to prevent these misunderstandings from taking place. Despite the snag of 2014, the Opposition coalition that I lead now has a good understanding with the ruling party in India. In their dealings with Sri Lanka, my suggestion to India is that the rule of thumb with regard to India-Sri Lanka relations should be that if the outgoing party had an adequate working relationship with Sri Lanka, the incoming party should give due recognition to that fact and continue the relationship on that basis. Past experience has shown that the danger of disruption in our bilateral relationship arises in the immediate aftermath of changes of government. Such easily avoidable disruptions have had serious consequences for both countries. ”

The full speech delivered by Rajapaksa in India is as follows,

Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Guests,

Let me begin by thanking the organisers, The Hindu, for inviting me to be part of this prestigious event. I believe that sharing ideas and learning from one another is key to our understanding one another better, which is why forums like this can assist in exploring new opportunities, pathways and brighter possibilities for cooperation. I would like to also take this opportunity to particularly extend my warm greetings to my friend of many decades who is present here today, Shri Ram, whose friendship and insights over the years I have greatly valued.

I am indeed happy to be amongst you to share a few thoughts on the future direction of India-Sri Lanka relations. Many academics, politicians, students, bureaucrats and perhaps other groups of people have studied, spoken and deliberated on this subject in the past, and I believe this — no matter at which point in history we consider it — is a topic of utmost importance to both our states and people.

Often I have said “India is our relation”, and the bonds between us are unique. We are neighbours, bound by ties of geographical proximity, of a shared history and a shared system of values and culture. We are one family. And as with any family, the journey is not always smooth or trouble-free. I don’t intend focussing on these ups and downs of our relationship, but would venture to say that through an active dialogue any misunderstandings could be averted, as has been demonstrated in our recent dealings with each other.

If we delve into the past of our relationship, we could see forays by invaders from India as much as extremely fruitful and seminal visits by religious leaders. The three celebrated visits of the Buddha were landmarks and unique milestones in the history of Sri Lanka. The later visits by Arahant Mahinda and his sister Theri Sanghamitta have left indelible marks in our culture and way of life. In fashioning our future relationship, these strengths must be examined and understood. In much later times, the influence of Mahatma Gandhi on our national thought processes too should be taken into reckoning when our relationship is fashioned and moulded. I see that in all these, on the part of India, there was an act of giving something and Sri Lanka was the recipient. Buddhism was the endowment that we cherish most.

Our bilateral relations have not always been what it should be. There have been good times as well as not-so-good times in our relations. Nevertheless, it is important for both Sri Lankans and Indians to understand the trends that would shape relations between both our countries and also to explore how best we could nurture the relationship that could mutually benefit us.

Read More

Give me liberty – or the right seat

STAND: noted 

Friday, 8 February 2019


I am celebrating Sri Lanka’s Independence Day – today. Not because I want to be perverse or contrary. But because well-meaning liberals have told me I can if I want to. And that in a democracy the individual has a choice. There are others who have taken the same route. Or so it would appear. Just as long as you don’t class me with that monk who’s drawing flak on social media for not being upstanding for the national anthem.

Draw the lines somewhere and let’s grow up from our puerile juvenile sociopolitical infancy. Either we must remain atavistic and primitive as a society without civility, and allow religion to rule our secular state. Or we must let go of the grubby pseudo-philosophical mud we’re throwing at each other, and look up to reach for the stars now well within our grasp.
You can’t have it both ways. Usually, I’d add, “As the actress said to the bishop”… but today, I’m not monkeying around. Speaking truth to power is nowhere near as serious enough a business that it could or should be to the average Sri Lankan citizen. We’re in disengaged mode since the coup. In a discouraging milieu since the farce that follows hard on the heels of the restoration.

On the anniversary of our hardly hard-won freedom from colonial rule and chauvinistic regimes, let’s at least ditch the clichés and talk quietly and honestly among ourselves. Let’s also gird our loins against the ethno-chauvinist backlash any critique of the saffron brigade and its cynical political sponsors might bring. 

On the one hand, there are those who point to the premier position of Buddhism in all our constitutions. Be the social contract what it may in any other respect, this prized worldview has been given pride of place – along a spectrum ranging from state religion to revered philosophy. In successive supreme laws, the gamut has spanned from protecting it to propagating it. This does not necessarily mean that a venerable monk is exempt from demonstrating his respect for the uniting strains of the national anthem, now being rendered in both vernacular languages.

On the other hand, it does not mean that the cleric in question has shown his contempt for that which – ostensibly – unites us. As the liberals at the leading edge of the left wing have lightly contended on Twitter and Facebook, a citizen may observe the singing of the national anthem in a veritable panoply of respectful dispositions. It just seems odd – especially when captured for posterity in a telling photo-still – that of all this country’s diversity of faiths, one philosophy seems exempt from the customary observances. A plethora of trenchant critiques has ensued.

It’s not at all a sign of solidarity for the rank and file of clergy to stand while one of its fellows sits. In fact, taken to a right-wing extreme, it’s a hostile signalling of their expectant exceptionalism. It goes from bus seats to bailing out bhikkus in contempt of court. It seems to be suggesting that while all others stand in homage to that which binds us, some of us are exempt. Is it because we’re special, exclusive, above common courtesies as much as compelling supreme laws of custom and civility, if not mere constitutionality? Taken in the context of the Sangha agitating with the highest in the land for the liberty-day timed release of that offending monk, semiotics seem to suggest a resurgence of all kinds of unsavoury isms. Three will suffice to illustrate the ‘coming colours’.

#Nationalism: The village rooster who climbs the dunghill to crow about his own party’s or people’s achievements – while the ethnic, political, social ‘other’ is left to fend for themselves and their respective freedoms.

#Patriotism. The last – or first – refuge of the political scoundrel; whereby what is sweet and fitting for a majority in the land must be force-fed to the minorities, rightly and justifiably asking for more.

#Populism. That truly unpopular mechanism whereby by machinations pleasing to the loudest or most vociferous or influential people, politicians and their puppet masters in the corridors of power seek to remain in office – to benefit from the folly and naivety of the very people whom they claim to serve.

So I’m celebrating my own personal independence day today. But not to cock a snook at that exceptional monk or his most venerable peers (probably more right honourable than our scurrilous politicos). For who knows what motivates him to remain seated? Except that as far as I can see from reading any of the sutras, there is nothing in the Vinaya Pitakaya that drives this monk’s non-Abhidarma or non-Sutra Pitaka desire to stand out by singling himself out. And as long as the exception at the public commemoration is not accompanied by a private or public exhortation to release his egregious fellow cleric – who was found guilty by a court of law of a secular offence – I take no issue with the recumbent monk. Let him sit, or stand, or bow to whatever dictates his conscience – or the teaching (if at all) of the Tathāgata impels him. Just as long as the exception is not a symbol of the exceptionalism that others of his ilk seem to espouse.

So excuse me while I bow out of a perfectly serviceable working day to cavalierly celebrate my Freedom Friday. If you think that’s uncivil or undemocratic, use your independence to protest. Feel free while you’re about it to ask why, while we go to Dubai to collar drug kingpins, the trafficker mandarins sit like lords in the House of perfect liberty? And the senior serviceman who stands accused of alleged murder of 11 youths in a time of war stands at attention at our liberty parade?

How about a president who parades nationalism by demanding the death penalty for drug traffickers but clasps errant monks to his populist bosom? And a prime minister who’s trying to smuggle a baker’s dozen or more ministries in through the back door, in the guise of a national government again? Last but by no means least, the ultra-patriotic éminence grise of the previous regime, never done trying to undermine the globalism our island needs – in favour of restoring his patriarchy?

It’s the kind of thing that makes you want to sit down and cry. Or demand liberty – or death – or at least the democratic right to determine what to do with the liberties being taken in the name of freedom. Today. Yesterday. But not necessarily tomorrow.

Thanks for the day off to vent. Helps heaps.

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

Public Diplomacy – new Foreign Ministry initiative

by Rajeewa Jayaweera-February 9, 2019, 8:04 pm 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in collaboration with the Sri Lanka Press Institute, recently conducted a two-week intensive training course in Public Diplomacy and Media Relations for the 2018 intake of Foreign Service officers (SLOS) and some others who had joined in recent years. The program included interactive sessions with both local and foreign media experts and covered key areas in Public Diplomacy of writing news releases, conducting press conferences, giving public interviews and the effective use of social media.

Not since the days of Lakshman Kadirgamar, undoubtedly the best Foreign Minister Sri Lanka ever had, has such a progressive initiative been undertaken. He, together with a few able and competent officials engaged foreign media expertly. LTTE Supremo Prabhakaran during an address on Maaveerar Remembrance Day in the late 1990s complained of GoSL undertaking a vicious media campaign against the LTTE, a clear indication, the Foreign Office was hitting where it hurt. The present Foreign Secretary Ravinatha Ariyasinghe was the Director-General in charge of Publicity at the time.

This writer’s father, a 1954 batch Foreign Service Officer served as Ambassador to West Germany from 1985 to 1988. Deutsche Welle, one of the two leading German public broadcasters invited him to a public discussion with the then LTTE leader in the county and a former German Ambassador to Sri Lanka. The one-hour program was moderated by a leading German news anchor, was conducted in English, broadcast live, and simultaneously translated into the German language. The LTTE Rep. in his preamble claimed he represented 18% of 14.8 million Sri Lankans (1981 census). My father countered by stating, he as Ambassador represented 14.8 million Sri Lankans whereas the LTTE Rep., with no electoral mandate and representation in parliament represented no one other than a few thousand-armed men and women. He stated, the Sri Lankan Tamil community amounted to 12% and not 18% of the population and were not connected to the 6% Tamil community of Indian origin. He further pointed out, over 50% of the Sri Lankan Tamil population lived outside the LTTE controlled area and freely exercised their franchise during elections, a right denied by the LTTE to those living in the North.

These assertions were not disputed. It was an excellent opportunity to communicate GoSL’s standpoint direct to the German public who had never heard of these details previously. Such opportunities had to be utilized to maximum effect without being squandered.

Professor Alan K. Henrikson, Director of Diplomatic Studies at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University in Massachusetts, USA,defined public diplomacy as the conduct of international relations by governments through public communications, media and through dealings with a wide range of nongovernmental entities (political parties, corporations, trade associations, labor unions, educational institutions, religious organizations, ethnic groups, and so on including influential individuals) for the purpose of influencing the politics and actions of other governments.

In the 20th century, nations and their overseas representatives (embassies) depended on more traditional methods such as personal contacts, skillfully drafted media (press) releases, newsletters and the use of carefully cultivated media contacts for the publication of opinion pieces with a view towards influencing public opinion.

Former US President John F Kennedy was perhaps one of the pioneers of public diplomacy. With Executive Order 10924 and Congressional approval, he established the Peace Corps in 1961 consisting of American volunteers. They were typically college graduates. The act declared the program’s purpose as; ‘To promote world peace and friendship through a Peace Corps, which shall make available to interested countries and areas men and women of the United States qualified for service abroad and willing to serve, under conditions of hardship if necessary, to help the peoples of such countries and areas in meeting their needs for trained manpower.’

With the dawn of the 21st century and the advent of the internet, the information highway, FaceBook, Twitter and other social media platforms, the dissemination of news and information has increased exponentially, almost at lightning speed. It has also enabled intelligent users of social media besides foreign governments, embassies, and NGOs to penetrate deep into societies with their respective narratives. Social media is an excellent tool to influence public opinion, especially the internet savvy younger generations. They are often the swing vote in elections, and their voting could be influenced and manipulated through concerted social media campaigns.

Sri Lanka has been notoriously laid back in its dissemination of information abroad. It failed miserably in countering the sophisticated LTTE propaganda machine. The reasons are many. Outside the Kadirgamar years, little or no efforts were made in the conduct of public diplomacy.

In this backdrop, the revamping and rebranding of the outdated Publicity Division into the Public Diplomacy Division headed by a Director General is a step in the right direction.While commending the Foreign Ministry for its new initiative, let us wish the new division, it’s Director General and newly trained officers all success in their endeavors.

The recently trained young career officers, assuming they possess the requisite communication skills besides aptitude for public speaking, would in the medium to long term develop into meaningful spokespersons for the country and eventually as its Ambassadors if so appointed. They need to understand; their training has but has just begun. They have been equipped but with the basics. Regular refresher programs and training in sophisticated communication equipment are a must. They also need to acquire the necessary etiquettes and social graces of the diplomatic world as they go along. Despite the fact some consider such niceties unnecessary, Sri Lanka is a small country, and its diplomats must use every opportunity and avenue to stand out and to be taken notice. Such nuances are an added advantage.Once posted, they need to be adequately resourced and empowered to put their training into practice. Maneuvering through jealous superiors and not forgetting clueless political appointees will bring its own challenges.

However, there exists the issue of the conduct of Public diplomacy in short to medium term. The way our missions are currently manned does not give much hope.

As this writer recollects, the Yahapalana government, at its inception, announced its intention of a 60% to 40% mix of career and political Ambassadors. Four years on, a quick survey revealed less than 40% of missions are headed by career SLFS officers. Furthermore, many embassies are staffed by diplomatic officers from outside the foreign service.

To name a few, the mission in London has three SLFS officers out of nine diplomatic staff. Berlin two out of four, Paris two out of eight, Washington five out of seven, Tokyo one out of four, Moscow one out of six, Beijing two out of seven and Delhi four out of six. The Trade and Defense positions in missions are handled by staff from the Commerce Dept. and armed forces. They are not political appointees.

Whereas the Head of Mission in London is a career diplomat, missions in Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Moscow, Beijing, and Delhi are headed by political appointees. The Ambassador’s post in Washington has been vacant since August 2017. The SLFS Ambassador nominated almost six months ago is still languishing in the Foreign Ministry without being given the green light to proceed.

Political appointees are relatives of politicians or those who have rendered varying types of services to politicians. The political Heads of Mission face no difficulty in receiving approval from the Committee on High Posts as its members too are politicians and need to keep options open for their own nominees at a future date.

The Public Diplomacy Division in Colombo will no doubt set the agenda and prepare the necessary information for dissemination by overseas missions. However, it is those based overseas in Sri Lankan missions that need to develop databases of contacts among government officials, industry leaders, NGOs, political parties, media groups, other interest groups besides important members of the general public in their respective territories. When our diplomats engage with members of the public through social media, they must follow the guidelines set out by the Foreign Ministry. Any other way will lead to chaos. It would require trained personnel.

Regrettably, the focus of most of our embassies, especially those headed by political appointees is the Sri Lankan diaspora, a culture which began with the Rajapaksa administration in 2005 and accelerated after 2010.

It would be pertinent to ask, how does the Foreign Minister and Foreign Secretary propose to address the issue of the conduct of Public Diplomacy in short to medium term, given the large number of untrained political appointees,currently manning Sri Lankan missions abroad?

Sri Lanka’s National Security Think Tank: Ranked in the Global Think Tank Index

 2019-02-11

The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Programme (TTCSP) of the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania ranked world’s leading think tanks in a variety of categories. TTCSP has documented and studied these institutions for more than 27 years with the help of more than 1,796 peer institutions and experts from all over the world. In 2018, Institute of National Security Studies Sri Lanka, think tank under Ministry of Defence, ranked 101st in the Asia Pacific category.   
To mark the global release of the “Global Think Tank Report 2018”, TTCSP requested the major cities around the world including Paris, Beijing, Washington DC, New York and 150 other cities to conduct a discussion on “Why Facts and Think Tanks Matter in 2019”. INSSSL was invited to conduct this discussion from Colombo on 31st January 2019 with the participation of scholars and representatives of other think tanks.   

Director General Asanga Abeyagoonasekera of INSSSL chaired the discussion. The panelist who shared their inputs were Professor Chandra Embuldeniya, distinguish fellow of INSSSL, Dr. Ranga Jayasuriya, journalist and senior fellow, Ms. Kasuni Ranasinghe, Research Analyst and Ms. Natasha Fernando, Research Assistant who highlighted the importance of the role of think tanks play in government and civil societies around the world.   
In the introductory remarks Director General Abeyagoonasekera spoke of the value of think tanks has been appreciated by many societies in today’s volatile geopolitical environment, specially think tanks could assist to design better policy and for predicting future trends. As such, he stressed the importance of think tanks in providing reliable, well researched information to make appropriate decisions on complex and challenging issues. To this effect, he highlighted how Sri Lanka’s think tanks are underfunded; primarily through lack of attractive wages to researchers is a key challenge. The Director General compared Sri Lanka to countries like India and Singapore, whose policymakers both invest and consult more extensively with think tanks. He said that with his experience working at foreign policy think tank and security think tank, Sri Lankan government has miserably failed to recognize and invest in research and in think tanks.   

Ms. Fernando emphasized that think tanks should act as a bridge between academic and policy making communities, serving in public interest as independent voices and disseminating knowledge to wide audiences. To enhance the quality of research outcomes, Ms. Fernando accentuated the importance of facts and the fact tank approach for more informed decision making.   
Ms. Ranasinghe, highlighted the importance of factual based evidence in decision making and the role of think tanks as shadow leaders providing guidance to the political leaders. Leaders should utilized think tanks to identify the priority needs of a country and then to convince the public about the priorities. For these developments, Ms. Ranasinghe emphasized that think tank should come out from its traditional role of “researcher” to the position of “Strategic advisers”, having potentials to predate future circumstances.   

"To achieve these objectives, he explained that think tanks needed to be depoliticized and provided more autonomy"

Dr. Jayasuriya spoke about the vital roles which think tanks play in predicting future political events, and providing the expertise for governments to achieve their objectives. Regarding the latter, from a Sri Lankan context, he spoke of how think tanks could have played a role in helping the government come up with an effective strategy to counter baseless allegations of war crimes levelled against the Sri Lankan military. To achieve these objectives, he explained that think tanks needed to be depoliticized and provided more autonomy. Dr. Jayasuriya argued that this would increase the possibilities of policy makers receiving objective, high 
quality - advice.   

Finally, Prof. Embuldeniya spoke about how think tanks can help solve problems and serve as an asset to state resources. Addressing the issue of think tank proposals largely not being adopted by policymakers, Prof. Embuldeniya suggested establishing a committee that can convey the proposals presented by think tanks to policy makers who can then implement it. He introduced a performance evaluation framework for think tanks and requested INSSSL to work with other local think tanks to develop the proposed framework.   

When the president unjustly and unsupportably lambasts

• Sunday, February 10, 2019

It is no matter for jest when the President of a country publicly singles out national oversight institutions for ferocious censure. And without a doubt, it is even worse when that institution happens to be a national human rights institution. By the very nature of the work that it does and the statutory mandate on which it is obliged to act, it is perhaps the most vulnerable of oversight agencies and needs support by the political constituency as well as by the public.

Profoundly unclear logic in the criticism   
      
This week, betraying all these cautions, President Maithripala Sirisena went for the jugular of Sri Lanka’s National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, alleging among other things, that the deaths of two Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Mali would have been avoided if the Commission had not delayed clearances of members of the military selected for peacekeeping activities overseas.

Put politely, the logic, if any, in the President’s allegation remained profoundly unclear. It appeared that his thinking was that, if the clearances had been accelerated by the Commission, the two soldiers would have returned to Sri Lanka earlier and thus, not have been put at risk. This is, of course, an astoundingly far-fetched claim at best and utterly farcical at worst.

Peace-keeping, by its very nature, involves risks which soldiers are fully cognisant of when they agree to serve on the missions. Linking the two deaths to the vetting procedures adopted by the Human Rights Commission in approving peacekeepers is a reprehensible allegation. It would have been bad enough if these statements had been made by extremist Sinhala nationalists (as in fact, they have been). Even so, that would have been understandable enough given the zenophobic corners that they inhabit.

Are we being pushed to the past?

However when such claims are made by the President himself, the situation becomes far more serious. If his aim is to undermine the credibility of the Commission in the eyes of the public, then this is the precise manner to go about it. Needless to say, that this also rebounds on the credibility of the President himself or what remains of it. We have experienced past examples of such Commissions which openly acted according to political dictates. Commission members disgracefully held press conferences supporting politicians and declared that the Commission was not interested in collecting data about past ‘enforced disappearances’. Is this then the aim, to reduce the Commission to that despicable level?

The point is that, though some may dismiss these Presidential statements as aberrations, the issue is not so simplistic. This is the Head of State. What is pronounced publicly by him has a consequential impact on society. He must be called upon to reconsider these allegations and as the attack itself has been public, make public that reconsideration.

In a commendably restrained response to the bewildering allegations, the Commission responded this Friday pointing out that the claims were ‘absolutely incorrect’ and that there had been no ‘delays or carelessness’ on its part. It was clarified that upon the military, the police, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense, the Commission and the United Nations) had unanimously agreed to adopt a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the vetting process and that, consequent to the same being adopted late last year, the vetting process had resumed.

Protection of ‘even the rejected’

Observing that it was ‘disheartened and discouraged’ by the Presidential criticism, the Commission also strongly refuted the President’s further claim that it had trespassed beyond its authority in questioning as to why the Special Task Force had been deployed to Angunakolapelessa Prisons.
Pointing out that a primary statutory obligation related to the monitoring of the welfare of detainees ( Article 28 (2) of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996), it was observed that this involved ‘inquiring into the safety of detainees, their basic needs, sanitary facilities, rehabilitation process’ according to  national and international guidelines.

In a reminder to the President, (which is regrettable in that the President should not need to be reminded of the same), the Commission went on to emphasize that its duty was to protect even ‘marginalized and rejected’ individuals and that it is ‘a misconception to interpret the Commission presenting facts regarding the rights of prisoners and the types of punishments, in accordance with human rights law, as an attempt by the Commission to protect criminals.’

But there is a greater irony involved which would have been amusing if the context of this dispute was not so grave. This emanates from the fact that the President had also accused the constitutional commissions of not adhering to Standard Operating Procedures in their functioning. Bit it appears that the adoption of this very Procedure for the vetting of Sri Lankan peacekeepers had been conveniently forgotten by the President when he thought fit to embark on this virulent offensive against the Human Rights Commission. That by itself is worthy of note.

A deliberate pattern in the attacks

Only the exceedingly naive would believe that the pattern of attacks launched by the country’s chief executive and by supportive ‘Pohottuwa Party’ supporters of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa on the Constitutional Council (CC) and the Human Rights Commission is random. A few days prior to the storm involving the Human Rights Commission, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya tabled the criteria followed by the CC in approving persons for high statutory and constitutional offices, including the commissions. This was in the wake of disputes concerning the promotion of judges.

As was clearly seen, this fracas was preceded with a crude attack by a key Rajapaksa propagandist on the floor of the House on ‘Christian’ judges being appointed The criteria tabled by the Speaker where judicial appointments were concerned includes seniority together with professional and public eminence. There is little doubt that, frustrated by the constitutional setbacks that were administered by the superior courts and by furious public opinion last year which resulted in an attempted political coup to capture power outside the electoral process by a combined group of Sri Lanka Freedom Party and ‘Pohottuwa’members being shot down, the focus is now to attack the very premise of independent constitutional institutions.

While no doubt, there are deficiencies in their functioning, these must be redressed through amicable dialogue rather than through a public and savage pillorying as it were. This is true of all oversight bodies who have been established to act as the protectors of citizens. Consequently what has befallen the Human Rights Commission at the hands of the Executive President of the country is not only injust but unsupportable.

It is hoped that sense and sanity will prevail in this regard.

Sri Lanka: The Battle of Immoral Equivalences

by Rajan Philips- Feb 10, 2019

Feb 10, 2019

It is both ironic and insulting that the Rajapaksa camp and the UNP alliance have become identified with the two political systems contending for primacy in Sri Lanka. The Rajapaksas are identified with and are the champions of the executive presidential system. This is ironic given their so called roots in the SLFP, and it is insulting to the legacy of JR Jayewardene the acknowledged father of the presidential system in Sri Lanka. The UNP, on the other hand, is now identified with the restoration of parliamentary system, which is ironic given that JR Jayewardene crafted the executive presidency to become a permanent governing apparatus for the UNP. It is also an insult insofar as it was the UNP government between 1977 and 1994 that destroyed every aspect of the parliamentary system that had until then taken root in Sri Lanka’s political soil.

The Rajapaksas earned their notoriety by enacting the 18th Amendment to give them unlimited terms in office, and if their plan had worked would have given them a 99-year lease over Sri Lanka. But people thwarted the Rajapaksa plan in January 2015, and the UNP and Ranil Wickremesinghe became the dubious beneficiaries. Now they are the targets of national political ridicule over their constitutional contraption called the ‘National Government’ with a comical circularity: its sordid purpose is to create more ministers out of MPs and its crass survival depends on an enlarged cabinet. The power to make ministers out of MPs at will is not a feature of the parliamentary system, nor is it a feature of any presidential system in constitutional democracies. It is an unusual presidential power that JR Jayewardene created for himself as a mechanism for manipulating parliament. The biggest user and beneficiary of this mechanism was of course Mahinda Rajapaksa. The tragic-comic travesty now is that the incumbent President has no support in parliament, and the government in parliament is desperate to expand its cabinet size but has no support for it from the President.

The myth of stability

The farce of forming national governments to increase the cabinet size is also the perfect fodder for the critics of the 19th Amendment. The critics always pick on the many imperfections of 19A but severely ignore the principal purpose it has served – that of rescinding the 18th Amendment and removing the President’s arbitrary power to dissolve parliament practically at any time of her or his choosing. In fact, those who are vociferous in their criticisms of 19A did not have anything critical to say about 18A. And those who shed tears for democracy because of the removal of the President’s power to dissolve parliament and hold elections – either surprisingly forget or they are unsurprisingly ignorant of JR Jayewardene’s cardinal reason for implementing the presidential system: STABILITY. And JRJ’s main evidence for political instability in Sri Lanka until 1978: too many elections, too many cross-overs and too many government turnovers! As for that small segment of pundits who are both critics of 19A as well of JRJ, we can only wish them well in sorting out their own contradictions, if not confusions.

Not that JRJ was correct in his evidence or convincing in his argument. NM Perera contemporaneously dismissed it as JRJ’s “lame contention that the present (parliamentary) system of Government makes for instability and lack of continuity scarcely bear examination.” What JRJ offered as ‘examples of instability’, NM applauded as instances that “neatly reinforce the power of democracy” and “prove that the present Parliamentary system has been tested and found not wanting.” It is the Presidential system that has been found wanting, and never more so than under the current incumbent.

Lanka’s current problem is that the same old problems have been passed over from the hands of the sublime to the hands of the ridiculous. That is how we came upon the obnoxious 18th Amendment, and after getting rid of it we are stuck with the imperfections of the 19th Amendment. And the debate between the two sides has become the proverbial tale of the pot and the kettle calling each other black. It is not only in regard to the constitution, but also in regard to acts and allegations of corruption and instances of abuse of power. When both sides have immoral equivalences, neither side can claim a high moral ground over the other. Any allegation by one side against the other provokes the retort – what about your side? End of discussion.

Moral equivalence was the notion that was made popular in America by President Reagan’s UN Ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, a young socialist, life-long Democrat, and a Republican hawk after her fifties. Kirkpatrick was a defender of American power overseas, arguing that there was no moral equivalence between America, the chosen land of democracy and freedom, on the one hand, and the Soviet Union, a totalitarian communist state without freedom or democracy. The Soviets responded with the argument of ‘whataboutery’ – that is, what about the state of affairs in the US? The Soviets picked on the difference between real freedoms (in the USSR) and the formal freedoms (in the US), and plights of the African Americans and the American poor.

A people’s candidate

In todays’ politics – moral equivalence and ‘whataboutery’ are arguments over corruption within countries. When the main political parties are all corrupt – ‘whataboutery’ becomes the argument of everybody. There is also no moral equivalence, false or otherwise. There are only immoral equivalences, and plenty of ‘whataboutery’, as there are now in Sri Lanka. When political choice is narrowed to choosing between immoral equivalences, the only way to positively move forward is to break out of the logjam of immoral equivalences and limited choices, and to positively expand the people’s choices.

Put another way, when no political party can nominate a presidential candidate with clean hands and honest intentions, isn’t it time for the people to clean out the whole bunch? It is that simple as an idea, and it is that difficult to execute. But it is neither inevitable nor impossible. Political change cannot be brought about by chanting prayers, chasing planets, or breaking coconuts. Nor does Sri Lanka need a violent revolution. Simple elections are good enough to effect big enough changes. That has been the experience from 1931 to 2015, even though the outcomes have been mostly mixed and often short-lived.

Who would have thought that in January 2015, an obscure common opposition candidate would get the better of a governing juggernaut that too had stolen the national limelight after starting in obscurity and was hell bent on taking out Lanka on a 99-year lease? The people made it happen in January 2015. They can make it happen again. But they need a candidate who can best represent the most of what they want. The country needs a people’s candidate as opposed to party and family candidates.

The idea of a people’s candidate sits well with the recent initiative for people’s constitution- following the consensus reached by 46 people’s organizations at a meeting in Colombo convened by the Punarudaya Movement on Saturday, January 19, 2018,to launch a ‘Movement for Making a People’s Constitution’ based on a “grand alliance” of people’s organizations. The gathering of 46 organizations and the launching of a broader movement for a ‘people’s constitution’, demonstrates two political facts.

One, the dissatisfaction with the existing constitutional system and the desire to overhaul it might be more deep seated and widespread than what most constitutional experts and political commentators might be willing to concede. And, two, the new movement demonstrates the determination to take the task of constitution making out of the hands of politicians in parliament and hand it over to a genuinely participatory constituent assembly.

The real question is what will the Punarudaya Movement and others associated with it do to advance their project in this year of elections, 2019? It should be obvious to them that what happens in the upcoming presidential, parliamentary, not to mention provincial elections, will undoubtedly have serious implications for the constitutional project. The project itself is an extension of the single-issue movement for abolishing the executive presidency launched by the late Sobitha Thero in 2014. The project is also the result of the people’s frustration with what has transpired after the January 2015 election victory that was a direct outcome of Sobitha Thero’s movement.

It is incumbent on everyone who did the political legwork in 2015 to make sure that the expectations of 2015 are not further stalled or totally reversed by the upcoming elections in 2019 and 2020. We can expect only stalling and backpedaling from the candidacy and the presidency of Ranil Wickremesinghe. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s mission is to reverse the verdict of January 2015 and take the country back to the 18th Amendment and unlimited presidential powers and terms for the Rajapaksas. Maithripala Sirisena has made so many false starts in his first term no one is going to trust him for another term.

Speaker KaruJayasuriya began the New Year (2019) determined to abolish the executive presidency. There is no time left for him to accomplish that task before the next presidential election. But he presents an intriguing prospect to become a people’s (not the UNP’s) candidate in the next presidential election, one who might even win the election on the promise to end the presidency and fulfill that promise. Unlike Sirisena!

Karu comes under Maithri’s wrath

BY GAGANI WEERAKOON- FEB 10 2019

President Maithripala Sirisena who arrived at the Parliament Chamber for the first time after the political turmoil which commenced on 26 October 2018, last Wednesday (6) with a long list of complaints just like in his address to the nation at the 71st National Independence Day celebration and did not spare anyone who has now come under his wrath. The top in his hit list appeared to be none other than Speaker Karu Jayasuriya.
He informed the House that the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had obtained a statement from him regarding the alleged assassination attempt. “I must say here that the CID has done an impressive job in investigating the alleged plot to assassinate me and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. They have completed their work by now. The last statement they wanted was from me and that has been obtained. They would hand over the matter to the Attorney General’s Department and we would all know the names of those responsible within the next two to three weeks.”

He also noted the importance of solving the contradictions between the Executive and the Constitutional Council (CC).

“The CC has rejected 12 names that I sent it of those to be appointed as Judges. Although they should inform me of their reasons for doing so, they have failed to do so, thus far. The Judges are confused because of the conduct of the CC at the moment. Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, who is the Chairman of the CC, is not here right now and I wish he was here.
The Speaker sent me a four-page letter stating that the seniority would not be counted but only merit when making appointments by the CC. I consider it as a tragedy because the CC rejects the names of the Judges on the basis of judgments they had given in the past. If anyone is not qualified then that should be conveyed to me. But they haven’t done that and now everyone blames me for that. The Judges think that it was I who cut their names from the list. This dispute should be cleared.”

Speaker Jayasuriya who is also the Chairman of the Constitutional Council did not let President’s remarks go unnoticed as he took on President Sirisena’s critical remarks regarding the conduct of the CC the very next day, even though he was not present when the Head of State made the speech.

In response, however, the Speaker stressed that there is no point in having a CC if seniority is the only criterion to select individuals for higher ranks and Judges to the Superior Courts.

“The CC rejecting 12 names of Judges proposed by the President to the Superior Courts is incorrect. When the President sends three to four names for one vacancy, we only approve one name. It is unfair to mention such instances as rejections. The CC considers the integrity, independence and impartiality of the candidates in addition to seniority when making appointments to independent Commissions and other higher ranks. I tabled the criteria followed by the CC on 8 December 2016.
 I would table it again (yesterday) for the information of Parliamentarians. The CC did not approve the names of nominees who had allegations of bribery or any other allegation against them. The CC also rejected nominations where the Chief Justice’s recommendation was not there.”

Furthermore, no party in Parliament holds the majority in the CC, Speaker Jayasuriya said.  He said the CC is currently composed of two United National Party MPs, three United People’s Freedom Alliance MPs, one Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna MP and three civil society members, adding that it represents the views of all Parties.

 “There had been instances where the President also made appointments without solely depending on the seniority criterion. We do not wish to argue by referring to them individually. Under the 19th Amendment, it is the duty of the CC to select eligible persons without giving way to undue pressure, and we believe that we have performed it well.
In the CC, all Members can express their views freely, and there had been no pressure to approve any name. Except for a few, all decisions the CC had hitherto taken were unanimous, and the CC had approved most of the names proposed by the President,” the Speaker explained.

“Some people accused the CC over appointments of Judges to Magistrate’s and District Courts. For such persons, I should say that the CC only oversees the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The Judicial Service Commission has the responsibility on the appointments to the other Courts.”

Speaker Jayasuriya responded to criticisms of the President concerning the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) as well.

The President in his speech criticised the HRCSL seeking a report on the deploying of Police Special Task Force (STF) to the Angunakolapelessa Prison. He also alleged that the HRCSL is delaying the recalling of Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Mali.

The Speaker said that he informed the HRCSL to make a statement with regard to these allegations.

“But the CC wishes to clarify two points here. The HRCSL informed the CC that it requested a detailed report on deploying the STF to the Angunakolapelessa Prison because various parties made requests to the Commission regarding that. However, after receiving the report from the STF, the HCRSL did not raise any objections.”

“The delay in recalling Sri Lankan soldiers in Mali, who were engaged in the United Nations (UN) peacekeeping mission, was due to a collective decision taken by the UN Office, Sri Lanka’s tri-forces, the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the HRCSL. The responsibility to appoint officers for the UN Peacekeeping Mission lies only with the HRCSL. This proves the confidence of the international community in the HRCSL.”

“I have repeatedly expressed my willingness to meet the President and explain the matters pertaining to the CC if that is needed. Criticising the Independent Commissions without doing so is a lasting damage to the country,” he asserted.
National Govt postponed

In the meantime, the United National Front’s attempt to form a National Government had to be postponed amidst protests from the Opposition as well as from the Government ranks.

The Government on Thursday (7) backed down from moving the proposal to form a National Government, saying that it was decided after discussing the objections raised by various Opposition parties, with the President, on 6 February night.

The proposal was postponed to the next Parliamentary sittings week as per the request of President Sirisena, Leader of the House Minister Lakshman Kiriella said.

It was reported that, the President, during the meeting with the United National Front (UNF), had requested them to present a proposal in keeping with the normal procedure of Parliament business, when the proposal regarding forming a National Government is to be taken for debate.

On Wednesday (6) the Government decided to take up a debate on forming a National Government despite the objections of all Opposition Parties in Parliament.

This decision was taken during the Party Leaders’ Meeting in Parliament. Speaker Karu Jayasuriya presided over the meeting.

When the Government proposed the debate, all the Opposition Parties including the TNA and the JVP had vehemently protested the proposal.

However, despite those objections, the Government decided to move the proposal of a National Government in the House by suspending the Standing Orders. A vote on the proposal was scheduled to be taken in the afternoon on the same day following the full-day debate.

The proposal for a National Government seeks the approval to increase the number of Cabinet Ministerial posts from 30 to 48 and Deputy Ministers’ posts from 40 to 45.

It is reported that the Government plans to form a National Government with the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) which has only one Member of Parliament.

The only SLMC Member of Parliament is Zayed Ali Zahir Moulana who was elected from the Batticaloa District.

President Sirisena in his National Day speech also objected to setting up a National Government with a Party which has only one seat in Parliament.
Leader of the House, Kiriella has vouched UNF Government will form a National Government before the end of February with the help of nine SLFP members who have pledged their support to the UNF, yesterday.

“We have no doubt that we can pass the motion with ease with the support of the nine SLFP members who have already pledged their support. I expect to move the motion in Parliament on 20 February,” the Minister said.

He has also dismissed the claim that the UNF was attempting to form a National Government with the single SLMC member State Minister of Social Empowerment, Ali Zahir Moulana.

However, despite Ministers Kiriella and Kabir Hashim backing the idea of forming National Government, the idea was not entertained by many including Party’s Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa when UNF Group met at the Temple Trees last week under the patronage of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

It was Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne who raised concerns about protests against the formation of a National Government. He was backed by the likes Sajith Premadasa, Eran Wickremaratne and Ajith P. Perera.

Minister Mano Ganesan also sharing the same sentiments has pointed out that it is too much of a risk to take when the UNF is not commanding a majority in Parliament and the support of the backbenchers is at a stake.  Responding to Ganesan’s remarks Party Leader Wickremesinghe has said; “We’ll take care of that and all you have to do is getting TNA to abstain.”

MR in India
Undertaking his first overseas visit as the Opposition Leader, Mahinda Rajapaksa went to India to make the inaugural address the third edition of The Huddle, The Hindu’s two-day annual thought conclave, at the ITC Gardenia Hotel in Bengaluru yesterday.

Responding to a question regarding the next Presidential Poll, Rajapaksa said that they have to find a ‘good candidate’ for the upcoming Presidential Election as he himself cannot contest and that he will amend Constitution after their candidate wins.

“Unfortunately, I can’t contest, so have to find a good candidate. This candidate will win. I will amend Constitution after this candidate wins,” he said.

Responding to a question regarding the issues of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa said: “People can be satisfied, but not politicians. My problem is that.”

Working relationship between the governments changed. Lack of communication between the parties seemed to have led to this situation, he said.
Some salient points from his speech are:

“Two major breakdowns in our relationship happened in the 1980s and 2014. In the 70s, our ties reached a high. Both Prime Ministers had a personal friendship. In 1979, Morarji Desai said problems inherited from colonial past had been resolved. We’ve entered a new era of cooperation.
 Post-Independence relationship between India and Sri Lanka was good despite having contrasting ideologies. India being secular and socialist; Sri Lanka being right wing and pro-West. Nehru even convinced USSR that Sri Lanka was a sovereign nation.

Even when Sri Lanka was engaged in a war against the cruelest terrorist group in the world, India’s relationship was friendly. India’s understanding was a key factor in eliminating terrorism.

In 2014, the second major breakdown in bilateral relations took place. The Government changed in India. Working relationship between the Governments changed. Lack of communication between the parties seemed to have led to this situation. Communication is a vital factor that can make or break relationships. Misunderstandings of the ‘80s and 2014 could have been avoided with communication.

On India’s dealing with Sri Lanka, here’s my suggestion: If the outgoing party has given recognition to a working relationship with Sri Lanka, then the incoming party should also give the same recognition. Changes in Government have serious consequences for relationships and for both countries.

Strong mechanism at country-country level should be in place to clear any misunderstanding that may pop by from time to time. As long as countries understand the foundations of the relationship, nothing can be done to jeopardize the relationship. National security, social well-being, political stability, economy and international transport will play a key role between the countries. National security is important given the destructive forces that have operated and will come up in the future.

We’ve a mutual obligation to ensure security of each other because we are geographically close. Maritime security has become an issue. It will be an important aspect of a well formed strategy. Vibrant, on-going dialogue will ensure each other’s national security. It should transcend normal dialogue process. Strong political leadership is a key factor for a stable relationship.” 

Fake Director J’Pura Hospital Removed: 17 Million Financial Fraud Taken Before The FCID

 FEBRUARY 9, 2019

One day after Voice Against Corruption lodging a complaint against the massive scale financial fraud committed by the illegally appointed fake director of Sri Jayewardenepura General Hospital Dr Susitha Senaratne yesterday, he was removed from his fake appointment today via letter, Colombo Telegraph learns reliably.

 Senaratne, banned from attending even the Board Meetings of the hospital by the courts due to the illegal nature of his appointment is a political appointee and an accolate of Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health. 

Today, via a letter delivered by Dr Athula Kahandaliyanage, chairman SJGH, Susitha Senaratne, was informed that he is transferred back to Lady Ridgeway Hospital, NHSL where he will go back to being a medical officer. 

Colombo Telegraph earlier exposed a mega financial fraud where Suistha Senaratne has paid Telichanneling PVT Limited nearly 18 million rupees of public money for a document digitalizing project. This fake company whose address and telephone numbers were also found to be fake, has Susitha Senaratne’s wife Ancy Senaratne as a director. Ancy Senaratne is a medical officer at the OPD of Central Hospital Maradana. 

For over 4 years, the majority of the specialists of SJGH, vast majority of the nurses and other staff have been battling this corrupt political stooge. Athula Kahandaliyanage amidst mounting pressure to take action following the Government Auditor’s report exposing the massive fraud of document digitalizing project of SJGH finally subjugated to the due administrative stance regarding Susitha Senaratne.

Wasantha Samarasinghe, convener of the Voice Against Corruption has submitted all the relevant evidence pertaining to the massive financial and administrative fraud to the following investigative bodies.

1. The FCID /the Sri Lanka Police

2. Commission for the investigation of allegations of bribery or corruption

3. Presidential investigation unit

4. Presidential investigation commission

In their submission to the above mentioned bodies, Voice Against Corruption has presented the evidence on the following:

1. Administrative corruption committed by appointing a completely unqualified individual to a tertiary care hospital as director and perpetuating his appointment by illegal means.

2. Massive financial fraud committed by Susitha Senaratne in paying 18 million rupees to a company directored by his wife Ancy Senaratne and all the tender irregularities surrounding this fraud. 

3. Financial and administrative frauds surrounding the purchase of a Rs 23.5 million worth incinerator by Susitha Senaratne

4. The financial fraud of Rs 55.0 million surrounding the purchase of new lifts to the hospital by Susitha Senaratne

5. Submission of false and doctored documents to the judiciary to justify his illegal appointment in violation with the regulations and the circulars of the government of Sri Lanka 

6. Submission of false details and dates regarding overseas travel to the Ministry of Health and submitting false data about his professional grade and occupational details. 

7. Drawing a salary of Rs 350 000 per month from Lanka Hospitals, another government enterprise “while working full time at SJGH”This submission by the Voice Against Corruption has been accepted by all the investigative bodies to which it was submitted and police and relevant units are alerted about the possible manipulations and theft of documents and their alteration/ destruction that is expected in the days to come.

Read More

Attack on ATMs: The use of the ‘eyeball test’ involving vigilance is the best

Skimming trick may be again used for stealing money from atms


Monday, 11 February 2019 

Irrational reaction of Homo sapiens

It seems that the genetic code of modern Homo sapiens is not different from that of other species. The latter is guided not by thinking but by instincts. Similarly, Homo sapiens is still embedded with the ‘gene of fear’ that compels it to ‘fight or flight’ when faced with fear-stricken situations. That emotion is necessary for safety and survival. But in the modern world, Homo sapiens who is called ‘man the wise’ does not have to resort to either course without subjecting the source of fear to a critical inquiry.

This irrational behaviour of Homo sapiens led psychologist Herbert Simon, a Nobel laureate in economics, to coin the term ‘bounded rationality’ to describe it. According to him, Homo sapiens is rational within the boundary of ‘information, time and brain power available’, no matter what improved education, counselling or mentoring he may have got.

Later, another Nobel laureate in economics, Daniel Kahneman, made a startling revelation about why we make appropriate judgments fast on some occasions and slow on others. He attributed it to ‘biases of intuition’. That is, we allow ourselves to be guided by our own over-confidence in beliefs, impressions and intuitive knowledge rather than rational thinking. We believe that we are correct even when we have made wrong judgments.

This deficiency of ours is being used by politicians, religious leaders, marketers and many more to herd and lead us. We do not think that we have been victims, but firmly believe that we have been correctly guided. This weakness of Homo sapiens has been the source of all financial manias, panics and crashes in the history, as documented by Economist Charles Kindleberger, in a book under the same title.



An isolated ATM skimming

The reaction of Sri Lankans last week when a few Automated Teller Machines or ATMs operated by a few commercial banks came under attack by some criminal elements was testimony to this irrational behaviour.

The modus operandi used by these elements, nicknamed as ATM skimming, is second only to a James Bond movie full of weird-looking, intelligence-gathering high-tech gadgets. To withdraw monies fraudulently from a customer’s account, one needs to have the details embedded in the ATM card and the customer’s personal identification number or PIN. To capture the former, they had stealthily fitted a card-reading electronic device to the ATM’s card slot. To learn of the PIN, a secret camera had been mounted just above the keyboard of selected ATMs. Then, monies had been withdrawn from the customers’ accounts by using a duplicate card cloned by embedding the information so copied.

They had used a long weekend to put their plan into action. That was to prevent banks from detecting the robbery because they are usually operate low key on holidays or during weekends. But the banks, having detected these unusual activities in time, had taken prompt action to limit the loss only to those transactions that had already been completed. Thus, a major cyber robbery of Sri Lanka’s banking system was averted.


Fake news to create a major banking crisis

Even before the news of the ATM robbery was out, Sri Lanka’s irrational minds appeared to have sprung into full action. WhatsApp and other social media communication networks were used by bigger unscrupulous characters to malign the banks concerned and create panic among bank customers.

I received a message purported to have been disseminated by a Sri Lankan living abroad claiming that all bank networks had been hacked, implying monies were being robbed. It had sourced its information to a leading TV channel which is said to have advised bank customers to check the balances in their bank accounts. Though it was obvious that the information in the message had been faked implicating this TV channel, there was no denial of it in the website of its home page. It added credence to the fake message, further fuelling its dissemination.

But a bigger damage was done by other Sri Lankans, either through mischief or compelled by genuine concerns, by re-forwarding this fake message wholesale to all others. It spread like wildfire among Sri Lankans living both in the country and outside, fanned by irresistible manic compulsions. The attack on ATMs had been isolated and it had been brought under control. Yet, the secondary attack orchestrated by the unscrupulous elements through fake news in social media, amplified by word of mouth, was to create a major banking crisis in the country.


LankaClear has no role

The fake news had also implicated LankaPay, a national payment network operated by Sri Lanka’s cheque clearing agency, LankaClear. The rumour had been that LankaPay had been used to rob money from customer accounts. The irrational minds to which both LankaPay and its product JustPay were aliens had believed the story that it was LankaPay which was responsible for the digital heist of bank accounts in the country.

A senior bank manager whom I met also expressed these sentiments to me. His concern was that the security system in the common use of ATMs by several banks, known as the Common ATM Switch or CAS and operated by LankaClear, had been breached, enabling the cyber robbers to rob customers’ money.

LankaClear was not responsible for the robbery in question because it was only a facilitator of the common use of ATMs by several banks. ATMs were still owned by banks which were responsible for their security and proper use by bank customers. On the other hand, the product of LankaPay – tagged JustPay – was a transaction between a customer and a merchant by directly debiting his account by using a mobile device. ATM cards did not come into the picture at all.

Even before the news of the ATM robbery was out, Sri Lanka’s irrational minds appeared to have sprung into full action. WhatsApp and other social media

communication networks were used by bigger unscrupulous characters to malign the banks concerned and create panic among bank customers 


Banks have always been source for robbers 

Throughout history, banks have been the most sought-after institution by robbers. That was because they were rich with stacks of currency notes and coins and robbers could have an easy getaway after robbing them. Hence, armed gangs often covering their faces with masks have raided banks to rob cash in their vaults at gun point. It was an action-filled spectacle to witness armed men storming into a bank branch, asking both customers and bank staff to lie face down and then freely pushing money into bags before making a getaway in speeding vehicles.

However, these incidents were kept under control by banks by stepping up their physical security alarm systems. As such, the incidence of bank hold-ups has been on the decline. Another reason for its decline has been the significant reduction in the potential gain due to a similar reduction in the currency content in a bank branch, a development due to fast and progressive digitisation of banks.

With that, a new type of bank robbery in the form of cyber attacks on banks began to take root in the system. The attackers were not armed with guns but with sophisticated equipment that could hack banks’ computer systems to transfer money from accounts to undisclosed destinations. They were carried out at two levels. One was at the banks’ head office level penetrating their main computer systems. The other was at the local level targeting cash dispensing machines also known as ATMs.


Compromising a bank’s computer system

At the head office level, a bank’s computer system is operated by numerous staff members who have been given passwords to have access to it. It is these passwords which hackers try to acquire. Hence, banks have introduced a strict password compliance guideline to their staff.

Despite these measures, simple human errors and negligence would open doors for hackers to acquire them easily. Against this human error, banks have protected themselves through firewalls that would block unauthorised entry, encryption of messages preventing viewers from reading them and regular update of software and ‘data use audits’ as a preventive measure.

Hence, it is very rare now that computer systems have been hacked and monies belonging to customers have been stolen. The risks to systems have been the introduction of malware temporarily disabling their operation. In Sri Lanka, such major attacks on banks’ computer systems have not been reported in the past few years.

Today, it is ATMs that come under attack by criminal elements to rob money from genuine customers.


ATM jackpotting

In addition to ATM skimming, there are other ways of doing so. One frequently adopted method, known as ATM Jackpotting, involves in fitting ATMs with a duplicate computer operated remotely from an off-site. Similar to an endoscope that penetrates a human body to take pictures inside, the heart of the operating system of the ATM is penetrated and its operating system is captured.

For practical purposes, the bank concerned will receive the alert that the ATM is out of order. By the time the bank’s technical staff comes there to fix it, the remote operator would have drained it of all the cash, forcing the machine to cough it out at full speed. This would amount to a hold-up of a bank branch by criminal gangsters since it is bank’s money that is being stolen.


Removing ATMs by using forklifts

Another popular method is the removal of ATMs located in isolated places using forklifts and carrying them away to retrieve the currency inside them at leisure. This is exactly similar to how it was done in the Wild West in the 18th century.

There, the bank robbers will come behind the bank branch, blow up the wall partitioning the iron safe of the bank, pull it out by using actual horse power and whisk it away before the sheriff would make his presence in the crime scene. The safe is then cut in order to retrieve the stacks of currency notes and coins within. Hence, raiding of ATMs by criminal elements is a common occurrence in the world today.


Ghost or fake ATMs

To retrieve details of ATM cards and PINs, criminal elements had in the initial stage used some ingenious methods. They would buy a used ATM discarded by a bank and recondition it to look like a genuine ATM operated by a reputed bank.

Then, the ghost or fake ATM is set it in a public place to deceive unsuspecting customers. When a customer inserts his card into the slot of these ghost or fake ATMs and enters his PIN, the machine immediately captures the data in the card and PIN, having displayed an error message on the screen to send the customer away.

The information is then used to clone duplicate cards for use in subsequent operations. This has been made possible by the availability of a large number of discarded ATMs in the used ATM market.


Technology brings in risks too

Technology has definitely eased our life. But, it has also brought in new risks. Thus, the challenge of bankers today has been how to use technology, while keeping the risks at a minimum. For that, the three parties which have an interest in a safe financial system – customers, banks and regulators – should get together and form a common front to fight abusers of technology.

In this context, vigilance, due diligence and quick action are the buzz words of success.


Alert the customer in real time

On the banks’ side, there should be adequate safety measures within the bank to thwart cyber robbers who usually operate from unknown foreign countries.

There are instances where banks have been negligent in changing the password of the customer. In one instance, the password had been communicated to the customer via common email and the email had been intercepted by criminal elements operating from a foreign country. Before the customer had noted it, his whole account had been drained. While the bank should take responsibility for not passing the password in encrypted form to the customer, the issue involved in this case boils down to failure to alert and failure to exercise due diligence.

In this modern communication world, there are enough low-cost methods of alerting customers of transactions being done in their accounts on a real-time basis. One is the use of SMS services; another is the use of email communications. Of these two methods, the first is preferred since it does not require internet facilities for communication.

When a customer is alerted via SMS, he could immediately alert back the bank concerned about a possible compromise of his account. It could limit the loss to what has already taken place.


Due diligence should be rewarded

At the same time, bank officers should use due diligence when they observe unusual patterns of debits to customers’ accounts. Such due diligence exercised by a Sri Lankan bank when the payments system of Bangladesh Bank or BB was compromised by hackers had saved BB some $ 900 million. Hence, due diligence is a preventive measure and bank officers should be encouraged to use it by rewarding them appropriately. Thus, there is nothing better than the use of the costless ‘eyeball test’ involving vigilance for preventing cyberattacks on banks.

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