Freedom without discipline or discipline without freedom

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
~Albert Camus
20 February 2019

Freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship; these are all enshrined in our Constitution as fundamental rights. No one can take them away; no President, no Prime Minister and no Parliament. The judiciary, the third pillar of government, shall ensure that. The superlatively strong backbone of the judiciary branch of government made it known to the country in the recent 50-day government fiasco. There does not seem to be any emerging threat from outside military powers, nor from any internal terrorist group to justify suspension of those fundamental rights. Yet, when one advocates such suspension of these fundamental rights, especially at peacetime, one has to examine the mindset of those who advocate such suspensions. What needs to be suspended is the very utterance of such blatantly phony needs for those suspensions of our basic rights and privileges.

Any politician would like to have total power over his people. Such a desire and appetite is a natural tendency of a person seeking to control his minion-serfs, the way our ancestral leaders sought to maintain their superiority over whom they reigned. Yet, any political development does not happen overnight; nor does it occur in a vacuum. The context within which any political evolution takes place is of supreme measure; its relevance to the context cannot be ignored and political scientists and historians have proven the indispensability of context when they pen their conclusions and deductions and take time and space to write an accurate account of societal development through the ages.

Any politician would like to have total power over his people. Such a desire and appetite is a natural tendency of a person seeking to control his minion-serfs, the way our ancestral leaders sought to maintain their superiority over whom they reigned

When a country is used to be ruled by kings and queens, when its citizenry, though mistakenly called sovereign, is condemned to the status of ‘subject’ instead of a free people, the affinity such people develop towards her rulers – the monarchs in our ancient times – could become increasingly affable. A sophisticated notion of liberal democracy in which all human beings are dealt equally would not appeal to those half-educated, self-righteous usurpers of political power who pursue their own sinister ends. Added to these sinister motives is the false sense of ‘character-strength’ that is built into an up-and-coming leader whose natural sensitivities are mainly focused on his or her own dictatorial demeanor.

The allurement to appeals of more and more powers concentrated in one single person, coating that concentration power with a veneer of ‘doer’s’ persona is not a fresh concept of governance. Since time immemorial, from the very dawn of civilization, man’s desire towards the magic of control over his peers has rendered itself as a sense of strength. His power of suppression over his fellowmen and maintaining such power has naturally lent itself as a veritable tool he could use to use his peers towards the ends so defined by the suppressor and this suppressor is unmistakably called the ‘leader.’

Over the millennia, with the advance of the human family’s evolution, various stages of development of governance, some quite sophisticated and others reasonably undernourished, have contributed to the modern-day seats of power. However, much sophisticated the systems that have evolved to produce the current cascades of power flowing from either the barrel of the gun or the art of reasonable persuasion through the ballot, one fundamental element has not changed. Man’s desire to cling on to self- aggrandizement at whatever cost has hardly left him; his twisted desire to control others who are especially considered weak and submissive, may have been suppressed temporarily and remain dormant but given the slightest encouragement and provision of other engaging circumstances such as war and phony patriotism, that sense of superiority which is really an indispensable product of related and unrelated socio-economic factors, assumes a more relevant role in a given scenario.

Such a brutally realistic scenario is prevailing in the country today. With the legitimate and peaceful ouster of Mahinda Rajapaksa from the seat of power in 2015, with the advent of a new President named Maithripala Sirisena, the latter grossly ill-advised responses to genuine differences he encountered with his own Prime Minister gave rise to an unprecedented constitutional crisis, the likes of which are usually associated with uneducated, undisciplined and uncouth leaders of the African or Latin American countries. That response from Sirisena is essentially an integral element of the pattern and culture that was being nurtured and nursed by his previous master Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Sirisena is a consummate product of the Bandaranaike-led ‘cultural revolution’ in 1956. Severely uncomfortable in the drawing rooms of Colombo 7, though lucid in the vernacular but woefully deficient in the English language and its nuanced idioms, prose and verse, Sirisena’s disdain for social-democratic values were bared open when he tried to express his disagreements with his peers.

In other words, while the contemptuous conduct of the Executive came in for total rejection of all who identify themselves with the modern-day democratic values that define a developing social-democratic society, by digging further into the pit, he became completely alien to the unsuspecting voter who voted him to power. Preaching from atop a secured political platform was mistakenly suggested as a solution to the burning issues of the day. Rhetorical nonsense in the native language was used to scorn his ‘new opposition’ which now consisted of Ranil Wickremesinghe and the United National Party (UNP). In this maddening rush of events, the Maithri/Ranil combo presented itself as a weak and brittle representation of the governing powers. The resolution of the crisis so created by the Executive and his cohorts gave a new dimension to the country’s ailing cultural patterns.

Independence of the judiciary and the workings of a vibrant legislature led by a fearless Speaker of the House produced a glimmer of hope for the continuance of a developing democracy in South Asia.

When caught up in these chaotic winds of political uncertainties, the people can become susceptible to the sweet words uttered by would-be dictators; they could become victims of their own ignorance and laziness

Yet, when a so-called ‘strong man’ makes an attempt to enter into this chaotic theatre of Sri Lanka’s politics calling himself a strong and decisive man, there is in fact an irresistible genre in such a ‘fresh’ entry. However, when that person is trying to dictate that freedom so closely guarded and fearlessly defended is being sacrificed at the altar of discipline, then the tale assumes a definitively negative shade. Discipline has to come from within; it should not be imposed with the aid of bayonets and bullets nor by the fear of abduction or being jailed. Discipline imposed upon a free people by uneducated, ill-informed and greedy politicians is neither discipline nor freedom. Pseudo-thinkers must be called for what they are: utterly pseudo.

When caught up in these chaotic winds of political uncertainties, the people can become utterly susceptible to the sweet words uttered by would-be dictators; they could become victims of their own ignorance and laziness. Discipline from within, as Buddha, the Great One taught us thousands of years ago, would prepare us for any untoward exigencies. Discipline preached and enforced as a matter of constitutional demand on us is a bitter concoction, if gulped down, would not only incapacitate the organism of man, it will kill him in the very short run itself. Therefore, the balancing act of freedom vs. discipline is no balancing act. It is subjugation of freedom for the facilitation of power to a greedy man who is waiting on the threshold.

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com 

Support Street Spirit in Sri Lanka

Feb 19, 2019

The coup attempt at the end of last year saw Sri Lanka’s fragile and imperfect democracy pushed to the brink. It survived, in large part, due to the many ordinary citizens who took to the streets in peaceful resistance.

An exciting new project – Street Spirit – seeks to capture some of those stories and spark further conversation among young activists in Sri Lanka about nonviolent strategies for social change.

Below is an appeal from the organisers asking for your support to get it off the ground. Can you help? If so, click here!

There is a groundswell of political dynamism among the rising generation of young Sri Lankans – ignited in part by the attempted constitutional coup at the end of last year. But there is a dearth of literature available in Sinhala about nonviolent strategies for social change.

We’re working on an amazing project for young activists in Sri Lanka. It will make it possible for them to read and share – for the first time-ever in Sinhala – examples of dynamic activism from around the world.

I’m supporting Sri Lankan friends translate and publish in Sinhala the inspiring collection of real-life triumphs put together in ‘Street Spirit’ by Steve Crawshaw, the Advocacy Director of Freedom from Torture. The preface is by Ai Wei Wei.

We’ve had donations from 34 people in the last three weeks, which have brought in just over £600. I’m now racing to meet the end of February when Steve Crawshaw will visit Sri Lanka. It would be fantastic to launch “Street Spirit” in Sinhala while he is here.

I’ve managed to get a discount from the printer and they say they can print it in time if I raise £500 in the next 2 weeks. The good news is that one of our friends just offered to match every new gift to get us across the finishing line! That means we’re really only £250 away from our goal.

If you are fed up with the politics of negativity and you want to help these young people get access to inspiring stories of practical and effective protests from around the world, this project is something really worth supporting!

It doesn’t matter how little you can donate – your solidarity will be in the participation. But if we can get 10 friends to donate £25 right away, we’ll be able to get “Street Spirit” in Sinhala out in time!

All donors will be credited in the book unless you request to be anonymous (you can chose this in the donations tab).

For more information please visit the crowdfund site. All money received goes directly to the project.

JVP deserves a chance

The JVP is an untried horse with able leaders and it has immense potential to take the country in a new direction – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Thursday, 21 February 2019 

However much and in whichever manner one shuffles the pack of cards in Sri Lankan politics, five jokers constantly appear right at the front: an incompetent Ranil Wickremasinghe (RW), a schizophrenic Maithripala Sirisena (MS) and sanctimonious Rajapaksas – Mahinda (MR), Gota (GR) and Basil (BR). These are the ones who are desperately on the run looking for some electoral configuration to win the forthcoming election race and capture the presidency and prime ministership.

It appears that the country has no credible alternatives other than the above five, and a feeling of despondency seems to paralyse the voting public. However, a serious review of the situation should consider JVP as a promising alternative. Even if it emerges with enough seats in the Parliament to hold the balance of power that would at least keep the other “bastards honest”.


There is no need to repeat the achievements and failures of MR, MS and RW. They are now common knowledge. Instead, what is important to note are the fundamental and structural issues in relation to polity remain unresolved, which continue to frustrate and jeopardise attempts to tackle the more immediate problems such as rising cost of living, widening income disparity, corruption, lawlessness, drug culture and frequenting natural disasters.

The year 2009 was a golden opportunity for MR to clean the slate and write a new chapter to build a united Sri Lanka based on principles of democracy, justice and equity. With a heroic fame he enjoyed after winning the civil war and eliminating separatist tendencies he could have become the father of a new nation had he taken the time to reflect upon and implement measures to heal the wounds of the war victims, reduce the size of the military, which was now becoming depressingly unaffordable, rationalise budgetary expenditures to increase savings and reduce a war-driven national debt, prioritise the developmental needs and seek foreign assistance at affordable terms, and above all provide an administration clean of corruption and nepotism.

MR squandered this opportunity, made his presidency absolutist, worsened the war-driven debt by limitless borrowing to finance prestige-driven projects and turned the country into a playground for regional power brokers.

The year 2015 provided his successors a second chance to put the house in order. Voters entrusted the MS-RW couple with a clear mandate to clean up the mess left by MR. Instead of cleaning up, the new regime through sheer incompetency and interpersonal acrimony dragged the country even deeper into the quagmire.

Politically divided and economically battered, the nation has now reached a dead end. Ethnic politics and neoliberal economics, the foundation on which Sri Lankan polity is structured since 1977 (although ethnic politics predates 1977) is cracking underneath threatening to bring down the entire superstructure.  Sometime towards the end of this year voters will be asked to make another choice for new leadership. What choice do they have given the abysmal record of the ones on the run?

The JVP is an untried horse with able leaders and it has immense potential to take the country in a new direction. So far the performance of their representatives in Parliament has demonstrated an unassailable commitment to uphold the principles of democracy and law and order while restructuring the polity upon a different foundation. In that respect they have declared a readiness to reconsider the economic package of neoliberalism and weed out its costly outfits to make it more humane with greater role for the State.

From their parliamentary debates one is able to glean JVP’s resolve to abolish the executive presidency, reassess alliances with foreign powers in the interest of strengthening the nation’s sovereignty, undertake measures to eradicate corruption and provide clean administration, and above all to put a stop to ethnic politics, which has been the bane of this country since its independence.

In a startling revelation made recently by Ranjan Ramanayake from UNP, it appears that there are a number of parliamentarians outside JVP, who are addicted to drugs. Whether they are drug users or dealers or both one does not know. Even if they are recreational users only, do people really want to be governed by such drug using legislators?

One obvious question however, and often raised by many is, whether JVP can be trusted given its Marxist orientation and violent past. A short answer to the question is a counter question: Is this question valid now?

The two armed insurrections of 1971 and 1987-1989, products of JVP’s juvenile romance with Marxism is a tragic chapter in the party’s political evolution.  The fact that these uprisings sacrificed the lives of thousands of young Sinhalese men and women is a sordid episode and its critics are demanding a public apology from its current leadership.

However, one should not forget that the vast majority of the current generation of JVP cadre were not even born in 1971 and at best they were budding teenagers in 1987. There is no need to elaborate here on the peculiarities of teenage.

It was an arch Hindu conservative and the last Governor General of India before it became republic, Chakravarti Rajagopalachchari or Rajaji as he was popularly known, reported to have once said that, if a person didn’t become a socialist in his/her twenties and thirties that person had no heart but if that person continued to remain socialist in forties and after he/she had no brain. This may be factually inaccurate and a gross generalisation, but it underlines the fact that age mellows one’s emotions and matures one’s thought.

It is in this light people should view the present generation of JVP men and women who are committed to the glory and independence of their motherland and prosperity of its people. Political pragmatism with firm commitment to uphold national sovereignty and economic independence has overtaken JVP’s previous textbook Marxism. Even regarding its attachment to Marxist ideas the party could not be criticised, because Marx’s critique of capitalism and of its atrocious free market ideology remains valid still.

The worsening income disparity on global scale, which has obscenely enriched just 1% of total humanity at the expense of the rest ninety-nine, is one among a number of disgraceful and disgusting indices of the cruelty of globalised economic liberalism. This is why JVP’s readiness to review the liberal economic agenda of current and previous regimes should be welcomed. This is not blatant radicalism but pragmatic rationalism based on egalitarianism and justice.

Finally, the minority communities should realise that they will have no peace and end to their sufferings as long as ethnic politics rules the day. The strategy of countering majoritarian ethno-nationalism with minoritarian ethno-nationalism is suicidal. One needs to break this vicious circle. The three major contenders – UNP, SLFP and SLPP – are all beneficiaries and tolerators if not open promoters of ethno-nationalism, and JVP is the only one that is prepared to eschew ethnic politics.

In the fifties and sixties when progressive forces from the majority community appealed to the minorities to join hands in building a nation founded on principles of egalitarianism and economic independence those forces were rejected by both minorities in favour of their own ethno-nationalist politics. In a sense, the civil war was a product of this rejection. JVP is offering another chance to get rid of the ethnic menace. Will the minorities reject again?

The JVP deserves a chance and country deserves a change.     


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

Sri Lanka: PTA vs CTA

by Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu-Feb 19, 2019

Feb 19, 2019

Last week, I sat through two meetings on the proposed replacement of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and on the Counter Terrorism Act (CTA). The first was with the Parliamentary Oversight Committee on Foreign Relations and the second was with the Minister of Foreign Relations at the Foreign Ministry. They were both quite instructive – the first of their kind with civil society on the bill.

For the record, the position of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is that the PTA should be repealed. The CPA also takes the position that there would be a replacement and therefore, the challenge is to make sure that the replacement was in keeping with the Constitution of Sri Lanka and best international practices. Other civil society representatives take the view that the CTA Bill is as bad or worse than the PTA and that the PTA should be repealed, and time should be taken to have a broad consultation on whether Sri Lanka required counter-terrorism legislation, and if so, what that should be. Some believed that no counter-terror legislation was necessary, that the offences in the CTA were already covered in the criminal law, and that there were emergency provisions to deal with terrorist acts.

The debate, as such there was, pivoted around the arguments of liberty and freedom on the one hand and order and stability on the other. Perhaps, the rise of populism has changed this too in favour of order and stability. The debate though will not cease. Indeed, it should not. It is in this context that the proposal by CPA that the implementation of the bill should be reviewed by a parliamentary committee and/or an independent assessor – probably a key criminal lawyer, every three to five years for example – should be viewed.

The threats to national security are constantly changing. Such an evaluation will reflect this and provide the opportunity to weed out those elements of the legislation that are too draconian in practice, and introduce, if required, additional elements to meet new threats. This can be done at the committee stage and without altering the structure of the bill, which the Supreme Court has opined on. This should be done bearing in mind the Constitution and best practices, and strengthening the safeguards to freedom and liberty.

Moreover, additional language can be introduced to tighten the safeguards and focus of the bill and prevent it from being overbroad. There is a list of offences that have to be read with the previous article regarding intentionality; there are questions pertaining to the rank of the officer entitled to make an arrest and the involvement of the military and coastguard in this; issues pertaining to the “nearest” magistrate, the period of arrest and detention, and the physical and mental condition of the arrestee. What is of interest here is the constant need to maintain the balance between freedom and order when one considers the practical application of the law.

Evoking progressive assurances

To those arguing that the PTA should be repealed and a broader consultation should take place, if at all, to consider its replacement, the issue of time should be considered. Is it not possible that the composition of Parliament could have changed, thereby making the prospect, say of an SLPP-dominated Parliament deciding on a CTA, a very real, if not frightening, one? Moreover, legislation should not be crafted in haste, as it would be the case if one had to respond to an action. The heat of the moment may well lead to calls for more stringent legislation than is required.

One hopes that the Government, therefore, will see the legislation to conclusion and not treat the exercise as cynics have averred as being decided by the Geneva Human Rights Council deadlines. Another commitment embedded in Resolution 30/1 deals with the Commission on Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation.

The Prime Minister was already brought the proposal to Cabinet, but has met with requests for further time. I believe that the commission will not be prosecuting anyone, but rather establishing the truth of what happened. This was the “ask” of the overwhelming majority of respondents to the Consultative Task Force (CTF). They wanted the truth established and acknowledged by the State. The question of culpability and prosecution will probably be deemed the remit of another agency. Notwithstanding this, it is important to know as to what the Government would do with the testimonies given. How is acknowledgement to be had?

Were the CTA and the Commission on Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation to be established, the Government can claim considerable progress in terms of fulfilment of commitments under Resolution 30/1. To this should be added the return of lands. Accountability in terms of a special unit is not in sight and perhaps will never be.

The overall question is as to whether the challenge of reconciliation should not be pursued more openly and with greater prominence. Survey results indicate that the general impression is one of slowness and insufficiency in respect of reconciliation. Over 50% of the population fall into this category and similar figures are recorded for accountability and the Truth Commission.

The one thing that this Government realised in 2015 is that transitional justice was needed and could not be brushed aside; that something had to be done was agreed upon and furthermore, what should be done was mooted throughout the country. Insufficiently though it was, it was done.

We are in an election year/s now. Is it not time to rekindle the challenge and promise of 2015 – to build a more decent society, debate, discuss, and decide on transitional justice?

Ministry Of Development Strategies & International Trade Response To Prof. Kumar David’s Allegations

FEBRUARY 20, 2019

Reference is made to the article that appeared in the Colombo Telegraph website on 17th February, 2019 captioned “Mangala & Malik: Shady or Senseless; Ministers acting like headless chickens and/or crooked shysters; Mangala and Malik: Shady or Senseless? ” authored by Kumar David. We wish to assert that the article, and in particular the segment titled, “Gigantic blunders loom in the power sector”, contains many factual inaccuracies, false interpretations and baseless allegations, creating a wrong perception in the minds of the reader. Hence, the Ministry of Development Strategies and International Trade wishes to respond clarifying the matters pertaining to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) referred to therein.

Malik Samarawickrama

The article alleges that the “… two ministries involved in awarding power and energy contracts are Malik Samarwickrama’s International Trade Ministry and Ravi Karunanayake’s Power Ministry”. However, we wish to clarify that our Ministry’s role is only that of a facilitator, both from a development strategy and foreign direct investment (FDI) perspective. The decisions on the establishment of power plants, their structures, and power purchase agreements are dealt with by the relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and the line Ministry, i.e., CEB, PUCSL and the Ministry of Power & Energy and Business Development.

We reiterate that this Ministry’s involvement on LNG is supporting the government initiative towards introduction of LNG into Sri Lanka as a new source of energy to the country’s energy mix, taking into consideration the long-term need for the energy security of the country. Since this has to be done through FDI, this Ministry has clearly articulated that such introduction must be done based on all-encompassing feasibility and other related studies and taking pragmatic ground-level conditions into account. It is in this context that this Ministry has, and will continue to, support and facilitate the Government-to-Government (‘G2G’) initiative for LNG Cooperation on a trilateral basis between the Governments of Sri Lanka, India and Japan, which has been continuing for over the last two years.

This Ministry and the Minister categorically deny supporting the proposition of having two or more floating or land-based storage and regasification facilities (FSRU). Our position has been consistently and clearly articulated in several observations made to the Cabinet and Cabinet Sub-committees, when the subject of LNG Introduction or related matters arose.

This Ministry categorically denies any involvement whatsoever with the South Korean proposal and the author’s allegations that this Ministry champions this proposal are frivolous and baseless. Neither the Board of Investment nor this Ministry has received, or is privy to, any such proposal. On the contrary, this Ministry has expressed its concerns on, and articulated the negative impacts of, having more than one Floating (or other) Storage & Regassification Facility by way of several observations made to the Cabinet and Cabinet Sub-Committees.

The feasibility of having a Floating Storage & Regassification Facility (FSRU) and associated infrastructure based on a PPP Model on a trilateral, G2G, FDI model is being diligently deliberated with the engagement of all relevant stakeholders; i.e., line ministries and statutory/regulatory entities. Expert assistance is obtained where needed. The progress upto now is satisfactory and a final decision is expected in the near future. In the meantime, a FDI-based storage and regassification facility in Hambantota to cater to the expected port-related industries is also being considered. The Ministry reiterates that all such projects would be FDI-based and subjected to diligent evaluation, and would most likely be based on PPP models.

Read More

Ex-forces chiefs condemn govt.’s Geneva strategy

by Shamindra Ferdinando-February 20, 2019, 11:16 pm 

Three retired service commanders, Air Chief Marshal Roshan Goonetileke), Admiral Tisara Samarasinghe and General Daya Ratnayake, yesterday, alleged the war winning military was being penalised in terms of the Geneva Resolution co-sponsored by the government, in Oct 2015.

They requested President Maithripala Sirisena, who is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, to intervene to ensure those who risked their lives were treated with dignity and honour.

Goonetilleke, who also served as the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) after the conclusion of the war emphasised that post-war national reconciliation couldn’t be achieved at the expense of the armed forces.

Retired service chiefs called a special media briefing at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute (SLFI) to bring to public attention what they called a relentless campaign directed against some individuals.

They expressed concern over alleged attempts to take wartime Navy Commander Admiral and former Sri Lanka Ambassador to Japan Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda into custody regarding some wartime disappearances (2007-2008).

Karannagoda served as the Commander of the Navy from Sept. 2005 till July 2009.

Air Chief Marshal Goonetileke said that those who could not stomach the LTTE’s defeat in May 2009 were seeking revenge. They had conveniently forgotten how the armed forces had treated members of the defeated terrorist organisation. Goonetileke said that in spite of losing his own brother the then Wing Commander Shirantha Goonetileke on April 29, 1995 as a result of a missile attack, he felt the need to move forward.

It was a special Avro flight to Palaly from Ratmalana via Anuradhapura carrying 49 security forces personnel and three journalists.

Over 12,000 members of the defeated group had been rehabilitated and released within years after the conclusion of the war, Goonetileke said. Unfortunately, the losing side was not interested in genuine post-war national reconciliation. Instead, they continued to propagate unsubstantiated allegations almost a decade after the restoration of peace, Air Chief Marshal Goonetileke said.

At beginning of the briefing General Ratnayake, who was the first Commissioner General of Rehabilitation, explained the circumstances under which the incumbent government pursued a policy inimical to the armed forces.

General Ratnayake regretted the powers that be disregarding the tremendous sacrifices made by the armed forces. Acknowledging that those who had acted in violation of the law had to be dealt with, the former Army Chief emphasised that it was not the policy of the government to deliberately target civilians.

Urging the government not to go after the military to appease those foreign powers responsible for Geneva Resolution against Sri Lanka, General Ratnayake said that they were seriously concerned about the ongoing operation targeting the military.

General Ratnayake recalled the role played by Admiral Karannagoda during the conflict. Karannagoda changed the primary naval strategy in place at the time and taken action to destroy the floating LTTE arsenals on high seas.

Ratnayake explained how short-sighted policies adopted by current government had deprived Sri Lanka of post-war economic and political stability much to the disappointment of the members of all communities.

The former military chiefs warned government strategy could have had a debilitating impact on the armed forces.

Admiral Samarasinghe, who served as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to Australia after the war, pointed out that successive government during war and peace always sought the assistance of the armed forces. Acknowledging that those found guilty of offences had to be legally dealt with Admiral Samarasinghe said the military should be treated with respect.

LETTER TO SIRISENA FROM CIVIL SOCIETY: YOUR STATEMENTS ON CC AND HRCSL ARE APPALLING.

19^th February, 2019.

Dear President Sirisena,

We, the below signed citizens and civil society organizations of Sri Lanka are dismayed and alarmed by your recent statements, including in the Parliament (6^th February, 2019), pertaining to the Constitutional Council (CC) and the Human Rights Commission (HRCSL). The Constitutional Council and the Human Rights Commission are among two institutions, whose strengthening and safeguarding of independence were key demands of the civil society in 2015. In addition to your constitutional duty to safeguard these institutions, you received a clear mandate from the people which underscored this responsibility when you were elected in 2015. Working towards delivering on these promises through the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution during the early days of your Presidency, still remains as your key achievement. This makes your current statements all the more appalling.

Critical and constructive engagement with any institution, including the independent commissions, is a necessary part of improving effectiveness and governance, and is welcome. But your recent statement, parts of which are baseless and sound vindictive, does more damage than good. Independent commissions, like the HRCSL, play a crucial role in protecting the citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. That is precisely why they are set up. Not to act as guardians of the State as insinuated in your recent speech in Parliament. Their independence from the government must be respected. They must be supported and provided with an enabling environment to protect and promote the rights and freedoms of citizens, particularly those most marginalized and vulnerable. This is a necessary feature in a democracy. In this context, your recent statements from the responsible and powerful position as Head of the Executive, criticizing the HRCSL for doing its work, we believe only serves to undermine the good work of the HRCSL. It misrepresents an essential characteristic of the HRCSL – its independence.

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has become an institution that we Sri Lankans can be proud of. It is a much improved and effective institution now than it was before 2015. It has become more accessible and has gained the confidence of different segments of the society. Their interventions in the right to education of children in Kuliyapitiya and Kekirawa, rights of differently abled students, budgets for differently abled to have public access, rights of women in the informal sector, redress for the affected communities following the Salawa fire, transgender identity, redress to student protesters when attacked by Police and hearing out the Principal of a girls school in Badulla who was harassed by the Chief Minister, being a few examples. They have also been a strong voice on the issue of Police torture, arbitrary arrests, the right to memorialization of the war dead, violence motivated by religious hatred, the inclusion of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR) in the Constitution, the review of article 16 etc., They have made rights based interventions on law reforms, access to lawyers and criminal procedure, as well as on abortion and death penalty. The benefits of their robust actions and interventions have been felt by many marginalized segments of the society, as it should be. And there are others, like the Muslim women subject to discriminatory personal laws for instance, who are awaiting their rights based intervention.

It is in recognition of the work of the current set of Human Rights Commissioners, that the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) had granted ‘A’ status to HRCSL last year. This upgrading helped uplift the image of Sri Lanka’s human rights record as well.

We demand that an enabling environment and required support be provided to independent commissions like the HRCSL to perform their duties. We believe that the President is duty bound to support and respect the independence of such institutions, and to not undermine them.

Signed by;

Individuals

1. Abdul Ramees
2. Anberiya Hanifa
3. Anithra Varia
4. Anuratha Rajaretnam
5. Ashoka Bandula Weerawardhana – Member, Sub-Committee on Disability, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
6. B. Gowthaman
7. Bhavani Fonseka
8. Bishop Kumara Illangasinghe
9. Chandrika De Silva – Writer
10. Channaka Jayasinghe
11. Christopher M. Stubbs
12. Deanne Uyangoda
13. Deekshya Illangasinghe
14. Dilan Ramanayake
15. Dinesh Rajawasan
16. Dinushika Dissanayake
17. Dorin Rajani
18. Dr. Malathi de Alwis
19. Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
20. Dr. Sepali Kottegoda, D.Phil (Sussex)
21. Dr. Vickramabahu Karunaratne
22. Emil van der Poorten – In defence of civil and civic rights
23. Ermiza Tegal – Attorney-at-Law
24. Faaiz Ameer
25. Farah Mihlar
26. Gayathri Gamage
27. Godfrey Yogarajah
28. Herman Kumara
29. Ishan Jalill
30. Jansila Majeed – Activist, Mullaitivu
31. Jeanne Samuel
32. Jiffry Packeer Mohideen
33. Joanne Senn
34. Juwairiya Mohideen
35. K. Hemalatha
36. K.T. Rohini
37. Kalani Subasinghe
38. Kasunjith Satanarachchi – Member, Third Youth Parliament, Representative of the disability community
39. Kaushalya Ariyarathne – Attorney-at-Law
40. Keshini D. Sumanasekera
41. Kurushanthan Mahaluxmy
42. Lakshman Gunasekara – Journalist
43. Lal Wijenayake – Co-Convenor, Lawyers for Democracy
44. Luwie Ganeshathasan
45. M.S. Jaleel
46. Mala Liyanage – Human Rights Activist
47. Marina Daniel
48. Mario Gomez
49. Marisa de Silva
50. Minoli de Soysa
51. Nagulan Nesiah
52. Nilshan Fonseka
53. P. Muthulingam
54. P. Selvaratnam
55. P.M. Mujeebur Rahman (LLB)
56. P.N. Singham
57. Prabodha Rathnayaka – Attorney-at-Law
58. Priyantha Peiris
59. Prof. Ajit Abeysekera
60. Prof. Chandraguptha Thenuwara
61. Rev. Fr. Jeyabalan Croos
62. Rev. Fr. Nandana Manatunga
63. Rev. Fr. Reid Shelton Fernando, (Retired)
64. Rev. Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda
65. Rev. Fr. Terence Fernando
66. Riza Yehiya
67. Rohini Hensman – Writer and Researcher
68. Ruki Fernando
69. Ruvan Weerasinghe – University of Colombo
70. Ruvini Jayaratne
71. S. Easwary
72. S. Nirmaladevi
73. S. Niventhini
74. S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole – Member, Elections Commission
75. S. Sameer
76. S. Suthanthini
77. S. Tharshan
78. S.L.A. Azeez
79. S.M. Anifa
80. Sabra Zahid
81. Sampath Samarakoon
82. Sandun Thudugala – Activist
83. Santhush Fernando – Attorney-at-Law
84. Sarah Arumugam – Attorney-at-Law
85. Selvaraja Rajasegar
86. Setunga Mudalige Philip
87. Shenali De Silva
88. Shreen Saroor
89. Sivasuthan
90. Srinath Perera – Attorney-at-Law & General Secretary, Free Trade Union Centre
91. Sudarshana Gunawardene – Attorney-at-Law
92. Sunanda Deshapriya
93. T. Rajendran
94. T. Thayaparan
95. Thiyagaraja Waradas – Univeristy of Colomobo
96. Thyagi Ruwanpathirana
97. Udaya Kalupathirana
98. V. Shamini
99. V. Sinthuka
100. V. Subramaniam – Member, Sub-Committee on Disability, Human Rights
     Commission of Sri Lanka
101. V. Thayalini
102. Vanie Simon
103. Zahabia Adamaly – Member, Sub-Committee on Disability, Human Rights
     Commission of Sri Lanka

Organisations

104. Affected Women’s Forum (AWF), Akkaraipattu
105. Alliance Development Trust (ADT)
106. Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA)
107. DAISY Lanka Foundation
108. Disability Organisations Joint Front
109. Human Rights Office (HRO), Kandy
110. INFORM – Human Rights Documentation Centre
111. Institute of Social Development (ISD), Kandy
112. International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES)
113. Mannar Women’s Development Federation (MWDF)
114. Mentally Handicapped Children and Families Education Project
     (MENCAFEP), Nuwara Eliya
115. Muslim Women’s Development Trust (MWDT), Puttalam
116. National Fisheries Solidarity Organization (NAFSO)
117. Rights Now – Collective for Democracy
118. Rural Development Foundation
119. Sri Lanka Council for the Blind
120. Vallamai Travelers, Jaffna
121. Women for Justice and Peace in Sri Lanka
122. Women’s Action Network (WAN)

A new route to global markets

• Younger breed of entrepreneurs who are using a novel route to reach global markets

Thursday, 21 February 2019 

A country’s economic prosperity is associated with the ownership of powerful global brands. Look at the world’s most valuable brands and see who owns them. Many companies headquartered in the USA: Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Disney are just a few. Japan with Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi; Korea with Samsung, Hyundai and the list can go on and on.

There is no doubt that a country’s economic and commercial success is linked to the brands that the country owns and its ability to successfully reach customers across the world. For an island nation such as ours, developing global brands with an export focus is vital for economic sustainability. 


With a small population base and limited disposable income, local market categories (with some exceptions) do not offer significant scalability. Those sectors which do offer scale are already well consolidated with established brands. Gaining share requires significant investment over a sustained period to make headway in these markets. Such investments are also unlikely to pay off, due to the limited market size. In this conundrum, two options beckon. One is to go niche with a premium up-market strategy or to go global where there are bigger market opportunities.

We have recently seen two brands take exactly this approach, by first gaining a foothold in Sri Lanka and then successfully going global. This route enables testing and refining the product before investing in international expansion, thereby significantly reducing the risk of failure.

The two brands are Spa Ceylon and Ministry of Crab. Whilst these businesses are tiny in scale, its worth taking a deeper look as to how they have evolved and succeeded and the lessons we can learn, for others to follow.

A notable factor that these entrepreneurs have embarked on is developing a “brand” right from the outset. They have also adopted an approach of anchoring their brand to a Sri Lankan context which has given them tremendous leverage as they have gone global. This is an indication that there is perceived value internationally to a well presented Sri Lankan brand.

Entrepreneurs who are considering ventures should be looking at leveraging this important “country of origin” advantage as they think through opportunities, since it provides an important differentiator in building a global brand.
The Spa Ceylon brand

The origins of the Spa Ceylon brand goes back to the core opportunity that it identified, which was to provide luxury Ayurveda products to the Colombo based urban customers. To do so, it put emphasis not on the product (which is what everyone else was doing at that time) but on the design, packaging and retail experience.

Ayurveda products which were widely available in Sri Lanka were well known to come in shoddy packaging often with leaking products, sold at low prices from dusty shelves in small boutiques across the country. It is to this market that Spa Ceylon entered, by making available their products in sleek modern packaging in a few beautifully scented merchandised stores, resplendent in sophisticated colours and design at premium prices.

The brand took off as it catered to the affluent Colombo upmarket customer who was attuned to buying natural products, but would never have considered many of the available Ayurveda or natural formula brands, because of their presentation and where it was being made available. Price was not a barrier to them.

The Spa Ceylon brand captures the romance of old Ceylon combined with ancient Ayurveda wisdom to create their range of majestic spa rituals and royal spa formulae designed to soothe, calm and relax the body, mind and soul. They produce over 450 all-natural Ayurveda inspired personal care, wellness and home aroma products amongst others. Luxury personal care Ayurveda is the space that they operate in and have carved out exclusively for themselves, making anyone else who moves into the same territory as a me-too copycat.

They have achieved global presence with more than 70 branded stores and spas situated in Ginza Tokyo, Melbourne, Singapore; Seoul and Ulsan in Korea amongst many other locations in Asia and Europe.
Ministry of Crab

Singapore restaurants on the beach front have been selling enormous Sri Lankan crab for many decades with menus promoting its source of origin. Many of us who have been there have come away bewildered as to why we could never find such crabs being served in Sri Lanka. That was until Dharshan Munidasa caught on to that simple idea and created a brand of his own under the unique name Ministry of Crab, just so he could have a bit of fun!

By making available the crab that many Colombo urban dwellers were used to in Singapore, at their own door step, was a no brainer, even though it was at a premium price. It was so sought after that it became the most successful restaurant in the country overnight.

Ministry of Crab embodies all the quirkiness of a brand, which makes this impossible to copy. Its brand essence is written and detailed out in the “Constitution” that they have drawn up, which makes very interesting reading.

Nothing is frozen and they use freezers only to store food refuse for disposal! They will not serve small, meatless crabs with one claw missing! They only serve good quality fish which can also be served as sashimi. Eating with forks and knives is considered to be merely an option for their customers to choose! They even have self-nominated Ministers who are the founder Dharshan and investors Mahela and Sanga.

A perfectly eclectic mix, to build a unique brand which has now gone international with much sought after restaurants in Manila and Mumbai.
The new route to the world

What these entrepreneurs have done, is to consciously or unconsciously adopt a process of design thinking to create their unique brand. This requires the brand to be first conceptualised and defined just like the manifesto of the Ministry of Crab has done so cleverly, reflecting the personality and the beliefs that the brand embodies. They have mapped every stage of the customer relationship across all touch points from awareness to serving the customer, resulting in the brand’s spirit fully immersing and engulfing the customer with a truly unique experience

These examples show that using Sri Lanka as a “test” market for product ideas and concepts before taking them global is a workable formula. The success of these two exciting brand journeys should fuel others to follow, by taking the same route from Colombo to the world!

(The writer is the Managing Director of STING Consultants and Brand Finance Lanka and can be reached on r.gunewardene@brandfinance.com.)

The most wanted ‘heir’ apparent!

 

Thursday, February 21, 2019

The dynamic nature of Sri Lanka’s political alliances has come into focus as the leaders of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and the United National Party (UNP) grapple with selecting candidates for the forthcoming presidential election due in less than ten months.

Arguably it is the SLFP and the SLPP that find themselves in a more delicate position. That is because the SLPP is, in essence, a breakaway faction of the SLFP, born out of the necessity of becoming a political vehicle for former President Mahinda Rajapaksa after he was defeated in 2015 and marginalised by his successor, President Maithripala Sirisena, who took control of the SLFP.

The wheel has turned full circle since then. The honeymoon President Sirisena enjoyed with the UNP and its Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, who helped him get elected, has ended in strife. Premier Wickremesinghe was sacked by President Sirisena in October last year, only to be reinstated after the courts intervened. Since then, the UNP and the SLFP have been moving in different directions.

The SLFP-UNP political partnership, the ‘government of national unity’ came to an inglorious end and the UNP is now governing on its own, albeit with the tacit support of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) on an issue by issue basis, because it does not a command a simple majority in Parliament on its own.

Hopes of re-election

The SLFP meanwhile had done almost a 360-degree turn. The party which, under President Sirisena was extremely critical of the Rajapaksas, is now looking to Rajapaksa and the SLPP to resurrect its hopes of re-election. This is in the aftermath of the SLFP’s disastrous performance at the local government election one year ago when it was reduced to an ‘also ran’ with just over ten per cent of the vote.

The immediate issue confronting all political parties is the selection of a presidential candidate. Clearly, the SLFP hopes that the President will be its candidate. Several party stalwarts have made public pronouncements to this effect from time to time.

The President himself has made no formal statement to this effect. At the beginning of his term of office, he did pledge that he would not run for President again and that he would be a ‘one term’ President. However, that was on the basis that the Executive Presidency would be abolished. That is one of the promises of this government that is yet to be realised. The President has also not contradicted any of his party members who have sought to promote him as their candidate.

The entire exercise of sacking Prime Minister Wickremesinghe in October last year and appointing Mahinda Rajapaksa to that office which led to a constitutional crisis was thought to be an exercise in winning over the goodwill of the Rajapaksas and the SLPP. Had the move succeeded and a stable government been formed with Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister, the SLPP would be obliged to acquiesce to President Sirisena, had he requested to be the joint presidential candidate of the SLFP and the SLPP.

That was, however, not to be and this is what has led to the current predicament. Former President Rajapaksa finds himself in a dilemma. On the one hand, his relationship with President Sirisena has been restored and he would find it difficult to say ‘no’ to a request from the President to be the joint SLPP-SLFP candidate. The duo was seen, full of smiles and in animated conversation, at the Navam Perahera of the Gangaramaya in Colombo on Tuesday, an indication of their new-found camaraderie.

On the other hand, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s brother Gotabaya Rajapaksa is positioning himself as the potential candidate of the SLPP, opening offices that are a front for his political activities. The party rank and file are being given to understand that the younger Rajapaksa will indeed be the candidate. To make matters more difficult, many SLPP members have stated that the final decision regarding its presidential candidate rests only with Mahinda Rajapaksa.

‘Winning’ candidate

Mahinda Rajapaksa, to be fair, has yet to make a public declaration regarding a candidate. His only statement on the issue is that he would choose a ‘winning’ candidate. Many have interpreted this to mean Gotabaya Rajapaksa because they do not rate President Sirisena’s chances highly even if he were to contest the election with the support of the SLPP.

However, Gotabaya Rajapaksa has his own problems to contend with. He recently told a newspaper interview that his United States citizenship has been ‘sorted’ and that it would not be a barrier for him to contest the presidential election. Rajapaksa still has the issue of many court cases being heard against him locally.

This is what the SLPP and Mahinda Rajapaksa have to carefully consider-and this is also the stance being taken by those in the SLFP advocating for President Sirisena to be the candidate and mediating between the Sirisena and Rajapaksa camps.

They argue that, with only less than ten months to go for the presidential election, if the SLPP spends this limited time building up the image of Gotabaya Rajapaksa as its potential candidate and then finds that he is barred from contesting in the event he is found guilty in one of the numerous court cases where he is a respondent, the parties running against the UNP would find themselves in a very difficult situation, having to revert to a candidacy by President Sirisena.

Besides, President Sirisena will not be prepared to sit back and await the outcome of these court cases- which could take months and dwindle valuable time for campaigning- for the SLPP to revert to him as the ‘Plan B’ candidate. As the incumbent Executive President, he still controls important aspects of the political calendar- such as when the election will be called- and the SLPP would not wish to antagonise him once again.

For his part, President Sirisena appears to be in campaign mode already. His recent public statements have been critical of the UNP- but not the SLPP. His decision to appoint a commission of inquiry to probe alleged corruption between 2015 and 2018 can only harm the UNP, not the SLPP. His speech at the recent Independence Day, where he criticised the UNP’s plans to form a national government, was clearly targeting the UNP and aimed at diminishing that party in the eyes of the public.

It must be noted that the President still has the option of running as the SLFP candidate. If he is not chosen as a ‘common’ SLFP-SLPP candidate by the SLPP, he could either go into retirement as a one-term President or run again for office as the SLFP candidate against the nominees of the UNP and the SLPP. From his personal perspective, he has nothing to lose if he takes this course of action.

Differences of opinion

Comparatively, the UNP appears to have the least headaches in their choice of a presidential candidate. The names of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa and even Speaker Karu Jayasuriya are being spoken of in party circles but none has claimed to be a potential candidate.

The frontrunner at this stage, it is assumed, is Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. If there are differences of opinion within the party in this regard, it has done well to have those deliberations within closed doors, without being wildly speculated upon in the public domain. Even for the UNP though, it will be crunch time soon, as it too must make a choice sooner rather than later.

Thus, the coming weeks and months will be crucial for all the major political parties. It is also still possible that the selection of candidates will be a long drawn out exercise with many contenders not willing to give in or give up- in which case the Sri Lankan voter would be kept in suspense as to who their potential options would be, come December 2019.

Governor Indrajit: Where Is Promised “Press Notice” On Bond Scam “Forensic Audit”?

By Amrit Muttukumaru –FEBRUARY 19, 2019

Amrit Muttukumaru

Sri Lanka’s apex monetary, financial and banking regulator – Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) in recent times particularly under the Governorship of Nivard Cabraal, Arjuna Mahendran and presently Dr. Indrajit Coomaraswamy has demonstrated to the world at large that the CBSL and hence the country does not have the will to fully implement the laws already in place (however inadequate) to combat money laundering.

On 11 January 2019 the CBSL in one of its rare responses on behalf of Governor Coomaraswamy promised to issue a “press notice in a few days” on the “forensic audits” carried out by CBSL “to implement recommendations of the Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry” on the Treasury Bond scam which is arguably the largest financial scam to have taken place in the post-independence history of Sri Lanka.  It is now MORE THAN A MONTH and the country is still awaiting the “press notice”!

The rare CBSL response, a crude master class on PREVARICATION was subsequent to my article “Governor Indrajit & EU ‘Blacklist’ On Money Laundering” which related to the more than year old European Union (EU) ‘BLACKLIST’ placed on Sri Lanka for money laundering subsequent to the ‘Financial Action Task Force’ (FATF) placing the country on its ‘GREY LIST’ from November 2017. The FATF recommendations are “recognised as the global anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CFT) standard.” 

My said article published in the ‘Colombo Telegraph’ (CT) was of no interest to the mainstream print media as was the CT news item with the damning allegation “Massive Fraud At Sampath Bank”. It was alleged by the “victims” that CBSL “was in a deep slumber while Sampath Bank was siphoning off the customers’ money”. We are still to hear from the CBSL on this alleged “Massive Fraud”.

Not all the play on words by the CBSL in its evasive response in the ‘Colombo Telegraph’ “Central Bank Response To Muttukumaru’s Allegations Against CBSL Governor Dr. Indrajit Coomaraswamy” can undo the HUGE DAMAGE to the economy by Sri Lanka continuing to be on the EU ‘blacklist’. 

Of what use is the CBSL “time bound action plan” when just LAST WEEK the EU REITERATED that Sri Lanka continued to be a “high-risk third country” for money laundering? No doubt FATF and EU are aware that the CBSL will not stand up and be counted in the face of there being

NO POLITICAL WILL to fully implement even existing laws. 

Need we be surprised that the Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) in recent times are tainted with controversy? It hardly needs comment that Chinese/Indian investments are for the most part based on geo-political considerations which are themselves controversial.

While Coomaraswamy who has been CBSL Governor since 3 July 2016 for 16 months PRIOR to this ruling (November 2017) must bear some responsibility (together with Messrs. Cabraal and Mahendran), he must bear MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY for the country CONTINUING to be on the ‘Blacklist’ for over a year. 

Bond Scam

A key recommendation of the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the egregious Treasury Bond scam was the FORENSIC AUDIT to be carried out by the CBSL. The report was available in the public domain from 3 January 2018.

How long does it take for the CBSL to carry out its forensic audit? The CBSL which is the issuing agency for Treasury Bonds has to date not even QUANTIFIED the loss incurred by the State which is widely perceived to be huge. Even crucial issues of governance incidental to the bond scam thrown up by witnesses at the Presidential Commission  which include possible tax evasion, money laundering and PEPs (Politically Exposed Persons) being directors of banks do not appear to be even on the radar.

Read More