To Geneva, thru Mannar and Jaffna?

By N Sathiya Moorthy-March 11, 2019

Reports that TNA’s Mullaitivu District MP, Nirmalanathan Sivamohan, wants the ‘Mannar mass-grave samples’ sent to a second lab for testing after one in Florida, US, has certified their age between mid-fifteenth to mid-eighteenth century, may require the party to clarify its position in the matter. Maybe, there is also need for the party to arrange for educating MPs and other spokespersons on such scientific matters before they go public on such touchy and testy issues.

This is so despite the commonly-held layman’s view that ‘carbon- dating’ and other more modern testing methods could fix the date of artefacts and skeletal remains to a closer period-window that three centuries as the private lab in Florida has done. Maybe, there is a need for appropriate forum in the country to clarify if all those bone samples sent to the lab belonged to the same large window or if the report has spoken about different ‘specimens’ belonging to different time-periods within that three-century period-spectrum.

The timing is coincidental but then the Florida report has come at a time when UNHRC, Geneva, is once again seized of the ‘war-crimes’ resolution that everyone has forgotten in the past couple of years. The chances are that a new resolution, co-authored by Sri Lanka or not, could end giving the nation another relatively long window as the one that has just passed, if only to provide for the realities of intervening presidential and parliamentary polls, which are respectively scheduled to be held by December this year and mid-August next year.

Sigh of relief, but…

The lab report, which was presented to the trial court in the Tamil North overseeing the process has enabled/encouraged the armed forces to heave a sigh of relief that the ‘Mannar mass grave’ were not a part of the ‘war crimes’ allegations, after all. Army commander, Lt-Gen Mahesh Senanayake was possibly too quick to claim that “those who had attempted to blame the army for the Mannar mass grave without any evidence were now silent”. He did not possibly count for the likes of TNA’s Sivamohan.

“A lot of people didn’t hesitate to tell the international community that the Army was responsible for the grave. For a long time it has been fashionable to blame the army for everything,” Gen Senanayake was reported to have said. It is anybody’s guess why he should rush in where governmental angels of the big-mouthed ministerial variety had no opinion to offer. Maybe, it was something that the politico/diplomatic delegation should have brought up before the UNHRC session, in defence of the nation – and the nation’s processes.

Gen Senanayake may have also said more than he might have intended when he was further quoted as saying that “all parties should ensure that they investigate and gather evidence before leveling allegations against others”. This is precisely what an internal or external probe into allegations of ‘war crimes’ is all about. The ‘Tamil victims’ and their backers from the international community are only saying that the Sri Lankan State cannot be the suspect and the investigator/adjudicator, at the same time. The two successive Governments since the end of the war have disputed it.

The US lab report – and the governmental silence on it, thus far – comes at a time when a section of the nation’s strategic community is peeved at the longer governmental silence on Lord Naseby’s claims on the ‘end-of-war’ internal reports of the British Government, especially the High Commission in Colombo. There is also the other, news report on suspended Army Brigadier, Priyanka Fernando, then Defence Attaché in the High Commission to the UK, being hauled up before a London court for his infamous ‘throat-cutting’ gestures at protesting Tamils.

With the UK now replacing the US as the prime-mover in the continuing UNHRC process and resolution – along with Germany and Canada – Lord Naseby’s claims and the Priyanka Fernando episode may have an undercurrent of influence on the Government’s presentation at UNHRC, and the way it may end up focussing on issues and concerns highlighted by the international community.

The fact that Priyanka Fernando was a part of the celebrated 59th Division of the Sri Lanka Army, which played a crucial role in the elimination of the LTTE through conventional warfare, may add an added, unintended element, in its own way – and on both sides. It is anybody’s guess if his open-air behaviour in distant London flowed from memories from the war-time past a decade ago, one way or the other – or was it a mixed bag?

It is another matter that the ‘war-crime’ charge over the ‘missing eleven’ against Adm Wasantha Karnnangoda, then Navy chief, too refuses to die down. The trial court’s arrest-order has been stayed for now, and a section of the veterans seem to feel that he is being made a ‘sacrificial goat’ at the Geneva altar, this time round.

If Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, the war-time Army commander, has a different view, it may go back to times before the war. If nothing else, similar charges could be laid at the gate of an Army colleague from those days. Possibly, it could lead to charges of ‘culpability’ at various levels of the hierarchy on a later day, if it came to that.

Internal contradictions

It is not as if the Tamils and the Sri Lankan State are divided over the issue. As is known by now, the Government itself is divided over participation at Geneva this time, reflecting the domestic contradictions between President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Seeking to play down the Geneva events this time against the earlier ones after coming to power, Team Wickremesinghe has left it to Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative (PR) at Geneva to handle the UNHRC session – unlike sending a political team, invariably under the Foreign Minister of the day. It used to be the case anyway on most occasions in the years preceding ‘war-crime charges’, which politically were also against the reigning Rajapaksa Government.

Against this, President Sirisena has deputed a three-man team of politician-appointees – namely, Ministers, Sarath Amunugama and Mahinda Samarasinghe and Northern Province’s Tamil Governor, Dr Suren Raghavan. That Sirisena made the announcement in Parliament, and with Governor Raghavan by his side, would show the kind of tactic he wanted to employ in facing and facing off Team Wickremesinghe nearer home on the one hand, and the international community, on the other.

What is even more interesting – if not intriguing – is the way ‘TNA rebels’ and the rest, headed by the intractable M K Sivajilingam and ex-NPC Minister Ananthi Sasitharan, has submitted a memorandum to Governor Raghavan, for onward personal transmission to UNHRC. Call it trivia or trivialisation or what, Sivajilingam has once again proved how resourceful and how imaginative he continues to be!

(The writer is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation, the multi-disciplinary Indian public-policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. Email: sathiyam54@nsathiyamoorthy.com)

WHAT HAPPENED IN GENEVA AND WHY? – MADUSHANKA TENNAKON

Image: Minister Samaraweera at a side event during  HRC 34, reaffirmed Sri Lanka’s commitment to Transitional Justice, including a Justice mechanism. (c)s.deshapriya.

12/03/2019

On 1st October 2015, Sri Lanka committed to fulfilling a transformative agenda for reconciliation and transitional justice at the UNHRC in Geneva. Resolution 30/1 is a result of the recognition of the nation’s duty to move beyond a legacy burdened with conflicts towards the rule of law, good governance, equality, justice, and dignity for all. With the aim of promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, the Government of Sri Lanka has committed to establishing

• An office on missing persons,
• An office for reparations, and
• A commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and non-recurrence

But why were these promises made and what progress has been made on this front?

An Office on Missing Persons

For many families, the meaning behind a missing person is an experience that is very personal and painful. For some mothers, a missing person is a child they never saw growing up, for some children it is a father who never came back home from work or a brother who didn’t get the chance to say goodbye. These families have questions, and they deserve the comfort of knowing what really happened to their loved ones. While the search for the missing began nearly 30 years ago, questions have still been left unanswered. Consultations conducted by the CTF (Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms) reported that this was a primary demand made by victims.

To meet these demands the OMP was formally established in 2017 to:

• Identify the whereabouts of disappeared persons
• Identify the status and circumstance of their disappearances
• provide compensation and justice to families

The OMP will investigate the fate of individuals reported missing or disappeared in relation to:

• • The war fought between 1983-2009
  • The insurrections in the South or any other civil disturbances.

Thus far in its operationalization, the OMP has appointed 7 commissioners to oversee and carry out its functions, recruited staff members, conducted regional meetings to build awareness/ resolve victims issues, and initiated a process of appointing regional offices.

In addition, the OMP also provided financial assistance to the excavations conducted at the recently discovered mass grave in Mannar.

An Office for Reparations

Many families suffer the plight of physical disability, psychological trauma, loss of property, poverty, marginalization etc. Nearly a decade after the end of the war these victims still cannot meet their most basic needs (such as access to health and education, land and property, or to maintain a sustained livelihood). The need for reparations and the victims’ plea for help were evident in all written and oral submissions received by the Consultation Task Force (CTF). Most often, it was found that the most poorest and most vulnerable groups of society didn’t always demand reparations for specific losses but as a plea for urgent support in order to simply survive.

The Office for Reparations Bill was passed in Parliament on the 11th of October 2018. The Office of Reparations will be responsible for recognizing the harms suffered by victims, as well as designing and implementing reparations policies to help victims rebuild and restore their lives.

The appointment of Commissioners for the Office of Reparations is currently way. The Constitutional Council called for applications to select the officials for the Office of Reparations. Advertisements were made for 05 commissioners including the Chairperson and four members. Applications were open until the 17th of January 2019. The five commissioners including the chairman will be appointed by the President based on the recommendations of the Constitutional Council.

A commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and non-recurrence

In times of war, information is not easily accessible. The TRC is based on the rationale that having access to truth and knowledge will help our society to move forward. The truth will clear any suspicions or doubts in the minds of people who have faced violations and can build an environment of honesty and trust. Rather than using traditional legal/ judicial means of extracting information, the TRC is built on a culture of revealing information through confessions and open discussions.

In establishing such a commission, national ownership is vital. In 2016, a technical team was sent from Sri Lanka to South Africa to study the TRC established after the abolition of apartheid. Lessons learned there will help to build a home-grown model dealing with the needs of Sri Lanka, giving the process national credibility.

These requirements of resolution 30/1 are not forced on Sri Lanka by the international community. Providing reparations, establishing a TRC, investigating war crimes/ crimes against humanity were all recommendations made by the Paranagama Commission appointed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2013. We cannot turn a blind eye to victims who faced violations decades ago and who have still not found remedies to their suffering. Long periods of waiting with no solutions have not only deepened their pain but also intensified their plight. It is to address the trauma and suffering of these victims, to build a resilient community and an environment of sustainable peace that this resolution matters. Geneva should not be our concern. Our concern should be towards our fellow citizens who cannot enjoy their basic rights.

Sri Lankan Muslims’ links with India

13 March 2019

Like their compatriots, the Sinhalese and the Tamils, Sri Lankan Muslims also came from India. Although their links with the Indian subcontinent had weakened over the years, Sri Lankan  Muslims do retain one strand in the relationship, the Tamil language.

Religion appears to have played a role in the weakening of the Muslims’ ties with India. For the Sinhalese Buddhists, India is the land of Gautama Buddha. Buddhist lore and pilgrimages to Bodh Gaya keep up the links from generation to generation, despite Indo-Lankan political differences and tensions. For the Tamils, the State of Tamil Nadu in South India is the home of their language and culture and, of late, a source of political support for their causes in the island.

But for the Muslims, Saudi Arabia is the home of their religion. Saudi Arabia has also become the mainspring of their culture  thanks to employment in the Middle East and education in Islamic institutions there. Previously, Islamic institutions in Tamil Nadu had played that role. However, the use of Tamil and love for that language ensure that links to the Indian mainland are maintained. 

A distinction has to be made here between Sri Lankan Muslims or Ceylon Moors and others such as the Indian Moors, Bohras, Kachchi Memons and Malays. Except the Malays, who are from Java, the others retain links with India thanks to their involvement in trade with India and Pakistan.

‘Sri Lankan Muslims’ or ‘Ceylon Moors’ are of part Arab descent. Though the earlier lot of Muslims came from the Middle East, the really significant Muslim migration came via the Malabar coast in what is now Kerala.

Marina Azeez, in her contribution to The Ethnological Survey of the Muslims of Sri Lanka (The Razik Fareed Foundation, Colombo, 1986) says: “The first Muslim fleet is said to have sailed to the Indian Ocean in 636 AD during the Caliphate of Omar; and since then, Muslim traders began settling along the Malabar coast of India wherein pre-Islamic-time Arabs had settled as far back as the 4th century AD.”

“According to Tennent (James Emerson Tennent, London, 1859), when these settlements expanded with increase in trade as well as migration, the people spread to the coasts of Sri Lanka, settled here and carried on their trading activities.”

By 7th Century AD the Arabs had settled in Kayalpatnam in Tamil Nadu. From Kayalpatnam, they spread to Sri Lanka.

Although the Arabs had been traders from pre-Islamic times, Islam gave them a shot in the arm, which helped them expand  trade and territorial possessions. Expansion of trade meant more settlers overseas, more marriages with local women, and more converts from non-Arab communities.

“By the 9th Century AD all trade between Europe and the East was transferred to the Arabs, and by the 14th Century AD they were operating in the region of the Persian gulf, the Indian Ocean, the Malay Archipelago and China,” Azeez observes.

The Muslims of Arab-Indian origin from Malabar and Kayalpatnam, along with those from Arab lands, settled in Colombo and Beruwela with Beruwela receiving its first Muslim immigrants in 1024. The art of weaving was introduced in Beruwela by migrants from Kayalpatnam.

Muslims of Arab and mixed Arab-Indian descent, married local women in Sri Lanka. They took Tamil wives because the Tamils populated the coast and were also in trade. But soon the Muslim ventured into the interior with their bullock cart transport system, called the Thavalama or the caravan. They settled in many parts of interior Sri Lanka. According to Dr.Ameer Ali, most of the operators of the Thavalama transport system were Indo-Arab Muslims from South India.

Links with Kerala 

The Muslims’ links with Kerala are clearly seen in the Eastern Province. In Batticaloa, the Arabs and those of Arab-Indian descent married local women from the dominant Mukkuvar caste, who were themselves early migrants from the Malabar Coast. They had come to Eastern Sri Lanka via Mannar and Jaffna in the 4th century AD.

It is therefore not surprising that the Muslims and Mukkuvars of Batticaloa practise matriliny or the system of tracing descent through the female (or the mother’s) line. As in Kerala, they organised themselves into matrilineal “kudis” or clans.

Arabic Tamil 

However a factor distinguishing the Sri Lankan Muslims from the Indian Moors is a form of Tamil known as Arabic Tamil. Arabic Tamil uses Arabic words and expressions and may be written in the Arabic script also. The 16th Century Portuguese chronicler, Duartes Barbossa, reported that in the port of Colombo, the Muslims spoke a mixture of Arabic and Tamil and used the Arabic script to write Tamil. Earlier, Sri Lankan  Muslims produced literature in Arabic-Tamil. Both the Arabic and the Tamil scripts were used by the authors.

However, Arabic Tamil as a literary tool vanished over time. Today Sri Lankan Muslims use the purest form of Tamil in their writings and formal speech, though their day to day spoken Tamil may have Arabic terms and expressions. Indian Moors, especially those with continued links with South India, speak Tamil as spoken in Tamil Nadu.  Muslims living in the Sinhala areas are responsible for the survival of Tamil in these areas. As the Late Prof. Karthigesu Sivathamby put it: “If Tamil is heard today in the villages deep inside Sinhala country, it is because of the Muslims. But for them, Tamil would have vanished from the Sinhala areas.”

Performing arts

In the field of the performing arts, the influence of Tamil Nadu and Kerala is clear. MMM Mahroof in his paper “Performing and Other Arts of the Muslims” portrays the Silambam or Silambattam, which shows dexterity in the handling of sticks, as an “Arab art” though he admits that Silambam is popular in Kerala and the Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu also.

The Kali Kambu dance, a dance done by men with small sticks, is also said to be of Arab origin. But it is also identified with the Moplahs of Kerala who are of mixed Arab-Malayali origin. Villu Pattu, a very Tamil musical form, was part of the Muslim folk arts earlier.

However, these links with Tamil Nadu and Kerala have either disappeared, or are fast vanishing partly because of modernization and partly because of Islamization of the Sri Lankan Muslims since the 1980s.

Impact of Portuguese rule

The arrival of the Portuguese in Sri Lanka in 1505 had a devastating impact on the Muslims. The Portuguese took on the Muslims both on the Malabar Coast and in Sri Lanka, with an intention to cripple them. Force was used unabashedly to drive the Muslims out of the Western seaboard of Sri Lanka.

Taking pity on them, the Sinhala king of Kandy, Senarath, gave the fleeing Muslims land to cultivate in Batticaloa district on the Eastern coast. This had a deep impact on the Muslims because intrepid traders became successful peasants in a short time.

After the nightmare of Portuguese and Dutch rule, the Muslims rose to freedom under British rule. Indian influence caught up with them again, because the British ruled India too. Trade with the Coromandel Coast and Malabar flourished. The Indian Moors made the most of it, naturally. British rule also led to the influx of non-Tamil speaking Muslims from India such as the Bohras, Kachchi Memons, Urdu speaking Muslims from North India and some from Bengal too.

Our Politicians and the Corruption of Power

Friday Forum faults all players in the polity

March 9, 2019, 6:38 pm 

It is now three months since the interpretation of our constitution by the Supreme Court of the country was respected by the President and the relevant political leaders, and the constitutional crisis he created was resolved. Yet the country continues to be trapped in problems of critical concern for all of us.

 The President

The Supreme Court decided that President Sirisena had acted in violation of the constitution and yet Parliament and the country have not questioned his right to hold this office. When national networks focused on the swearing in of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, we witnessed the supreme irony of these people taking an oath of office to act according to the constitution before the President who had violated it. These developments seem to have encouraged the President to continue to act in a manner that conflicts with his responsibilities, as well as the pledges that he made to the people when he was elected to office in 2015.

In public statements, most recently in parliament, the President has attacked the Constitutional Council and the Human Rights Commission, where neither of these institutions has representation and hence no right of reply, encouraging further attacks against them.

The President   has questioned the credibility of the very institutions he contributed to establish through the 19th Amendment. This amendment reintroduced them with some modifications, after the concept of a Constitutional Council and Independent Commissions had been rejected in the 18th Amendment enacted during the Mahinda Rajapakse administration.

These institutions were brought back because it was recognized by Parliament that they were necessary to restrain abuse of executive power, and help ensure governance that is accountable to the people. The Constitutional Council and the Human Rights Commission are expected to function without political interference by the President. We understand from the Speaker’s statement that recent decisions of the Council were made by consensus, following guidelines adopted by the Council. The Human Rights Commission has received recognition for its good work both nationally and internationally. It is unacceptable that the President of the country sullies the reputation of these constitutionally mandated public institutions. Friday Forum calls upon the President to desist from making statements that undermine their authority.

In response to the critical drug problem this country is facing, the President has decided to sign death warrants for the execution of drug traffickers. There have been no judicial executions in Sri Lanka since 1976 and successive presidents have consciously refrained from implementing the death penalty. Sri Lanka has, as recently as December 2018, supported the UN resolution calling for a moratorium on executions, with a view to abolition of the death penalty worldwide. This selective approach to administration of criminal justice, with no effort to strengthen law enforcement and respond to corruption and violence, seriously undermines the rule of law. Friday Forum urges the President to desist from re-activating the death penalty.

Failed Governance:  

The President and the

UNF Government

We as citizens must also be critical of the manner in which promises of good governance made by both the President and the government are continuously and cynically disregarded. The President has openly attacked the UNF government, including inappropriately, at the Independence Day celebrations. He has made it clear to the nation that he is on a collision course.

Recent actions of the government such as interference with the appointment of a senior public servant, and back tracking because of trade union action, do not inspire public confidence. Appointments of cabinet ministers, sullied with evidence of corruption instead of the new faces expected, have also contributed to frequent and further allegations of corruption and politicisation in financial administration and in tender procedures. There appear to be continued delays in prosecuting corruption cases. When major issues regarding the stability of the economy have been raised repeatedly, and the cost of living is getting higher by the day, how can the government justify the proposal to expand the cabinet as a National government? Citizens can rightly conclude that our parliamentarians and government leaders are only concerned with enjoying and sharing with each other more privileges of office, with total disregard for the cost to citizens who elected them to office.

The Opposition

Confrontational politics has been the bane of this country and has reached new levels. We see this in the approach to constitutional reform. Though public consultations were held and some good reports on different sectors have been produced, the final set of recommendations is embedded in controversy. The Prime Minister has failed to give the required leadership, while other members of the government and opposition are trading insults in the matter of constitutional reform. The Leader of the Opposition is swift to fault the government, on several matters, but has no credibility when his administration acted in similar or worse manner. He is currently holding meetings across the country, making misleading statements in regard to ‘separatist constitutional amendments’. Abolition of the Executive Presidency and provision for power sharing to resolve the national question seem to be of little importance for politicians and party leaders. This is creating once again ethnic tensions which this country can ill afford. Recent bill boards in Colombo declaring that the President is the "seba sinhaya" (the true lion) gives messages of ethnic bias and identity politics, when the critical need is for religious and racial harmony and understanding. 

Elections

The failure to hold Provincial Council elections, despite the urgent need to do so, is another manifestation of dishonesty in politics. It is a priority that all parties must, in the interest of the country, agree to enact the necessary amendments to the law, to enable Provincial Council elections to be held without any further delays. It is the obligation of the UNF to give the required leadership and prepare the legislation.           

The pledge to dismantle the Preside-ntial system of governance even by an amendment must be fulfilled. We as citizens must ask ourselves whether we have an environment for a Presidential election that will once again place in office a person functioning in a system of government, the usefulness of which the majority in this country has questioned over the years. While the SLFP and the SLPP are engaged in political strategies to identify a common candidate, with the current President also a contender, a growing constituency in the UNP, and independent voters are calling for a change in leadership. One of the potential ‘new’ candidates for this office, Gotabaya Rajapakse, is coming on a national platform for a "disciplined society". This is a person facing criminal prosecutions in courts for corruption and abuse of power during his tenure as Secretary of Defence in the Rajapakse government. He has made public statements that he has information on two persons who were responsible for the horrors of abduction and killing during that government, but has not gone to the relevant authorities with the information in his possession. Is this disciplined and lawful conduct?

However if there is no consensus in Parliament on abolishing the Executive Presidency by a constitutional amendment and a referendum, there should be an early Presidential election after the Provincial Councils take office. We can then seriously reflect on what type of Head of State we choose to place in office and the grave implications for the future of our country. Dissolution of Parliament by a two thirds majority and a general election must follow.   We then have an important opportunity to also make a concerted demand through the exercise of our vote for governance that is not selfish and corrupt, and respects the sovereignty of the people. We must let our politicians know through our votes that, as Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Prof. Savitri Goonesekere 

Prof. Arjuna Aluwihare

On behalf of the Friday Forum:

Mr. Danesh Casie Chetty, Mr. Priyantha Gamage, Rev. Dr. Jayasiri Peiris, Mr. Sanjayan Rajasingham, Bishop Duleep de Chickera, Mr. Prashan de Visser, Mr. Chandra Jayaratne, Dr. A.C.Visvalingam, Ms. Manouri Muttetuwegama, Mr. Faiz-Ur Rahman, Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda, Prof. Camena Guneratne, Mr. Tissa Jayatilaka, Prof. Ranjini Obeyesekere & Prof. Gameela Samarasinghe. 

The Friday Forum is an informal group of concerned citizens pledged to uphold norms of democracy, good governance, rule of law, human rights, media freedom and tolerance in our pluralist society.

Asset declarations – a myth?

Tuesday, 12 March 2019 

That there are very few role models in our public life is self-evident. The material poverty of the country is reflected in the poverty of its leadership, in as much as our twisted concepts of governance echo in the shoddiness of its delivery. So disillusioned are the people with the national leadership that whatever is said or done by a politician is examined only for its hidden motives; the man’s subjective political interests, the benefits to his family and associates, and the money made under the table. The public is justified in their scepticism, they have observed the rapid enrichment of these ‘servants of the people’, and of course, the gentrifying of the family of the ‘leader’.

In Sri Lanka, politics is the easiest path to elite status. Turning the meaning of public life upside down, those who clamour to serve the people, are served best; all it takes is just one term in public office to become wealthy and ‘respectable’. Typically, the ‘servant of the people’ ends up owning a couple of houses in Colombo, a business, maybe a tourist hotel, and perhaps educate his children in a Western country.

Even those who started off their public careers with a certain amount of wealth, thus having no impulse to go about it as vulgarly, do not do too badly. For sure, they adopt more sophisticated methods, but eventually end up making pots of money, much more than any other career would have brought them.

In the ‘leaders’ who had such a head-start, there will be no noticeable change in their lifestyle in the mother country. They will eat the same way, dress the same way and continue doing the same things. Their plunder will be carefully hidden; mainly overseas, in tax heavens, reliably managed by others. There is comfort in knowing that when the need arises, they could access anything that the wealthy in the rich countries may command; healthcare, travel and other luxuries.

To a disenchanted nation, the announcement that at least a handful of their elected representatives have gone public with their assets/liabilities would be beguiling news. On a surface level, such a declaration suggests transparency. It titillates the much denied, to pore over the private assets of the well-endowed. At the end of the day, that thrilling peep into the closely guarded lives of their leaders, otherwise protected by high walls, tinted vehicles and hefty bodyguards, may be the only good to come out of this.

There are many aspects to the declaration of assets and liabilities by a public figure.

Let us start with a newly elected member of parliament. If his first asset declaration is true, and it shows only meagre assets, there is a cultural tendency here to assume that the declarant is a suitable leader; he is honest and simple, they will say. Another culture may assess him very differently. Is a man who had earned little, saved nothing, had no idea of investing, fit to be elected to office and then make decisions concerning public assets running into billions? The same argument holds in respect of those whose wealth is wholly inherited. All the work was done by their parents.

We are not suggesting that only those who are good at wealth accumulation should count. Invariably, huge amounts of unexplained money, suggests dishonesty and corruption of the soul. But that does not mean that the opposite, a person with no wealth at all, is necessarily a good leader. A person’s pre-leadership years should carry some promise; attitude, creativity or skill.

Leadership is a complex phenomenon; every culture has distinct concepts of leadership. A Gandhi would not have succeeded in China, while a Mao would be a misfit in India. We too have a concept of leadership. The past 70 years have shown the flaws of that leadership model.

Coming back to the assets/liabilities, obviously, the main purpose behind the declaration is to keep the declarant on the straight and narrow. It is assumed that the first asset declaration would act as a base to monitor the subsequent asset betterment of the declarant. For good measure, he is also expected to provide details of the assets/bank accounts of his spouse and dependent children under the age of 18. After taking up public office, if the declarant’s asset position improves far beyond what could be explained with his income, something is wrong clearly.

This easy scenario is based on there being an accurate first declaration, and that he continues faithfully to submit honest annual returns thereafter. But we know that a dishonest public figure is not going to cooperate in his own destruction. It is not imperative to transfer ‘black’ assets to his nuclear family, when there is an extended family who could be largely relied on to collaborate, the space to manoeuvre is much larger. As recent events have shown, there are plenty of willing non-dependent children, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles and in-laws out there.

The scandal over the so called Panama Papers and the law firm Mossack Fonseca illustrated the global nature of the black money industry. With complex company structures spreading through several countries and the collusion of sophisticated accountants, bankers and lawyers, hiding ill-gotten money has become a global industry. Even little Sri Lanka had a few names among the Panama Papers rogues’ gallery; small economies like ours are exposed to easy milking by the unscrupulous. For failing to submit the asset declaration, there is a small fine/custodial sentence prescribed. In the larger scheme of things, it is difficult to envisage a jail term for the non-submission of a statement. The asset declaration is only the starting point. To have any meaning, it needs to be audited vigorously. A person could well submit a declaration having transferred his assets to another, for ‘safekeeping’. Investigating hidden assets is a painstaking, as well as a time consuming task.

If the declarant is a tax payer, his tax file and other records should be compared with the asset declaration. Then, there are major expenses that call for explanation; overseas travel, educating the children, medical visits. These overseas indulgences are way beyond what the salary of a member of parliament could meet. It is more than likely that some of our public figures maintain bank accounts plus assets in foreign countries. It is rumoured that large liabilities like loans/mortgages of certain public officials have vanished overnight. Here again, explanation is required. Who paid the debts off?

It is widely accepted that we, have neither the laws, nor the dedicated organisation to take on corruption; a plague, which besides being deeply entrenched, is near systemic now. While the taker (of bribes) must be stopped, for the giver, the consequences must be prohibitive. The scope and complexity of the challenge calls for sweeping laws, special courts and high calibre investigators.

Countries which have taken serious steps to curb corruption have established independent well-funded organisations, with wide investigative powers. They are staffed with experienced professionals; accountants, lawyers and other specialists, wholly committed to the task; their tenure, protected by law. To be effective, the investigators must have the power to summon any witness or document. Non-cooperation with a corruption investigation or the failure to comply with such a summons should attract summary custodial punishment by a court of law. False information or failure to disclose material information in the declaration should result in dismissal from office, with mandatory confiscation of assets. For an effective anti-corruption system, these are but, basic expectations.

In a country habitually falling short, such expectations are bordering on the fantasy. As a people, we gain satisfaction in announcing the journey, not taking the journey. There will be endless talk about corruption, but we will not walk the talk; the path is too hard, there are too many obstacles and there is comfort in doing nothing.

If we were to go by the asset declarations, our public affairs are in the hands of self-denying ascetics, their asset base painfully modest. But their lives, particularly of their children; pleasure seekers, daredevils, gourmets and sometimes students at foreign universities; give the lie to what the father solemnly professes. In a material sense, the entire family ‘is made’, they have arrived.

Clearly, the asset declaration is no reflection of reality, only another myth in a land of mythology. A parody relies on the telling, not the substance; however barefaced the lie, the asset declaration does give a thrill.

AG’s workload to be minimised

Disna Mudalige -Camelia Nathaniel and Menaka Indrakumar-Wednesday, March 13, 2019

The Justice Ministry will limit the number of questions referred to the Attorney General’s opinion by various state departments in a bid to minimize the delay, Justice Minister Thalatha Athukorala said. The minister responding to a question by UNP MP Hesha Withanage in Parliament yesterday said that the Police Department and various other Departments refer even minor legal matters to the AG and this adds an undue workload to the AG’s Department.

“The Police Department has its own legal unit, but refers even minor legal matters to the AG. Many state departments also refer the matters that could be easily resolved to the AG. In the future, we will decide as to what kind of matters could be referred to the AG and that will be informed to all Departments,” she said.

She also said that the Police Department would be informed to send samples to the Government Analyst’s Department within one week of the court order. “Sometimes, the Police Department takes months to refer the cases to the Government Analyst’s Department and this unduly delays the legal process. We will hereafter give a strict timeframe to the Police Department,” she said.

UNP MP Withanage, pointing out that recent public criticisms on the judges affect the independence of judiciary, questioned on the Justice Minister’s opinion in that regard. Minister Athukorala replied that the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary must be mindful to exercise their powers within their limits to avoid unnecessary frictions. “We created an independent judiciary by setting up the Constitutional Council and the independent commissions. The independence of these bodies must be safe guarded,” she added. 

Sri Lanka's TNA, JVP pledge to work together to abolish executive presidency in 20th amendment of nation's constitution

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena. AFP

Mar 11, 2019

Colombo: Sri Lanka's main Tamil party TNA and Marxist party JVP on Monday held a rare meeting in Colombo and decided to work together towards abolishing the executive presidency in the country.

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which represented diagonally opposed political stands, came together during the political crisis in the island nation when President Maithripala Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

The TNA and JVP put up a broad front to force Sirisena backtrack through court action. The Supreme Court's intervention made Sirisena reinstate Wickremesinghe as the prime minister.

The meeting between the two parties on Monday came as part of JVP's consultations on the need to abolish presidency.

The two parties held a discussion on the 20th Amendment to the Constitution which aimed at abolishing the executive presidency.

JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake told the media they discussed mustering support for the 20th amendment to the Constitution in Parliament and working in tandem on matters of mutual interest.

He said the JVP discussed with the TNA about a model to get all communities involved in governance.

He said the decision on the implementation of the proposed 20th amendment must be vested with the people.

“Those who attempt to defeat the amendment in Parliament are the ones who are afraid of the people,” Dissanayake said.

TNA leader R Sampanthan said they discussed how the two parties could work together for the country and the people. He said they briefed the JVP on matters recently discussed with the President and the Prime Minister on the devolution of power.

Both parties said they were coming together to preserve the island's Constitution and it was not an action in personal favour of Wickremesinghe.

“We have decided to work with the JVP for the betterment of the country. If we need to bring the main political parties onto the right track, the TNA and the JVP must work in unison in this regard," the veteran TNA leader said.

“We are open to working with the TNA based on equal participation," Dissanayake said.

The JVP in 2004 branded the TNA a proxy party of the LTTE who ran a bloody separatist campaign to carve out a separate Tamil homeland in the north and east regions of the country.

Dissanayake said the TNA was supportive of the idea to abolish the presidential system of government through the JVP's move to introduce an amendment to the Constitution.

The 20A seeks to abolish the executive presidency, the main feature in the existing 1978 Constitution.

The nationalist opposition led by the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa accuses the government of relying on the TNA's support for its survival.

Firstpost is now on WhatsApp. For the latest analysis, commentary and news updates, sign up for our WhatsApp services. Just go to Firstpost.com/Whatsapp and hit the Subscribe button.

Updated Date: Mar 11, 2019 23:16:46 IST

Ranil Wickremesinghe: Performance vs promises

13 March 2019 

The writer’s article titled President Maithripala Sirisena - Performance Versus Promises appeared in two newspapers on 16 February 2019. There was one inadvertent error in that article that required correction, namely, that it was “Sri Lanka Telecom” and not the “Telecommunications Regulatory Authority” to which President Maithripala Sirisena (MS) had appointed one of his brothers. However, the inference about the nepotistic nature of the appointment is not affected by this error. 

When, near the end of 2014, President Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) announced a premature end to his second term and called for Presidential Elections, RW knew that, in a direct contest between himself and MR, he (RW) would be unlikely to win. 

Therefore, a few senior members of the UNP, including RW, secured the cooperation of ex-President Chandrika Kumaratunga, the inestimable backing of the Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera and the critical support of several smaller political parties and a number of independent political activists, and came to an agreement that (the willing) Maithripala Sirisena should be presented as their “common candidate” to challenge MR at the polls. An integral part of MS’s manifesto was that RW would be appointed Prime Minister if Maithripala Sirisena were elected President.

---

• Integral part of MS’s manifesto was RW would be appointed Prime Minister
• RW should not have ignored the inadmissible conflict of interest that would arise

---

On Maithripala Sirisena becoming the President of Sri Lanka in January 2015, he also became the head of the SLFP. Immediately thereafter, MPs of the UNP, the SLFP and some other parties were able together to muster more than enough strength to form a stable government with RW as PM. The price paid by RW for SLFP’s cooperation was that a number of the “more attractive” Ministries had to be given to its senior members. By this accommodation, the government was assured of the support of a total of well over 113 MPs (50% majority). 

Together, Maithripala Sirisena and RW did some good work in the period immediately following MS’s election to the presidential office. As stated in the writer’s aforementioned article, there is no doubt whatever that the people of Sri Lanka presently enjoy a degree of freedom of expression that was denied to them for about a decade. The fear of being taken away without warning, most of the time in white vans, and being made to disappear for good has ceased. The obnoxious 18th Amendment was repealed and replaced by the incomparably superior 19th Amendment that so many opponents of the government criticize as geared to further their own ends. 

The Right to Information Act was passed and the people are now slowly getting familiar with how to make use of it for the public good. The status and security of the Judiciary have been notably improved although recent controversies regarding the selection of judges may, if not nipped in the bud, become a cause for concern.

This can be best seen in the self-serving camaraderie that exists among the vast majority of MPs who plainly consider the welfare of their fellow MPs as being more important than their duty to the public  

The intensification of the war on drug-trafficking is encouraging even if there are some blind spots left that need corrective action. The appointment of a Presidential Commission to investigate the Central Bank bond transactions of early 2015 was also a necessary and valuable intervention. The creation of Special High Courts to speed up cases by resorting to more-or-less continual sittings has been of crucial importance. Both Maithripala Sirisena and RW may deservedly take credit for the part that they played in these valuable achievements as summarized in the aforementioned article pertaining to MS. 

What are the promises that RW himself made to the people of Sri Lanka when he called upon them to elect Maithripala Sirisena as President and allow him (RW) to form the Government?
A few of the key undertakings that he gave either explicitly or implicitly, and how well he has fulfilled them, are discussed briefly below. 

RW promised to help abolish the Executive Presidency by getting an appropriate new Constitution drafted. He appointed a team to collect views from the public as to what a new Constitution should contain. He then set up six or so Parliamentary sub-committees to study various aspects of the Constitution in the light of the opinions expressed by the people and to set out what features should be included in it. Although almost all the MPs in Parliament participated keenly at the beginning, those from the SLFP and SLPP, after many months of cooperation, were dissuaded by Maithripala Sirisena and MR from contributing any further to the writing of a new Constitution. This brought the work on drafting a fresh Constitution to a halt. Thus RW has failed, whatever extenuating explanations there might be, to get Sri Lanka a Constitution that excludes autocratic presidential rule.

There was also the undertaking given by RW to establish an efficient, corruption-free administration, unlike the one that was thrown out by the people in January 2015. One of the first appointments that he got Maithripala Sirisena to make was that of Arjuna Mahendran (AM) as the Governor of the Central Bank, notwithstanding objections that Maithripala Sirisena says he raised.
 
At that time, newspapers published details of AM’s professional background which indicated that he had the knowledge and skills to hold this post. What the public did not know at that time was that one of the principal traders in Central Bank bonds was AM’s son-in-law, Arjun Aloysius (AA), and that AM was resident in this son-in-law’s house. 

RW should not have ignored the inadmissible conflict of interest that would arise in these circumstances.

This was an altogether ill-conceived appointment, the negative aspects of which were compounded by RW’s dilatoriness in getting AM out of the Central Bank at the very first hint of possible misconduct. It should surprise no one that the public have a very negative assessment of RW’s judgment, and even intentions, in making AM the Governor in a setting with so much the potential for impropriety. 

Not too long after becoming President, Maithripala Sirisena had obviously come to enjoy his new-found powers so greatly that he acquired an open craving for a second term as President, contrary to the pledge that he made during his campaign and immediately upon election. 

It is the writer’s considered opinion that the overwhelmingly compelling factor that contributed to the parting of ways of Maithripala Sirisena and RW was almost certainly the fact that RW was not agreeable to writing a Constitution that would provide for the executive presidential rule that would allow Maithripala Sirisena to run for a second term. The intensity of the fury engendered by the unwillingness of RW to help Maithripala Sirisena to realize his new dream can now be understood. 
It appears to have decided not to respond but to bide his time. Inevitably, RW’s efforts to get an improved Constitution passed have not been fruitful. 

In the midst of this confrontation, on 26 October 2018, in a totally unexpected turn of events, Maithripala Sirisena directed the SLFP MPs who were loyal to him to resign from the Government. He also “dissolved” Parliament - but unconstitutionally, as the Supreme Court later held. Following SLFP’s desertion, RW was nevertheless able to form a “minority government” with the tacit voting support, but not direct participation, of a number of opposition parties in Parliament, thus restoring democracy in the country. The steadfast loyalty of the vast majority of UNP MPs to their party and its leader has been remarkable considering the well-publicized temptations placed before them to cross over.

Probably the most noteworthy contribution ever made by RW to support of the Rule of Law was his unswerving refusal to vacate Temple Trees during the 50-60 days that the unconstitutional regime of MR was imposed on the country. Given the revoltingly crude manner in which Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake and General Sarath Fonseka had been treated by MR’s regime, there was genuine public concern that a similar fate might befall R W. 

However, in an unprecedented show of public support, a determined contingent of civic activists took significant risks, made personal sacrifices and gave very generously of their time to protect R Wand thereby safeguard the existing Constitution. The highly impressive, steadfast and absolutely vital part played by RW in protecting the Constitution during this fearful period is something for which all citizens of this country should be eternally grateful. 

Based on the manner in which so many well-publicized allegations of corruption are being so desultorily investigated and followed up by the various authorities concerned, there is a widespread belief that Maithripala Sirisena and RW are not going after numerous wrongdoers who are out of power at that moment. One reason for their inaction is the “insurance” factor where protection is given now to persons out of power so that it may come in useful in future to protect current wrongdoers. Another factor is that the more longstanding MPs think of Parliament as a sort of “club of kindred souls” who need to look after each other as some secret societies do. 

What are the promises that RW himself made to the people of Sri Lanka when he called upon them to elect Maithripala Sirisena as President and allow him (RW) to form the Government?

This can be best seen in the self-serving camaraderie that exists among the vast majority of MPs who plainly consider the welfare of their fellow MPs as being more important than their duty to the public. From the fact that very little action has been taken against those MPs of whom the public rightly have a poor opinion, the writer is inclined to the view that both Maithripala Sirisena and RW are equally protective of erring MPs, irrespective of whatever misdemeanours are committed. 

No one has come forward to defend Ravi Karunanyake (RK) regarding the plainly unbelievable explanations given by him to the Presidential Committee of Inquiry (PCol) appointed to look into the Treasury Bond auctions that took place in and around February 2015. 

Everyone with whom the writer has had occasion to discuss RK’s role in politics has been highly critical of RW for supporting RK so strongly as he does but they have also conceded that there is no one else in the UNP who could ensure better attendance at important UNP rallies. 

This is a factor that RW is not in a position to ignore in the world of practical politics. Nonetheless, as far as the general public are concerned, RK has so badly compromised his own image that RW himself cannot avoid being tainted by giving RK important positions either in the UNP or in government. The fact that there are several persons with even more compromised records in the SLFP and the SLPP is not considered to be an adequate excuse for RW’s generous treatment of RK.   

Gota suffers first major court setback

March 9, 2019, 9:00 pm 

Former secretary to the defence ministry, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, suffered his first major legal setback when the newly-established Permanent High Court rejected his objections and decided last week to proceed with the trial.

Rajapaksa was indicted on seven counts under the Public Property Act for misappropriating 33.9 million rupees by getting the Land Reclamation Board to build at its cost a monument for his late parents at Medamulana, Weeraketiya.

He is also accused of criminal breach of trust and aiding and abetting other public servants to commit crime.

Soon after the 12-page indictment was read out to him, Rajapaksa’s lawyers questioned the jurisdiction of the fast-track court to hear the case and argued that the amount involved was so "low" that it did not merit a speedy trial.

However, the three-judge bench headed by justice Sampath Abeykoon rejected the objections pointing out that the case had been referred to them by Chief Justice Nalin Perera in line with provisions under which the court was set up.

The court’s 20-page unanimous decision settles jurisdiction issues and clears the way for a reasonably quick disposal of the Medamulana case.

Investigators were seriously hampered when Rajapaksa obtained orders preventing his arrest in connection with this case as well as others.

Some of the judges in Supreme Court recused themselves further delaying action against the former defence official who sought superior court intervention to prevent action against him.

A Supreme Court order prevents the authorities from arresting Rajapaksa in connection with several ongoing investigations --- the  $7.5 million corruption involving the MiG aircraft purchase, gun running and a controversial share transaction in Lanka Hospitals.

Since May 2015, the order preventing the arrest of Rajapaksa is in operation and Supreme Court judges have been putting off hearing for various reasons, including some recusing themselves.

Rajapaksa has also petitioned the Court of Appeal to stop a magisterial inquiry into a case filed by the bribery commission for causing a loss of 11.4 billion rupees to the state.

Gotabhaya, as secretary to the ministry of defence during the rule of his president brother Mahinda, is alleged to have illegally allowed Avant Garde Maritime Services to operate floating armouries and deprived the state of revenue.

A sea marshal operation carried out by the Sri Lankan navy was handed over to Avant Garde causing massive losses to the state when Rajapaksa headed the defence ministry, it is alleged.

In the meantime, Rajapaksa has also ratcheted his bid to secure nominations from his brother Basil’s Sri Lanka Podujana Party (SLPP) to contest presidential elections that must be held between November 9 and December 9.

However, he is yet to renounce his US citizenship to qualify to be a candidate at the election.

The 19th amendment to the constitution preclude those holding dual Sri Lankan and any other nationality from running for public office. Rajapaksa is on public record saying that he could give up his US citizenship in a matter of weeks.

Budget 2019 off target?

Only 23% said the Budget presented by Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera was positive 

---

Wednesday, 13 March 2019 0

The share of voice (SOV) of the Budget 2019 was very strong with almost every newspaper every media station, paper or radio highlighting the opinions and challenges. But I did not see anyone report the research presentation that was made on 6 March (the day after the budget) at the Daily FT-Colombo University MBA Alumni Association Forum.


Awareness Budget- 70%

It’s very strange but even with all the media reporting the Budget live that includes the mobile phone companies giving live updates of the key proposals like for instance the 14 scholarships that will be given to the top performing Advanced Level students from Harvard, MIT and Oxford, etc., only 70% was aware of the Budget proposals with 20% stating they were not aware and 9% stating they had no idea. 

The argument is, does it mean that a typical brand with high penetration such as laundry soap or toothpaste can reach only a maximum of 70% of the market?  Or was it that the category was not interesting, hence the awareness drop of 30%?

Positive Budget – 23%

An interesting revelation by the market research company as per appendix 1 was that only 23% said that the Budget was positive whilst 37% said it was an election budget which is factually not correct. The logic being that technically there weren’t many populist proposals that can generate a ‘wow’ response except for the housing loan at low interest rates for newly-married couples and the name-based car number plates as a case in point.

Sadly almost 40% said that it was a negative Budget or that they had no idea of the Budget. May be this can be typical non-supporters of the party presenting the Budget proposal but one cannot make this blanket statement as a budget will have an impact on one’s own household expenditure or the company one works for.

It will be interesting to find out what the negative proposals were. One such proposal can be the charge of 3.5% on credit card payments made from online payments. Once again the fact that 25% had ‘no idea’ of the Budget means that they are totally disengaged from the internal workings of the country.

What people wanted
If one does a deep dive to what the needs of the people are, it gives a good insight to the key issues that a typical household is challenged with. As per Appendix 2, a staggering 90% wanted the prices of essential commodities to be reduced. This is something that the Budget did not address and the policymakers must do a deep dive to understand how it can be addressed.

One of the key insights from research studies done is when a country focuses on tourism and “over-tourism” takes place above the carrying capacity of the country, the prices of essentials become unaffordable to the domestic people. We must do this study given that most of the products are imported. Namely, rice, sugar, flour and the limited produce locally of vegetables and fruits need closer examination. In some counties we see the governments in power being voted out due to tourism explosion.

It’s strange but if I am to share some parable usage insights of the Sri Lankan household we see that purchase frequency of soaps is increasing from nine to 11 days as per the latest research data which does not mean that people are ‘not bathing’ but they are using the soaps more sparingly. This is an indication of the extent to which people are cutting on costs. If this issue is not addressed, the typical decision by the masses at the next election needs no prediction.

Fuel and gas
We see from Appendix 2 that over 50% are wanting the prices of fuel and gas to be reduced. This once again goes back to the cost of living and the implication to the Government. Some speculate that the Budget was only a ‘policy statement’ given that the IMF is keeping an eye on Sri Lanka but may be closer to the elections the above issues will be addressed. I am not sure of the implications of such measures when a country is on an IMF program.

What is a budget?

If one strictly looks at a budget of a country, it is the roadmap of the development agenda of a country. Whilst the South Asian region is growing at 7%, Sri Lanka is staggering as just 3%, which does not augur well for a small country which is just $ 90 billion in GDP. The current budget deficit is at Rs. 685 billion and the debt to GDP ratio is at 83.4%, which is higher than last year’s number of 77.6%. It’s very clear that the expected target of 72% to be achieved by 2022 will be impossible unless Sri Lanka has some serious policy reforms taking ground. However, with the current performance in the last four years one cannot expect a strong behaviour shift in this direction given the charges by society on corruption allegations that includes the Central Bank bond scam.

What next 

Whilst we see that another budget has gone by, now the challenge is what changes can come about from the expected Provincial Council elections and thereafter the presidential elections by the end of the year.  The million dollar question is, when will Sri Lanka become a 100 billion economy and a 100 billion dollar nation brand value so that as per research globally there can be twist in the economic development landscape? As at now the GDP is at around 90 billion whilst Sri Lanka as a nation brand is valued at $ 87 billion.

(The writer can be contacted on Rohantha.athukorala1@gmail.com. The thoughts are strictly his personal views and do not reflect the organisations he serves in Sri Lanka or globally.)