Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Saturday, March 23, 2019

UNP favours abolishing Executive Presidency - PM


The United National Party (UNP) is in favour of abolishing the Executive Presidency, and the views of other parties in the United National Front (UNF) will be sought on this, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe told the JVP yesterday.

The JVP MPs met Prime Minister and UNP Leader Wickremesinghe at the Parliamentary complex to discuss on the proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution (20A) which seeks to abolish the Executive Presidency.

The JVP group comprised its Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake and MPs Vijitha Herath and Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa.

Minister Malik Samarawickrama attended with the Prime Minister. MP Vijitha Herath told journalists that the PM said that the UNP at its last party convention agreed in principle to abolish the Executive Presidency. “On our side, we requested UNP’s support to get the 20A passed with a two thirds majority.

“He agreed to discuss on this amendment with other party leaders of the UNF and inform us of the outcome,” MP Herath said.

The JVP also met former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and TNA Leader R. Sampanthan over the 20A.

Herath said the party will meet SLFP and SLMC representatives in the near future. “A final decision on the 20A Bill will be made within three weeks.

We take all our efforts in that regard. If it is to see the light of the day, it must be taken up before the next Presidential Elections to be held towards the end of this year,” Herath said.

The 20th Amendment was presented to Parliament by JVP MP Vijitha Herath on September 5, 2018.
The Bill has also made provisions to prevent MP crossovers against the collective decision of the party. The Supreme Court (SC) ruled in October last year that 30 Articles out of the 38 Articles in the 20A need to be passed with a two thirds majority in Parliament and approved by the people at a referendum.

Belt & Road Initiative Is Not A Chinese Plot

W. Vishnu Gupta
logoThe present Sri Lankan regime seems to have grudgingly and unwillingly accepted the inevitable effect of Belt and Road initiative of China. BRI should have been adopted wholeheartedly before 2014 and not for the nefarious reasons uttered by politicians. Senior Minister John Amaratunga, a diehard supporter of the prime minister has said recently; “Sri Lanka looks forward to benefiting more from the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative and is ready to welcome more Chinese investment into the country.
Furthermore this Minister currently responsible for Tourism Development, Wildlife and Christian Religious Affairs has gone on record for saying; “To start with, Sri Lanka is fully supportive of the Belt and Road Initiative of China. We have no debate on that. We look forward to benefiting more from this policy that China has adopted.” What a quirk of fate.
Kiss the hand they wish to cut off
The UNP lead government has taken almost four years to wake up from deep slumber and move away from antagonistic policies towards China. Not so long ago the UNP maligned then government of the strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa.  The UNP claimed that Port City project was dangerous and detrimental to Sri Lanka.
On December 17, 2014 then Opposition United National Party (UNP) Leader Ranil Wickremsinghe vowed to scrap the Colombo Port City project after the Presidential election on January 8th2015.
“UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe met tourist industry leaders yesterday at the Opposition Leader’s office. Pegasus Reef Hotel Director P.M. Withana and UNP MP Harsha De Silva also participated at the meeting – Wickremesinghe made this early declaration during a meeting with tourism industry stakeholders at a meeting in Colombo. He said the multi billion project would be scrapped because it would end up destroying the coastal belt from Negombo to Beruwala.- Financial Times, December 17 2014.
After lackluster four years of controlling the government, very same man Ranil Wickremesinghe, who predicted doom and gloom due to Chinese investment has stated in 2019; “the Port City will transform Sri Lanka’s capital Colombo into a financial and trading hub”
The citizens must take what these oligarchy leaders say to the voters with a grain of salt. The UNP leadership has taken a U-turn and publicly announced;
“We hope more investments will come into Sri Lanka from China. There are a lot of Chinese companies who are looking to invest here, particularly in the tourism industry. We will gladly welcome all of them and give them all the support and assistance to start their projects here which will help our economy,”
“We look forward to engaging more with the Chinese government under the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative)”
These statements made by Sri Lankan politicians must be treated as nothing but political grandstanding or tongue in cheek policies.
African market and the Critical Hub of BRI
Africa within foreseeable future will be as populous as China. Their colonial past forced them to depend on western countries however; situation has changed mainly due to China’s overseas development strategy and foreign policy. As such, the African leaders do not have to choose sides as they did during the cold war and the Africans have many choices to make. Under this context Africa will become the next best evolving market for the goods and services offered by any developed country. The competitors jockeying for a major share in this new market are China, Japan, USA, France, Turkey and India. China leads the pack.
China and many African nations have been partnering investments for nearly a decade. Both parties trust each other without any strings attached. High level contacts of the two sides are made in the Forum of China-Africa Cooperation.  At the 2018 China-Africa Cooperation Forum, China announced it would be providing $60 billion in financial support to Africa. It shows the level of commitment of China’s investment in Africa.  The collaboration and cooperation has made Africa one of China’s greatest allies in the current global market environment. The investment trend will continue at a steady rate.
Geographic Strategic Advantage
There is no secret behind the primary motivation of China’s push toward increased investments in African nations and Sri Lanka.  Sri Lanka’s role BRI is crucial in China’s development and trading strategy in the continent of Africa. Unfortunately, Sri Lankan corrupt politicians driven by short term personnel gains (bribery and graft practices) have failed to understand the long term benefits to Sri Lankan citizens in participating BRI initiative. There is no master plan based on national requirements, both present and past governments have followed shoot from the hip approach.
Source, Hub and Destination
As per national economic strategy, China would like to secure a solid base of raw materials to fuel China’s own rapidly growing economy based on the demands and production capacity of “The factory of the world”. Africa has become the source of raw material and the emerging market for the finished goods. The stakes in Africa are high, many are targeting the continent’s rich abundance in raw materials. For example; Africa is estimated to contain 90% of the entire world supply of platinum and cobalt, half of the world’s gold supply, two-thirds of world manganese and 35% of the world’s uranium. More importantly, Angolahas become China’s third-largest oil supplier. Among the others following Angola are Republic of Congo and South Sudan.
China-Africa trading strategy is also driven by the major growth opportunity presented by emerging market economies in Africa. According to statistics from the General Administration of Customs of China, in 2018, China’s total import and export volume with Africa was US$204.19 billion, a year-on-year increase of 19.7%, Among these, China’s exports to Africa were US$104.91 billion, up 10.8% and China’s imports from Africa were US$99.28 billion, up 30.8%.Under this backdrop, China must secure a safest maritime passage for her cargo ships plying between mainland and African continent to ensure the success of this mega trading arrangements with African governments.
The cargo ships travelling back and forth between Africa and China have to cover a vast distance. For instance, there are about 7500 Nautical Miles between Kenyan port Mombasa and Port of Qingdong, China. It is an enormous distance and there are only three logical ports in the Indian Ocean with enough capacity to berth huge cargo ships either for transshipment to India, replenishment, maintenance or emergency without any detour. All three ports are in Sri Lanka; Colombo, Hambantota and Trincomalee. Hambantota is the first choice. The other option is Port Louis in Mauritius. It is not as attractive as Sri Lankan ports due to its location and very cozy relationship it maintains with India. Hence it is obvious that Sri Lanka is in an enviable position to satisfy one of the parameters of China-Africa development strategy equation which is the “HUB”.
No wonder that Sri Lanka has become the darling of competing trading powers vying to get a big piece of the African economic pie. East-West shipping route lie within the Sri Lankan territorialwaters in the Indian Ocean and passes only six to ten nautical miles south of the country. It is the most cherished and desirable position in the maritime route linking China and African continent that attracts world trading powers and it has no bearing on economic policies or popularity of Ranil, Mahinda or Maithri.

Read More

On getting the history of the economy right

 23 March 2019
Following the end of the war, Sri Lanka’s economy grew at dizzying rates, some of the highest recorded in the region and, quite possibly, the world. The investment and consumption boom in the North and East, which had hitherto been shut from the rest of the country, was lavishly and eagerly fuelled by the private sector and sponsored by the government. This resulted in the economy growing at twice the rate it had grown before: in 2009 it grew by 3.4%, while in 2010 and 2011 it would grow respectively by 8% and 8.4%. 2012 recorded the highest rate yet, at 9.1%, while in the following year net exports of goods and services rose by an unprecedented 20%.   
Sri Lankans never had it so good, and as expected, they went on spending lavishly, with consumption growing by almost 25% from 2012 to 2014. A significant portion of their incomes was diverted to foreign products; it was what the late Saman Kelegama referred to in a speech delivered in 2010 as an “import-intensive growth”, with exports of goods financing around 63% of those imports. But of course, no one took seriously the ramifications of continuing with such a model. The truth was that no one needed or wanted to. Growth and equity were both rebounding to levels unprecedented in our history, except perhaps for the Premadasa years. It was too good to ignore.   
Investments came in (their contribution to the GDP kept on rising, surpassing even consumption growth rates); roads and highways and flyover bridges were built and unveiled here and there; the Tourist Board, predicting massive tourist arrivals, set a five year target of 22,500 rooms; and the government, flushed with what it felt to be a grand economic success story, went on reaping dividend after dividend, buying over MPs from other parties and thus hijacking the Opposition, solidifying the Executive Presidency, and impeaching the Chief Justice outside the parameters of legality and legitimacy. It then changed the country’s tagline, turning into, not “A Small Miracle” (which the then President rejected), but “The Wonder of Asia.”   
Victor Ivan’s diagnosis, in that sense, falls a little off the mark: that the blueprint of nationhood which we inherited from the British was not adjusted to suit the needs of an independent country. There are two questions that need to be asked here: what is an independent country (and more relevantly, were we ever one?), and what were those adjustments we had to effect (but presumably did not) when it came to the economy?
We became delighted, then complacent. Elated, we threw caution to the wind.   
But as Forbes Magazine put it, “a sugar high does not last long.” Beneath the dazzling growth rates, the rising tourist numbers, and the booming metropolis was a bomb waiting to go off. The signs were all there: investments came in, but they were always diverted to the usual projects; the roads and the highways expanded, but motor vehicle registration growth began to surpass population growth; tourist arrivals boomed, but so did stories of molestation, harassment, and (as with Khuram Shaikh) even murder; the government went on reaping dividends, but the impeachment of the Chief Justice and the shooting down of protestors at Weliweriya alienated the intellectuals and the masses who had fawned on Mahinda Rajapaksa until then.   
It had to go downhill somewhere. In the end, it did.   
Sri Lanka has been described, not without reason, as an economic basket case. Victor Ivan is one among many commentators who claim that we inherited nationhood from the British, and watched until all those institutions of statehood and nationhood – from the judiciary to the press – were throttled by successive regimes. There is much to disagree with that view, but I think we can agree on the point that, whether or not the British gave us something we could call a nation, we merely let things go from bad to worse. Sri Lanka’s history after independence has thus been one of not just missed opportunities, but also misinterpreted, misused fortunes.   
I refuse to believe that we can pinpoint one precise, clear-cut reason for the debacle this has resulted in. But commentators continue to do just that, be it the lack of insight among our leaders (Victor Ivan), the myth that government intervention is the answer to our problems (Advocata), the lack of  “the vision thing” in political parties (Asanga Welikala), the Hobson’s choice between “clowns and murderers” the system throws up (Tisaranee Gunasekera), and the prevalence of bigotry, among the Buddhist public predominantly, which dwarfs action under ideology (Professor H. L. Seneviratne in his study, The Work of Kings).   
Demonising the likes of Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, and now Theresa May for the problems wrought in their part of the world by the implementation of policies that predate their arrival in the political scene
This, I think, is the easy way out; as easy, in fact, as demonising the likes of Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, and now Theresa May for the problems wrought in their part of the world by the implementation of policies that predate their arrival in the political scene. What it eventually results in is a demonisation of the political and the ideological, sustained to such an extent that “civil society” keeps on calling for an alternative system shorn of politics and ideology. Quite apart from the fact that such a utopic system does not exist, it promotes the (undemocratic?) idea of substituting unelected professionals for elected representatives.   
Victor Ivan’s diagnosis, in that sense, falls a little off the mark: that the blueprint of nationhood which we inherited from the British was not adjusted to suit the needs of an independent country. There are two questions that need to be asked here: what is an independent country (and more relevantly, were we ever one?), and what were those adjustments we had to effect (but presumably did not) when it came to the economy? The picture of Sri Lanka that emerges from the answers to these is not the picture that commentators usually paint, and for very good reasons.   
Constitutionally, legally, politically, economically, and culturally, we were not an independent state after 1948, and we continued to be tied to British interests even after the 1956 election and the coming to power of the much vilified Bandaranaikes. The economy of the country centred on the plantations and the estates which, despite the election of populists, continued virtually unscathed. George Beckford in his extensive study, Persistent Poverty, rightly contends that the establishment and consolidation of these plantations in colonial societies led to their social benefits surpassing, or at least equalling, their social costs, while their later maturity led to the reverse, to the extent of promoting “a persistent tendency towards underdevelopment.”   
This was true of Sri Lanka also: the consolidation of the plantation sector led to the fragmentation of the peasantry (especially in the hill country) the emergence of ethnic conflicts, the privileging of metropolitan (urban) interests over rural interests (which explains why 40% to 45% of industrial activity, despite several Board of Investment initiatives in peripheral regions, is concentrated in the Western Province today), and the emergence of a political class that remained neutral towards the plantation sector (despite populist pressures, the government “forbade the fragmentation” of estates in 1958 and “promised not to nationalise” them for at least 10 years in 1961). 
I refuse to believe that we can pinpoint one precise, clear-cut reason for the debacle this has resulted in. But commentators continue to do just that
Industrial development in a country, regardless of the political model, usually follows four stages: development of the agricultural sector, urbanisation fuelled by factories, transfer from the rural (traditional) to the urban (modern) sector, and emergence of a services sector connected to industry. The initial takeoff is important; for instance, it was the agricultural revolution sparked by Jethro Tull’s plough that turned the North West and the Midlands of England into industrial enclaves.  
The problem with Sri Lanka, and most other colonial societies, is that we were forced to jump over and bypass several stages in the development chart. There was never, for one thing, a “takeoff” from the primary to the secondary sector so characteristic of the economic history of the “modern liberal states” that the likes of Victor Ivan speak so warmly of; more importantly, nor was there a class of industrialists whose interests were aligned with the need to transform the economy.   
When James Peiris remarked in 1908 that “the interests of the Ceylonese planters are identical with those of the European planters”, he was stating an economic truth. In fact in the colonial era it was only the petty and rural bourgeoisie, which interestingly never became a force to reckon with or contend against, that clashed with the planters. We are talking about a period in which every conceivable institution – from banks to schools to railway systems to road networks – were built with the aim of making life easier for the planters and their (primitive) model of development.   
The Waste Land Ordinances that the colonial government enacted facilitated this at the cost of a flourishing peasantry. Ivan faults the locals for not combating the feudal practices rampant at the time of colonialism, but as is typical of such generalisations, he fails to account for the bigger picture: we were not given an opportunity to develop an economy that could outgrow those practices. Instead, we got an economy inhabited by a plantation class, with absentee landlordism, unplanned urbanisation, emulation of Western consumption patterns, and cultural imitativeness being the norm.   

So no, we were never really economically free. We still aren’t.   

Ranil, Rajapaksa election moves and Sirisena’s spoiler trump card


article_image
Rajan Philips- 

A political wisecrack attributed to President Johnson suggests that the first skill in politics is to be able to count – count the votes in the legislature, that is. Lyndon Johnson was a past master working up narrow legislative majorities in the US Congress and the Senate both before and after becoming US President. He knew the importance of counting. President Rajapaksa, an otherwise astute and even cunning politician, has come up short in counting votes on three occasions in parliament over the last twelve months.

First, it was the No Confidence motion against Prime Minister Wickremesinghe in April 2018. The motion was defeated by a sizeable 46-vote majority. Second, it was the October-November crisis when President Sirisena made Mahinda Rajapaksa PM, even before sacking Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Mr. Rajapaksa, despite trying everything using state power and non-state resources, could not show majority support in parliament as required by convention and the Constitution.

The third occasion was the vote on the 2019 budget that was passed a fortnight ago. Mahinda Rajapaksa was openly confident that his opposition group was going to defeat the government and force a parliamentary election. He was again off the mark by a hefty 43 votes. Mr. Rajapaksa could justifiably blame President Sirisena and everyone’s sidekick SB Dissanayake for overpromising and under-delivering in the game of numbers. Yet, to come up short in counting on three occasions says something of Mr. Rajapaksa’s urgency to get back in office, and of his anxiety about being out of power while the legal lassos keep getting closer to those close to him. The budget vote in which the government prevailed quite easily despite predictions to contrary, has been credited to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s manipulative skills.

The Prime Minister was reportedly nervous on the day of the No Confidence motion last year as he was not quite sure which way the vote would go. After the vote he looked humbled and was manifestly grateful to all the MPs who had voted for him. During the October crisis, Wickremesinghe was the fortuitous beneficiary of the wave of popular opposition to Sirisena’s overreaching presidential antics. On the budget vote, by all accounts, the Prime Minister was in his stride and was calling all the shots. He scared the hell out of Sirisena by getting UNP backbenchers to shout out that they were going to vote down the President’s Expenditure Head. Sirisena got the message and decided to direct the SLFP MPs to be absent during the vote and help the budget pass. Six SLFP MPs defied the President and voted for the budget. Another 29 were absent during the vote and that included 16 SLFPers who had earlier voted for the No Confidence motion against the PM. Mahinda Rajapaksa and the SLPP were furious. They had been led up the garden path for the third time in a row.

Team Ranil vs Rajapaksa Family

Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is celebrating his 70th birthday today, and his acolytes, or Team Ranil, can pat themselves on the back for repeatedly besting a sitting President and a former President in the game of parliamentary numbers. But they are also quite capable of letting parliamentary complacency become their enemy in the elections. Manipulating the Party and the parliament, but serially losing the elections has been the political story of Team Ranil. Being Machiavellian can be useful between elections but not for winning elections. The UNP’s crushing defeat in the LG elections in February 2018 was the worst rebuke by voters of a sitting government. Despite their disagreements, the UNP government and President Sirisena have been united in putting off the provincial council election for fear of another electoral shellacking. The UNP appears to be more confident about the presidential election due this year and the parliamentary election due next year. It had the momentum and political tailwind to go for a parliamentary election soon after thwarting the Sirisena-Rajapaksa constitutional coup, but Team Ranil chose to play like starting a new inning instead of launching a run chase to an early election.

Opinions vary as to whether the UNP counts its chances to be better in the parliamentary election or the presidential election. Even if the UNP might have a preferred sequence, it has no control over the timing of either of them. That is left to President Sirisena and he is not bending over backwards to do any favours to Ranil Wickremesinghe. The presidential election coming first will likely create another internal haggling over who should be the UNP candidate. Mr. Wickremesinghe would rather not see another presidential election in Sri Lanka, but if it is not unavoidable it would be difficult for Ranil (and his Team) to forego the candidacy to Sajith Premadasa or Karu Jayasuriya. It is known that the two aspirants, or their teams, are putting up promotional posters outside Colombo. Sajith Premadasa’s candidacy is virtually dead in the water because of his two-timing with Sirisena. Karu Jayasuriya, on the other hand, has the credibility to take on the mantle of Sobitha Thero and run on a single plank, vowing to finally bring to an end the executive presidency.

The Rajapaksas have their own problems and aspirations. But they have managed to sink their problems and rally behind the presidential aspirations of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. Fifteen years ago, Mr. Rajapaksa could never have imagined that he would be where he is today. From the obscurity of California, he has sprung into the limelight in Sri Lanka, and is going to be the torch bearer for the Rajapaksa family and their SLPP party. It is an irony that the Rajapaksas have let go of the SLFP acronym, especially its pejorative expansion: the Sri Lankan Family Party. For, the Rajapakasas are Sri Lanka’s quintessentially family-made political party. The Bandaranaikes and the Senanayakes used their traditional society status to succeed in politics, while the Rajapaksas have used political power for all round status enhancement right at the top of the national level. But for the astrologer and the common opposition in 2015, the Rajapaksas would have ruled over Sri Lanka for years on end period without a break. Now it is up to Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to find out whether he can start from where his brother left.

The fact is that Mahinda Rajapaksa took quite a while before endorsing Gotabhaya Rajapaksa (GR) as presidential candidate. Whatever might have been the internal reasons for this caution, it is fair to speculate that the younger sibling’s winnability might have been a consideration in the older brother’s mind. The former President knows only too well how another military hero ventured into politics and struggled like a fish out of water in an earlier presidential election. The transition is never easy especially if GR’s opponent knows a thing or two more about politics and elections. Not only Mahinda Rajapaksa did take a long time to endorse GR, it was only he who could make that decision. Everyone else in the SLPP and the JO including GR patiently and deferentially waited for the former President to make his decision. And the candidate could only be a Rajapaksa and no one else. Which other political family in Sri Lanka could have wielded such power over the nomination of a presidential candidate?

The issues that could dominate the campaign will depend on who the UNP candidate is going to be. If Karu Jayasuriya were to run as a single-issue candidate to abolish the executive presidency, it would make it that much difficult for Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to project himself as Sri Lanka’s greatest candidate ever, as his Colombian entourage would want everyone to believe, for the office of the executive presidency. The election will turn into a straightforward referendum on the presidency. Indeed, Mr. Jayasuriya could preemptively call it a referendum to the meet amending requirements of the constitution.

It will be a different contest if Rajapaksa were to run against Ranil Wickremesinghe. The issues of national alienation and reconciliation will likely surface as contentious issues. All hell will break loose if the campaign were to coincide with the September UNHRC sessions in Geneva. How will the candidates present themselves? Will Gotabhaya Rajapaksa present himself as the new conciliator to make sure he collects the critical minimum minority vote, and leave it to others in the SLPP to stir the communal pot and badmouth Ranil as the biggest betrayer of Sri Lanka in modern times? Will Ranil Wickremesinghe make a spirited defence of his government’s position in Geneva the way Mangala Samaraweera has been doing it? Or will he play safe to protect his critical minimum vote in the south while hoping to maximize his support in the north? Economic issues will of course play a factor, but they are unlikely to cause a break either way. It will likely be a hotchpotch election that will vary district by district without much of a national trend or sweep as it was in 2015.

Sirisena as spoiler

Where will Maithripala Sirisena be in all of this? He has literally burnt his boats on both sides and has no hope of being anyone’s candidate except of himself. Even the remaining SLFPers might prefer to stay home rather than being seen with Sirisena as the SLFP presidential candidate. The only trump card that he has left to play is the spoiler trump card called the Twentieth Amendment. It might be too late for that trump to succeed but he has no other choice but to play it. Otherwise, he will slide into irrelevance even before the presidential election is called. As I have written earlier, the JVP’s Twentieth Amendment has become a convenient meeting point for political selfishness.

For Sirisena, it opens the possibility to have another term as President but without executive powers. For Ranil Wickremesinghe, it will eliminate another presidential election and leave him safe in his position as Prime Minister both within and outside the UNP. At one point, even Mahinda Rajapaksa was interested in the 20thAmendment as it best suits his political circumstances: he cannot run for president a third time, and he doesn’t have to let Gotabhaya run even for the first time. Now it might be too late for Mahinda Rajapaksa to abandon his brother and support 20A abolishing the presidency.

But it is not too late for the JVP to take one more kick at the can. The breakdown of the budget vote indicates that a two-thirds majority is achievable in parliament to pass the 20th Amendment. There were 119 votes in support of the budget, 76 including the six JVP MPs opposed the budget, and 29 SLFPers were absent. If all the 119 MPs (including the TNA), six JVPers and the 29 SLFPers were to support the 20th Amendment they will have a total of 154 votes, exceeding the two-thirds majority. In such a scenario, the Joint Opposition, at least the so-called progressives among them, will be put to the test. Almost everyone of them, for 40 years, have been promising to abolish the executive presidency. When for the first time an amendment bill to achieve that purpose comes before parliament, on which side of history will they rise on their hindlegs? That will be the question before Mahinda Rajapaksa, Vasudeva Nanayakara and Dinesh Gunawardena to answer for history. We must not assume that they will not support the Twentieth Amendment.

There is another consideration. A successful passage of 20A will trigger an almost immediate general election, which could also double up as the referendum on the amendment. The Joint Opposition will have to figure out which direction the political winds are going to blow. Would they like to be seen as campaigning to form a government only to make Gotabhaya Rajapaksa Sri Lanka’s President in another three months? Or would they neutralize the referendum debate by supporting the amendment and campaigning against the UNP government? These are interesting times, at least for now.

Yesterday, there were news reports that JVP leaders met with Prime Minister Wickremesinghe one more time to find about the UNP’s position on 20A. In typical Ranil-speak, the PM answered that at its last convention the UNP decided to abolish the executive presidency, and the Party’s position remains the same. That is not an answer to the question JVP asked. The question was and is: what is the UNP going to do in parliament about the JVP’s amendment? Perhaps, the JVP may never get a direct answer, certainly not in public, from the Prime Minister until it asks President Sirisena to make his move, and play his last trump card. Some of us can hardly wait. It would be worth the wait even if it comes to nothing in the end.

Playing with history

 The period in which the Sinhalese kingdom thrived in the Raja Rata can be described as the phase of greatest success and prosperity of Sinhalese civilisation
logo Friday, 22 March 2019 

First of all, I was delighted to note a counter criticism ‘A reply to Victor Ivan’s ‘What went wrong with Sri Lanka?’ published in the Financial Times on 11 March in response to my article which appeared in the same newspaper on 22 February. I always welcome open debates and intellectual dialogues on academic issues.

However, I was rather disappointed, and my satisfaction soon disappeared when I noticed that it had been written under the pseudonym ‘Avocado Collective,’ hiding the true identity of the author or the authors of the article. The articles published hiding the identity of the author/s are generally called vituperative literature. I am at a loss to understand why an important subject deserving academic dialogue has been turned into a guerrilla-type debate under a pseudonym.

It seems that the way I interpret the history of Sri Lanka is not to their liking. I am not surprised about that. There are many Sri Lankan scholars who hold the view that the golden era of the history of the country was destroyed first by the South Indian Tamil invaders and later by the European invaders. This must be the way the so-called ‘Avocado Collective’ too perceives my interpretation of the history of Sri Lanka. But I have a different perspective and critical way of looking at many issues of importance.

Whenever a particular kingdom in the South India, the immediate neighbour of Sri Lanka, had become strong and powerful, it used to attack and overpower the neighbouring kingdoms, and in the process invade Sri Lanka as well. It had been a usual practice adopted at that time by the dominant South Indian kings. The conquest of neighbouring countries by a powerful monarch was considered not an offence but a sign of the power wielded by them.

There had been instances in which even Sri Lanka had invaded South Indian kingdoms with the intent of capturing them when it was powerful. But the invasions launched at that time cannot be considered to have been initiated with the malicious motive of destroying the Sinhalese civilisation. Even amidst those invasions, there existed a racial harmony between Sinhalese and Tamils and religious tolerance between the Buddhist and the Hindus.

The decline of Sinhalese civilisation 
The period in which the Sinhalese kingdom thrived in the Raja Rata can be described as the phase of greatest success and prosperity of Sinhalese civilisation. According to B.H. Farmer, with the South Indian invasions, anarchic situations prevailed from time to time and the malaria epidemic caused their decline.

The analysis made by Professor Senarath Paranavithana, in the University of Ceylon – History of Ceylon Vol. 2 in this respect is very important and worth our attention. Paranavithana has alleged that king Parakramabahu the Great also was responsible for the collapse of the Raja Rata civilisation. His analysis is produced below.

“The seeds of decay which became manifest in the Dambadeniya period had been sown in a century or two earlier. During the Cola conquest early in the eleventh century, and in the many unsuccessful revolts as well as in the campaigns which restored Sinhalese sovereignty, many thousands of lives must have been lost. The long and generally peaceful reign of Vijayabahu 1 gave an opportunity for the nation to recuperate, but the forty-two years of civil war which followed was a period of disintegration. The irrigation system was neglected, and in the wars of rival factions many thriving villages are said to have been destroyed without leaving a trace. An era of development was inaugurated by Parakramabahu, but his way to the throne was strewn with the dead bodies of thousands of his countrymen. The several revolts in Rohana and the campaigns necessary to put them down resulted in the death of thousands of able-bodied men. Parakramabahu, it is true developed the resources of the island to a higher pitch than it had ever been raised before, but his prolonged foreign wars must have caused a great drain of manpower, and the high tempo of his administration left the country in a state of exhaustion at the end of his rule. The megalomania of Nissankamalla did not improve matters, and by the beginning of the thirteenth century, the healthiest and the more physically fit section of the population must have been sacrificed to satisfy the ambitions of these two monarchs. Rohana did not suffer from foreign invasions, but wars had been equally disastrous; this principality too, must have contributed its levies to the armies sent abroad by Parakramabahu. Thus, the manhood left to propagate the race must have been not the fittest and the most vigorous, and their progeny in the subsequent generations did not possess the necessary stamina of mind and body to cope with the difficult situations that they were faced with, both in struggling against adverse natural forces and in resisting the onslaughts of enemies from abroad.” (University of Ceylon – History of Ceylon Vol. 2 Pages 716-717)

According to B.H. Farmer, “The Portuguese caught Sinhalese civilisation when it was already fast disintegrating. Gone were the glories of ancient days in Raja Rata, abandoned to the jungle were many of the great shrines of former times. The process of decay and of fragmentation had been in train long before Don Lorenzo de Almeida’s accidental landing, and might well have gone much further had the Portuguese never come to Ceylon.” (B.H Farmer – ‘Ceylon – A Divided Nation,’ page17)

The British period 
By the time the Kandyan kingdom was captured by the British, the society of its domain remained at a primitive level beset by extreme poverty and ignorance. Infanticide or intentional killing of a considerable number of infants for various reasons had become a common characteristic of the life of the people.

In my opinion, the book of Robert Knox, ‘An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon,’ is the best historical source that can be cited to illustrate the pathetic condition that prevailed in the country at that time.

The critic or the team of critics while declining to accept my views had challenged the authenticity and the accuracy of Knox’s book as an important historical source and the numbers I had quoted about the infanticide practised, with the following sarcastic remark: “We wonder if Ivan has the superhuman ability to conjure up statistics that were simply never recorded in the 18th century? Ivan invokes Robert Knox, who was a prisoner after all with limited knowledge of the entire country, to show how poor the peasantry were in the Kandyan kingdom.” I hope to discuss this remark and point out the paucity of their knowledge on this subject elsewhere in this article.

The British ruled Sri Lanka for 133 years since the capture of the Kandyan kingdom until independence. The relative development of the country during this period can be considered poles apart when compared to the period of rule by the ancient kings. Obviously, a country falling into foreign domination cannot be considered a beneficial thing to happen. Yet, the decay which became manifest after the fall of the Raja Rata civilisation might have become worse and Sri Lanka might have lagged in an unfortunate and miserable condition if the rule of ancient kings had continued any longer.

If it happened that way, the people of Sri Lanka would not have been able to live as independent citizens as they are today. The majority of them would still be living as serfs performing feudal services determined by the caste system. This should not be misconstrued to mean that the British rule was perfect and did not have bad features and a darker side. But, compared to the darkness that prevailed prior to British rule, it can be said that the results generated by the British rule had more beneficial and positive aspects. However, there can’t be an argument in regard to the object of the British that they captured Sri Lanka for their own advantage and not for our benefit.

It is a fact that they exploited and reaped benefits from Sri Lanka. The rebellions launched against their rule were suppressed ruthlessly. Especially the 1818 Uva Wellassa rebellion was suppressed brutally and pitilessly. Not only foreign rulers, even the local rulers would not allow rebellions to break out. Suppression of rebellions is a normal course of state rule whether the rulers were native or foreign. How did the native rulers suppress youth insurrections that broke out in the country after independence? Can one say the measures adopted by local rulers in combating them were not ruthless and cruel?

At certain stages of British rule, oppressive taxes such as body tax and grain tax were in operation. Oppressive taxes had been in operation during the Kandyan kingdom as well as the reign of ancient kings. During the reign of king Parakramabahu the Great, more than one-sixth of the paddy crop had to be paid to the treasury, and of which 50% was paid in paddy and balance in cash. The Pujavaliya has a poignant account of the difficult life, the peasants led during the 13th century and how they suffered due to oppressive taxes.

During the British period, by a Wastelands Ordinance, the forest lands were acquired by the government and were transferred at a very low price to European planters and to the indigenous capitalists who showed interest in plantation agriculture. Plantation agriculture, besides being a lucrative source of income for planters themselves, can be considered an avenue which had contributed to the overall development of the country.

During the British period there emerged a modern system of rule coupled with a system of local administration and a new economic system based on trade.

The ancient feudal system known as Rajakariya, the traditional system of land tenure based on caste system, was abolished by the British allowing the people to select a career of their choice. They abolished the trade monopoly of the government, creating a system of free trade. Legal privileges enjoyed by only a certain section of people were abolished and a system in which all were treated equal before the law was established.

Besides that, a common system of judiciary and law was established. They granted universal franchise to the people, removed dictatorial powers of the Governor and set up a democratic system of governance consisting of executive and legislative councils. They introduced a modern system of education together with a modern system of schools. Consequently, a literate society that reads books and capable of debating on matters of importance came into being.

Lessons of history 
It was the British civil servants who worked in Sri Lanka who took the lead to motivate us to study our ancient history and the grandeur of the Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa kingdoms by exploring the ancient arts and crafts, irrigation systems, religious and literary achievements of our forefathers.

Alexander Johnston, third Chief Justice of Ceylon, encouraged the translation of the ‘Mahavamsa’ and ‘Rajavaliya’ and published it in three volumes and also a book on indigenous laws and customs of Sri Lanka in two volumes. John D’Oyly collected the laws and traditions of Sinhalese regions and codified them into a book on Sinhalese administration. William Tolfrey, a British civil servant in Ceylon and translator of the Bible into Sinhalese, translated ‘Balawatharaya,’ a grammar book on Pali language, into English. Samuel Tolfrey translated ‘Sidathsangara,’ the Sinhalese grammar book into English. George Turnour published a book on the history of Ceylon based on the ‘Mahavamsa’ commentary and also a critical analysis of the ‘Mahavamsa’. Sir Emerson Tenant wrote a book on the history of Ceylon in two volumes. H.W. Codrington wrote two books on the history of Ceylon and a book on land tenure in Sri Lanka. Wilhelm Geiger published an edition of the ‘Mahavamsa’ and in addition a book on the historical development of the ‘Deepavamsa’ and ‘Mahavamsa’. Besides that he wrote a book on Sinhalese grammar. Though Geiger was not a British civil servant, the British Government of Sri Lanka bore all expenses.

The British Government employed James de Alwis to compile a bibliography of Sanskrit, Pali and Sinhalese literature. The cost of English translation of the ‘Sidathsangara’ made by James de Alwis in 1925 was also defrayed by the British Government. The Sinhalese translation of the ‘Mahavamsa’ in 1877 by Ven. Hikkaduve Sri Sumangala Thero and scholar Batuvanthudave was initiated by the British Government. Sinhalese translation of the ‘Chulavamsa’ undertaken by L.C. Wijesingha in 1879 was also sponsored by the British Government.

None of the Sinhalese kings had visited Anuradhapura or Polonnaruwa at least on a pilgrimage for 500 years since the Raja Rata Kingdom had been abandoned by prince Vijayabahu, son of Parakramabahu 11, in 1262, and the kingdom was shifted to the wet zone. The Raja Rata had remained an abandoned region covered with jungle and devoid of people.

The ruins of Polonnaruwa buried in the jungle were discovered by H.M. Fanon, a British Lieutenant Commander. The notes he had made on this discovery had been published in the Ceylon Gazette on 1 August 1860. The Sri Lanka branch of the Royal Asiatic Society founded in 1845 served as an organisation which encouraged the Government to explore into the ancient glamour of Sri Lanka. Sir William Jones, the founder of the Royal Asiatic Society, was a scholar of Oriental languages.

The major ruins of Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa were photographed and published in 1871. It was in 1873 that the necessary guidance was given to initiate archaeological research in Sri Lanka, on a decision by Governor Gregory. The Colombo Museum was established in 1876 and the pictures and plans of main ruins of Sri Lanka were published in 1877.

P. Goldschmidt, a German Professor, was employed to compile a list of rock inscriptions of Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Mihintale. He died, succumbing to a fever contracted while engaged in examining inscriptions at Tissamaharamaya and Kataragama. Thereafter, Dr. E. Muller was entrusted to pursue the task which he completed in 1877 and published a book titled ‘Ancient Inscriptions of Sri Lanka’ in 1881.

H.C.P. Bell, British civil servant and the first Commissioner of Archaeology in Ceylon, should be credited for advancing the archaeological research into a formal level. The task he initiated in Thun Koralaya and Hathra Koralaya areas was later extended to other areas as well. It was he who persuaded the Government to establish a Department of Archaeology, which was set up in 1890. An Act to protect ruins of historical importance was passed in 1900.

Ignorance or impudence 
The British helped us in the discovery of our hidden history. They did not distort it. They did not attempt to suppress the pride that we owe.

The condition of Sri Lanka when the British captured it and the condition that prevailed when they left us were poles apart. It may be that they had exploited us. But, Sri Lanka had achieved its highest development in terms of human freedom, independence of thinking and orientating the country into the modern world during the British rule and not during the rule of ancient kings. It is a historical fact. We must not be ashamed to admit it.

There are many things in the article of my counter critic or the critics that can be negated. But it is of no use in replying most of them. However, in view of the space limitation, I choose to respond specifically to the following remark and the two questions raised therein, which I consider the main argument they had put forward in an attempt to refute my proposition.

“Life in the Kandyan kingdom must surely have been hard for the average peasant. But we wonder if Ivan has the superhuman ability to conjure up statistics that were simply never recorded in the 18th century? Ivan invokes Robert Knox, who was a prisoner after all, with limited knowledge of the entire country, to show how poor the peasantry were in the Kandyan kingdom.”

First of all, I wish to quote from Ralph Pieris, the first Sri Lankan Professor of Sociology of University of Ceylon, to substantiate the historical importance of the book of Robert Knox.

“‘An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon’ (1681) written by Robert Knox is the first historical account written in English about Sri Lanka. His object of writing this book was to place before the English readers an account of diverse, strange and unique customs of the people of Sri Lanka. Whatever may be his intention, the author had been able to compile an anthropological research study…”

On account of the lengthy description he had made on this, I wish to produce here only the concluding remarks of his interpretation: “Therefore, the book of Knox had been acclaimed for a period of over two centuries as a source of correct and reliable information on the medieval society of Sri Lanka.” (‘A Note on Sources – Sinhalese Social Organisations’ by Ralph Pieris, page 267)
Now, I am coming to the subject of “superhuman ability” attributed to me by my critics. This remark tinged with a kind of sarcasm has been based on the observation I have made in my article that the rate of infant mortality at birth as well as the rate of infanticide remained high during the times of the Kandyan kingdom
I wish to draw your attention to the following observations made in the research publication of Ralph Pieris who had made an excellent research study on the social organisations in the Kandyan Kingdom. Please note that the instances quoted below constitute the footnotes (FNs) introduced by the author to prove the infanticide practised during that period.

“Among the Sinhalese too, the persistence of (an uneven) sex ratio conducive to polyandry in certain areas, at any rate might be attributed to infanticide. Knox mentions that a child born under an inauspicious planet was killed either by starving it, letting it lye and die, or by drowning it putting it into a vessel of water or by burning alive.” (Page 206 FN 54)

“In 1812, Ahalapola Adhikarama published an order forbidding people to expose children, a very common practice after three or four children are born or in case of a child born under an unlucky nakatha or the parents are poor – and something that parents themselves put them to death by crushing them with a stone or drowning.” (Page 206 FN 56)

“The uneven sex ratio had been a matter of concern of the officers who compiled the census reports in 1820. Infanticide continued in early British times. They have described how a child is put to death in a manner it cannot be proved to be a culpable homicide.” (Page 206 FN 56)

‘Doily’s Diary 13.1 1812 Infanticide continued in early British times’. It carries a note on an infanticide case: “Oedogodegedara Kiri Etana Vs Mohotigedera Ran Hamy (BJC25.1.1821- CGA 23/32). A witness described how a mother had thrown a child into a hole from which yam had been dug saying she had no father for it.”

“The judicial commission sentenced a woman found guilty of burying alive her female child, to three years imprisonment at hard labour in the Gabadawa and to stand in the pillory three times in the public bazaar. (RCD27.11.27 Lawrie, MSS111)” (Page 206 FN 56)

A nation which had achieved a great progress at one time may sometimes fail to maintain it at a different time of its history. It need not to be a matter for shame. It is through understanding the truth and not concealing it, that it can gain critical wisdom and determination required for inaugurating a new era of development.

To end this article, I wish to quote an assessment made by Rhys Davids, a scholar of Pāli language and the founder of the Pāli Text Society, about the value and the authenticity of Knox’s book as an important historical source document.

“This most valuable work is thoroughly trustworthy. Knox and his companions were not confined in any prison, but in separate villages where they were allowed to go in and out among the people. Most of them acquired property and married Sinhalese women and became Sinhalese peasants. But Knox himself never gave up the hope of escape and ultimately effected his purpose. His mode of life in Kandy was the best possible for gaining sure knowledge of the habits of the people. The simple straightforward style of this book must convince every reader of his truthfulness and the more one knows of the state of society among the Sinhalese in the remote districts who are little acquainted with Europeans, the more one learns to value the accuracy of his intimate and careful observations.” (‘A Note on Sources – Sinhalese Social Organisations’ by Ralph Pieris, page 267)

A Tribute To A True Legend

By Siva Thiagarajah –
logoThree months ago, Mr Vairamuttu Varadakumar, Executive Director of the Tamil Information Centre, U.K., based at Kingston, gave me the assignment to write a short account of the History and Culture of the Tamils of Lanka from the earliest times until the debacle at Mullivaikkal ten years ago, to be completed in just three months. When I objected that the time is short, he said: ‘you can do it’.
His long-time dream was to build an ‘Ilankai Tamilar Heritage Museum’ in England exhibiting the long history and heritage of the Tamils of Lanka for the benefit of the younger generation of the Tamil Diaspora. As a first step he wanted to organise a two-day exhibition on the 18th and 19th of May 2019, coinciding with the tenth anniversary of the end of the Civil War on 19th May 2009 in the island. This was a period of immense trauma and violence; tens of thousands of civilians were killed. Many more were injured, displaced and detained in camps in the final months of the war and for years afterwards. He wanted a small book about the Cultural Heritage and History of the Tamils of Lanka to be presented to coincide with this exhibition.
Varadakumar
Unfortunately, Mr Varadakumar passed away on the 13th of May. The Tamil Community Centre, determined to carry on the work he has commenced, is arranging a two-day exhibition on the 18th and 19th of May in Kingston as planned. This will be a day of collective mourning, reflection and education. The name of this book, ‘The Tamils of Lanka – A Timeless Heritage’, intended to be launched at the exhibition, is the name given to the exhibition as well.
Mr Varadakumar hails from a well-known family from Manipay in Jaffna. His father, the Late Vairamuttu, has worked as a secretary to the Late Sir Oliver Goonatileka, a Governor of Ceylon. Mr Varadakumar, after his secondary schooling went to Madras for his higher education and graduated from the Madras Christian College at Thambaram.
Mr Varadakumar has been a legend in his own lifetime. Since his arrival in the United Kingdom in the early 1980s from Lanka, he has been continuously fighting the cause of the dispossessed, the poor and the refugee Tamils who sought asylum in the UK and in Europe. In 1981, along with the Late K. Kandasamy and Father Pathinathar he founded the Tamil Information Centre (TIC), which functioned from an office at number 11 Beulah road, Thornton Heath and later at Clapham with little or no funding and scarce personnel. This is an independent, non-profit organisation established to empower the Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka to improve the quality of their lives. The aim is to create a society where equality, diversity and respect for each other are maintained. A great emphasis is placed on human rights and self-determination for the Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka. In 1984, the TIC had offices in Chennai and Madurai as well. In 1987 the TIC was closed for a while with the intent of moving its head office to Lanka.
In 1987 he joined the Tamil Refugee Action Group, London, and was its first Coordinator of this organisation for a decade. This is a charity working with hundreds of refugees, fighting for lost causes in the UK High Court and lobbying Parliament members not only for refugees but for human rights and Women’s rights as well. In later years this became part of the functions of the TIC.
In 1991, after the death of his colleagues, he moved the TIC offices to East Ham, where there was a substantial Tamil population from Lanka. He was adept in bringing together all the various Tamil Diaspora groups in the UK, volunteers, as well as militant and non-militant service workers, in search of an equitable resolution to the Tamil struggle. He also had the knack of getting people together, collecting volunteers and organising funds. The TIC became a ‘Resource Centre’ for researching and collecting authentic documents which is now a ‘revered repository’.
The TIC offices moved to Kingston Upon Thames in 2003 and in 2005 underwent massive reorganisation under the guidance of Mr Varadakumar. The original organisation branched into (A). TIC Ltd., as a shareholding company and (B). Centre for Community Development, a registered Charity. The TIC continued to work for: 1. Human rights advocacy, 2. Liaison and Collaboration with other relevant organizations, 3. Human rights education, 4. Resource centre. 5. Information, Research, Publication and Policy work, and 6. Conflict resolution and peace-building.

Read More

Will Sri Lanka’s hard line on drugs produce results?


A jail official looks through a peep hole at a jail where 46 policemen were injured by prisoners after a drug raid in Colombo, Sri Lanka, 7 November 2010 (Photo: Reuters/ Andrew Caballero-Reynolds).
Author: Amresh Gunasingham, RSIS
East Asia Forum22 March 2019
Sri Lanka’s move in February 2019 to bring back capital punishment for convicted drug offenders has put a spotlight on the growth of narcotics-related crime in the country. The government’s apparent tough stance is in response to concerns that Sri Lanka is re-emerging as a transit hub for global drug trafficking networks.
The announcement that Sri Lanka will start to hang convicted drug offenders — ending a nearly half-century moratorium on executions — is a move that closely mirrors the controversial tactics employed by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in his country’s war on drugs. During a state visit to the Philippines in January, Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena acknowledged the proliferation of illegal drugs in Sri Lanka and lauded the Philippines’ strategy in dealing with the issue. Duterte is running a controversial law-and-order operation that has killed at least 5000 drug offenders since 2016. More than 200 people in Bangladesh have been killed by police in a similar campaign.
President Sirisena, who has been in office since 2015, is indicating that the government will also deploy the military in anti-narcotics operations. Authorities say a tougher approach is required to deal with drug-related crime, amidst concerns international drug smugglers are using Sri Lanka as a transit hub in Asia. The re-introduction of capital punishment is also significant: although criminals are regularly given death sentences for murder, rape and drug-related crimes, until now their punishments have been commuted to life imprisonment. Nobody has been executed in the country for 42 years.
Although Sri Lanka is not a major producer of contraband drugs, its strategic location along important maritime and aviation shipping routes between Europe and Southeast Asia makes it an attractive gateway for international drug trafficking cartels. Law enforcement officials say organised gangs seek to conceal their shipments to Australian and European markets by bringing them into Sir Lanka, before switching the cargo into Sri Lankan containers and sending them onwards. Colombo’s high volumes of traffic and lack of effective security checks on cargo make it an attractive trans-shipment point.
According to government officials, a spike in large-scale cocaine seizures (a drug previously uncommon in Sri Lanka) is a clear indication that the country is emerging as a key transit point for drug-smugglers. Counter-narcotics operations had traditionally focused their efforts on heroin and synthetic drugs. In December 2016, 928 kilograms of cocaine — the largest ever cocaine haul in South Asia — was discovered aboard a Colombian ship bound for India, one of several high value cocaine seizures in recent years. In March 2019, Sri Lanka’s police arrested two people and seized nearly 300 kilograms of heroin, estimated to be worth US$17 million — the island’s biggest haul of the narcotic.
The growing evidence that Sri Lanka is being used as a regional drug distribution hub raises the risk that the flow of narcotics will create a local user base as well. According to the National Dangerous Drugs Control Board (the central government agency in charge of combating drug use), there were 79,378 drug-related arrests in 2016, a sharp rise from the 47,926 cases in 2012. The government maintains that high conviction rates are a result of enhanced law enforcement operations, but experts argue that they can at least partly be explained by a larger number of both drug traffickers and users.
Among other initiatives, the President has set up a task force directly under his purview that implements and supervises a national drug prevention programme. Law enforcement and the military have also stepped up their operations, while amendments to the National Policy for the Prevention and Control of Drug Abuse of 2005 have strengthened legislation against the production, smuggling, trafficking and use of illicit drugs in the country. Sri Lanka has also sought international assistance. For example, Singapore, which also takes a tough stance on drug crimes, is providing technical expertise on programs conducted by Sri Lanka to prevent and control drug trafficking.
One challenge is the lack of financial and human resources committed to capacity-building like training for anti-narcotic officers. A low number of drug users also enter rehabilitation programmes, while treatment facilities in prisons have few takers. The government needs to allocate more money to rehabilitation and reintegration programs for the victims of drugs, particularly youth.
Capital punishment was previously re-introduced in the country after a heroin crisis in 1984, and again in 2004 after a judge known for handing out tough sentences was gunned down. Both instances were followed by opposition from domestic human rights groups and significant public opinion against the use of capital punishment. The current government will have to overcome both domestic and international opposition from those who do not endorse the death penalty for drug trafficking.
Several Western countries often provide information on drug trafficking networks operating internationally on the condition that prosecution will not lead to the death penalty. By ignoring the moratorium on the death penalty, Sri Lanka risks alienating nations whose help is needed to combat drug trafficking. While the current government appears to be getting tough on drug crimes, there are challenges ahead.
Amresh Gunasingham is an Associate Editor with the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
A version of this article originally appeared here on RSIS.