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

Sunday, June 9, 2019

Ignorance Of The Law

Niresh Eliatamby
logoThe President has insisted that the Cabinet halt the proceedings of the Parliamentary Select Committee that is inquiring into the Easter Sunday bombings, at an Emergency Cabinet Meeting on Friday night, according to media reports.
Once again, the President appears to have demonstrated his inability to grasp the very fundamentals upon which our democratic system is built upon.
In the system that is called democracy, which Sri Lanka pretends to have, there is a widely accepted principle called ‘Separation of Powers’. What that means is that there is separation of the powers of the Executive (President, PM, Cabinet); the Legislature (Parliament); and the Judiciary (courts). The reason is simple. None of the three branches are deemed to be completely supreme over the others. But the areas that they operate in are different, and therefore depending on the relevant topic, one would be more powerful than the other in that particular area.
The legislature’s duty is to make laws and control the way public money is spent by approving national budgets for each ministry. The Executive’s job is to oversee the day to day activities of government institutions (other than Parliament of course), and to come up with long term policies and strategies to develop the country, including the development of infrastructure, education, health sector, etc. The Judiciary interprets and applies the law with regard to cases brought before it, either by the state or by private individuals and institutions.
For example, if a man is being tried in court for murder, the judiciary is supreme. Parliament cannot jump in and stop the courts from acting. Neither can the President decide that the man is guilty. However, once the man is convicted, the judiciary’s role in the process is completed, and the matter comes under the authority of the Executive, and therefore the President could pardon him or commute his sentence.
However, in extreme cases, such as the Easter Sunday attacks or the Bond Scam, Parliament has the power to investigate through the setting up of a Parliamentary Committee, which is what is going on now.
The President’s reported insistence that Parliament stop investigating the bombings is apparently due to his personal dislike of the evidence that is being revealed at the PSC. However, the fact is that this does not come under his authority. Neither does it come under the authority of the Prime Minister or Cabinet. It is a matter for Parliament, which has acted in this instance upon the national outcry and general dissatisfaction with the way the matter of the Easter Sunday bombings has been mishandled by government institutions such as the Police, Armed Forces, Ministry of Defense, etc.
The President’s reported statement that he would not allow certain security and intelligence related officials to give evidence is also a clear abuse of power. Parliament and its Committees have the power to summon anybody. If that person refuses to go before Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee, then he or she would be guilty of contempt of Parliament, and could be dealt with under the law. Thus, any official who heeds the President’s order not to attend, if the President were to make such an order, would be answerable. The President’s order, if such an order were to be issued, would in fact be an illegal order.
The President’s ignorance of the law is sadly a continuation of politicians and public officials simply ignoring the fact that laws do exist in any civilized society, which Sri Lanka is struggling to become. The Prime Minister’s assertion on global media shortly after the Easter Sunday attacks that Sri Lanka had no laws to deal with Sri Lankans joining ISIS and returning home was another glaring example. So was the Army Commander’s statement the day after the bombings that the armed forces needed a State of Emergency before they could act. Then there was the Secretary of the Ministry of Policy Planning & Disaster Management, who made a disaster out of policy by telling the entire population of Sri Lanka, more than 20 million people, how to dress when they enter a government institution, only to be pulled up by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka!
The latest howler was the came when the President demonstrated a strange dislike for chainsaws and proclaimed that he would ban all saw mills and carpentry sheds in the country! The fact that such a ban could easily be challenger by every simple carpenter in the country appealing to court that they have a fundamental right to work in their chosen profession which is carpentry, does not seem to have occurred to him.

Read More

This is no ‘system failure’ but Sri Lanka’s ‘animal farm’ charades


The Sunday Times Sri LankaSunday, June 09, 2019

The gay abandon with which Sri Lanka’s politicians and public servants at the highest level act as if they are beyond even the slightest hint of accountability boggles our perpetually astonished imagination. This is exemplified by their behaviour in relation to first, ignoring all impending warnings of the Easter Sunday attacks by Islamist jihadists and second, by casually waving away responsibilities after the event on one ground or another, notwithstanding monumentally devastating consequences.

Iceberg of political lies, prevarications and obfuscation

Indeed, the ongoing proceedings before the Parliamentary Select Committee now inquiring into the Easter Sunday demonstrates that fact in frightening detail. As an appalled public listened to the startling testimony given by the former Inspector General of Police (IGP), the former Defence Secretary and heads of intelligence agencies this week scarcely believing what they heard, it is clear that this is the proverbial tip of a gigantic iceberg of political lies, prevarications and obfuscation. Even as late as Saturday evening before that fateful Easter Sunday, the IGP testified that the Director State Intelligence Service (SIS) had called to inform him that ‘ tomorrow will be dangerous, something can happen.” This warning was repeated on the morning of that Sunday itself.

Yet, no decisive action was taken at the very top, which is at the Office of the President from which the order should have gone out for a nation-wide security alert. At the heart of the matter is one core question. Why was the nation’s national security being handled, so lackadaisically and nonsensically? But if the United National Party (UNP) believes that this grim play enacted for public consumption somehow absolves them of responsibility, it is mistaken.  Though the UNP attempts to make out that the failure to act was due to the aborted ‘coup’ last year, the testimony before the Parliamentary Select Committee indicates that intelligence failures at the top have a longer history.

It is now proven beyond any shadow of doubt that though national intelligence agencies were very aware and monitoring the activities of islamist jihadists in the country, most particularly in the East, their heads were at sixes and sevens with intelligence not being shared and one agency ordering another to cease monitoring with no follow-up, irrespective of whether this was before the constitutional upheaval in October 2018 or after. This charade had taken place when the UNP was in the seat of government. It had however been (apparently), blissfully ignorant of coming dangers even though the intelligence tracking of Eastern jihadists had intensified during previous years.

Criminally culpable failure of duties

It is no answer therefore to foist the blame on President Maithripala Sirisena alone or for the Prime Minister to (magnanimously) shoulder the responsibility vicariously by virtue of office, saying that for six months, he had not been invited to the national security council meetings. Instead, the blame is very much direct. Doubtless, both will be held to account by the public as indeed they should. For this is certainly no ‘system failure’ as airily recounted by the IGP before the Parliamentary Select Committee which, in a singular irony, includes a former UNP Minister, who is himself facing criminal action for allegedly lying before a Presidential Commission of Inquiry.  The testimony reflects utter dysfunction at the highest levels of the country’s political leadership where, even after the terrible loss of life on Easter Sunday, what prevailed was political upmanship and grandstanding.

So if, as that evidence revealed, it was true that President Maithripala Sirisena who was sojourning in Singapore at the time of the attacks and took well upon a day to return, ordered the service chiefs and heads of intelligence agencies not to meet Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in the wake of the chaos following the attacks, this by itself is truly unpardonable and rises well above each and every other dereliction of duty prior to the event.

It is instead, the criminally culpable failure of their duties by political heads, security heads and public officials alike. In any other context, heads would have rolled, not only of the IGP and the Defence Secretary who ludicrously referred to himself in his testimony as a ‘poor secretary’ who has to ‘wait hours’ to get the President’s signature on documents. Indeed the cringing and servility displayed by those who testified before this Select Committee is nauseating. It contrasts quite palpably with the arrogance with which they parade in public.  The lack of accountability pervades each and every aspect of the governance structure, quite irrespective of whether we have the country’s two behemoth parties, the United National Party (UNP) or the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) at the helm.

Sri Lanka’s Animal Farm side-shows

Without a doubt, this cruel circus of leadership failures rebounds to the advantage of the country’s political upstart, the Rajapaksa-led Sri Lanka Podujana Party (SLPP). It is no wonder therefore that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa is now purring softly, much like a cat lapping the cream as a wave of national outrage washes over the country in a political tsunami of sorts. His abrasive lieutenants have obviously been told to hold their tongues as the Government ably accomplishes its own cremation in Sri Lanka’s political graveyard with its two warring ‘yahapalanaya’ heads bagging spectacular headstones of absymal leadership failure.

That leadership failure is combined with various side-shows that are taking place in the country for the purposes of diverting public attention from the question of national security being used as a bargaining chip by politicans. A few days ago, the Cabinet approved a proposal to to criminalise hate speech carrying hefty fines and jail sentences. There is, of course, no need for new laws in this regard as the existing law as contained in the Penal Code and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act amply suffices for the purpose. And the problem is not an absence of law but the arbitrary working of the law. A privileged few, including fire breathing monks, are allowed to get away with clearly racist and hate-inducing speech while others, like the writer Shakthika Sathkumara is arrested and charged under the ICCPR Act for insulting Buddhism.

Sri Lanka is fast reflecting George Orwell’s Animal Farm in all its most irrational and satirical manifestations. On the one hand we have a ridiculous proposal (now suspended) that women public servants must wear the sari or the osariya to work which, as rightly pointed out by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, fails to explain the rational link between prohibited dress form and breaches of national security and violates the prohibition of sex-based discrimination under Article 12 (2) of the Constitution.

In another grotesque manifestation of the absurd, a buddhist monk cum politician  fasts in order to compel action to be taken against a Muslim Minister accused of links to Islamist jihadists while the head of the Catholic Church, in an act that is extremely inappropriate, visits him to show sympathy.
And to complete this vicious circle, a medical doctor is currently undergoing a savage trial by media with ‘Sinhalese Buddhist mothers’ being exhorted to come and give evidence that they were ‘sterilised’ against their will.

Truly, we can only pity the generations of Sri Lankan citizens yet unborn.

President demands PSC halted at Friday night surprise Cabinet meet


By Gagani Weerakoon -JUN 09 2019

Ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s short visit to Sri Lanka, President Maithripala Sirisena on Friday (7) evening called an urgent special Cabinet meeting, leaving every sensible citizen with bated breath as it was too soon to forget President Sirisena chose Fridays to give political surprises  ever since the constitutional impasse on 26 October 2018.

President Sirisena’s call for a special Cabinet meeting came at a time when a group of his party members started lobbying for him to become the SLFP Presidential Candidate despite him allegedly pledging support to a UNP-led candidate.

The anxiety levels shot-up as the timing of the special Cabinet meeting also fell a few hours after IGP Pujith Jayasundara who is on compulsory leave and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando indirectly pointing fingers at the President  for being not so level headed when it comes to bureaucrats.

President Sirisena at the hurriedly summoned special Cabinet meeting Friday night warned the Government to immediately stop the proceedings of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Easter Sunday attack.

President Sirisena has also threatened not to hold Cabinet meetings in the event Government is determined to continue the PSC proceedings.
He has threatened to do so following a heated argument with a few ministers at the Cabinet meeting.

“You have appointed the Malalgoda Committee to probe this. It was also promised to submit the report in two weeks. Forget about making it public, the report has not even being presented in Parliament,” one of the ministers had pointed out.

The President had said that the report will come to Parliament at the right time.

“Those reports will be presented in Parliament in due course. There are five cases filed in the Supreme Court in connection with the Easter Sunday bomb attacks out of which I have also been connected.
 If this is the way you are going to act by opening PSC proceedings to media and divulging sensitive security information to the public, I will not hold the Cabinet meeting hereafter.
I will also not attend any of the Government functions or programmes. You act on your own accord and I shall not support the Government,” the President has reprimanded.

He has also said that it is absolutely unacceptable for the intelligence officers to be summoned before the PSC and that he would not let information pertaining to national security be compromised through the media.

He had also taken Speaker Karu Jayasuriya to task for not presenting a memorandum he sent in which the President had shared the sentiments expressed by the Attorney General.
He pointed out that the Attorney General has informed him about the implications that could have on the pending cases due to information revealed in the PSC, thus requesting necessary action.

“I sent it to the Speaker but it is disappointing that he chose not to present it in Parliament,” he added.

He also said that he can even give the information he has to all the MPs even if all 225 of them came to him seeking that information.

He also said that he could not understand as to why the Government ministers do not understand the gravity of the information being revealed in this manner and what threat such poses to the national security.

 IGP Jayasundara, appearing before the PSC on Thursday admitted that he received phone calls from both, State Intelligence Service (SIS) Director Nilantha Jayawardena and former Defence Ministry Secretary Hemasiri Fernando, who said "tomorrow will be dangerous, something can happen.”

Called and informed

Jayasundara said, “I received those phone calls between 6:30 – 7:00 p.m. on the day before Easter Sunday. But they did not tell me anything other than that. Fernando called and informed that Jayawardena had given him the information to that effect.
However, I was not given any instructions as to what the Police should do in that scenario. But, I informed Senior Deputy Inspectors General (SDIG) who were in charge of the Provinces, about it.
 The problem I have about this is why the highest authorities on national security did not give me any order or instructions to act in that situation.
There are statutory limitations as to what to do and how far Police could act without having orders from the top in such sensitive situations.”
The PSC member Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka seconded Jayasundara’s point at this juncture.

Fonseka: “The DIGs cannot handle that kind of situation alone. The decisions and orders should come from the Defence Minister.”

Jayasundara: “In the morning of 21 April, I was reading situation development reports received from Police stations. Between 6:45 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. Nilantha Jayawardena again called me and said, “Something could happen today.”

PSC Member M. A. Sumanthiran: “Did you ask him whom he had informed about that, other than you?”

Jayasundara: “No. That was not the practice. According to the practice the National Intelligence Chief, Sisira Mendis, must have been definitely made aware of it.
The SIS does not need to tell me about the entire situation and I have to believe and accept what the SIS tells me. That was the relationship between us and the SIS.”

Jayasundara also said that in March 2018, the SIS ordered the Terrorism Investigation Division’s (TID) probe into Zahran and his group be halted.

Giving testimony after Jayasundara, former Defence Ministry Secretary Hemasiri Fernando said that on 21 April, around 7:30 to 8:00 a.m. the SIS Director called him and asked what the main Methodist churches in Colombo are.

“When I asked him why, he told me that he received information a short while ago that there might be a terror attack on Methodist churches, not on Catholic churches as he was informed earlier.
Within 15 minutes I found out the names of churches and let him know. After another 15 minutes I got to know that a blast had happened in a hotel.”

Fernando said that he did not inform the President about the intelligence reports he received from the SIS Director Jayawardena, not even the information he got on the Easter Sunday terror attack.

“I tried to do that twice on intelligence reports (not related to the terror attack) but the President told me that he was already informed about it by Jayawardena. After that I never informed to him about the SIS intelligence reports.
Once I asked Jayawardena about this and he told me that he had been directly informing the President about intelligence reports for four years. He also said that he sent those reports to the IGP through Sisira Mendis.
 That was why I did not inform the President about the information on the terror attack. I thought the SIS had already briefed him about it.”

“The NSC did not discuss about the NTJ according to my memory. But they always talked about Makandure Madush and some other stuff.”

Fernando also said that sometimes he had to wait for weeks to get an appointment from the President to have one to one discussions.

“I was helpless. One day I had to wait for more than three hours to get his signature on a document. I could not even meet the President once in every two weeks.”

When asked why, by the PSC members, Fernando replied, "He had no time”.

“I saw that the President has told the Media that he asked both me and the IGP to resign.
 But he did not ask me to resign. That was a big lie. Jayasundara one day phoned me around 9 p.m. and said the President asked him to resign. He told me the President told him, “I cannot take responsibility for that.
I was not even in the country.” Jayasundara had asked what he should do. I told him that I was not in a position to give him advice in that connection. But I sought a one-to-one meeting with the President on the next day.
During that meeting I asked the President why he wanted Jayasundara to resign. He told me the same thing he had told Jayasundara.
I felt that it was the right time for me to resign because the President asked an official who was under my authority to resign over the terror attacks. I told him about it and he was very pleased about me resigning. He never asked me to resign. It was my decision.”

Meanwhile, President’s Counsel Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe in letter addressed to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya citing the limitations on revealing matters on national security  says as per the provisions of the Official Secrets Act No. 32 of 1955 releasing secret information or documents to another party is a punishable offence.

A person with no legal right to obtain such information, possessing the information is a punishable act. He further stated that any individual shall be liable to 14 years of imprisonment, for a term not exceeding two years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees.
The letter sent to the Speaker has warned about the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee which reveals such information.
In the letter, PC Rajapakshe also pointed out that the exposure of intelligence puts the citizens and the country at risk.

The Indian factor

Prime Minister Modi is scheduled to visit Sri Lanka today (9), at the invitation of the President of Sri Lanka.
This will be part of the first overseas trip of Prime Minister Modi after his re-election. He will carry the message of solidarity and hope from people of India to the people of Sri Lanka, in the aftermath of 21 April attacks.

Taranjit Singh Sandhu, High Commissioner of India to Sri Lanka inaugurated the 21st Diploma Course in Diplomacy and World Affairs at the Bandaranaike International Diplomatic Training Institute (BIDTI) in Colombo on Friday spoke about India’s foreign policy with special emphasis on national security, and also touched upon various aspects of India-Sri Lanka relations.

Terrorism and radicalism pose a collective threat to humanity. The recent attacks in Sri Lanka, is not just against Sri Lanka. Terrorism anywhere in the world attacks the conscience of the whole humanity; it attacks the human spirit that we are one.
The divisive Jihadi ideology needs to be isolated and eliminated, as it is a threat to regional security and global peace. PM Modi has offered all possible assistance in this regard, should Sri Lanka require, the High Commissioner said.

Extended neighbourhood

He also said,  “The first day of PM Modi in office after the swearing in ceremony was dedicated to meeting the leaders from the neighbourhood and extended neighbourhood, including from Sri Lanka. It is a reflection of the importance that India attaches to the special relations with its neighbours.

“India has always been a First Responder to Sri Lanka’s needs and priorities. Whether it be the flood or the drought, India has been the first to respond with men and material.
India has also completed several people-oriented development projects all across the island, as pure gifts from people of India.

“India-Sri Lanka relations have seen landmark changes in the last five years. PM Modi became the first Prime Minister of India to visit Sri Lanka after a gap of 28 years, with his historic visit to the island in March 2015.
He visited Sri Lanka again in May 2017 as Chief Guest at the International Vesak Day celebrations.
The decisive mandate for PM Modi in the recent elections in India is a reflection of support for continuation of the Government’s policies. The continuation and further strengthening of these policies is also in Sri Lanka’s interest.

“The core aim of India’s foreign policy is to ensure safety and security of its 1.3 billion people and meet their genuine developmental aspirations. While pursuing India’s objectives, India is not governed by self-interest alone.
India has always believed in sharing its developmental successes. Growing together has been the basic tenet of India’s foreign policy. As Prime Minister Modi has said, India seeks a future for the Indian Ocean that lives up to the name of SAGAR- Security and Growth for All in the Region.

“Individual countries cannot remain peaceful, secure and prosperous, if the region and world at large were to be in turmoil. It is a highly interconnected world today. We cannot banish other’s misery as his or her own problem; it is as much as ours as his or hers. It is in our individual and collective interest to maintain world peace and collective stability.”

PM Modi’s visit also happens few days after Sri Lanka signed a joint agreement with India and Japan to develop the East Container Terminal (EST) of the Colombo Port.

Meanwhile, JVP’s Bimal Rathnayake said in Parliament that it was unacceptable that the Government was signing secret Agreements with foreign nations where national assets were at stake.

“When you are in power, some countries and some powerful companies might force you to come to certain agreements with them.
 That is the nature of today’s politics. But you do not need to kneel before them and do whatever they want you to do. You have duties and obligations to the people of this country.
How can you sign agreements with foreign countries in secret? What right do you have to do something like that? That is why we came up with this suggestion. Before signing sensitive agreements with foreign countries, you should present them to Parliament and get the approval of a two-thirds majority.

 By doing so, you can tell foreign countries that you cannot enter into agreements with them because Parliament rejected the agreements. You may not have a backbone to reject foreign offers directly. That is fine. But in this manner you can get away from their pressure.”

President vows to block Easter attacks probe


article_image
Maithripala- 

President Maithripala Sirisena has told the cabinet that he will not cooperate with a parliamentary investigation into security lapses leading to the Easter suicide bombings, official sources said Saturday.

Maithripala Sirisena summoned an emergency meeting of his cabinet on Friday night to oppose the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) probing the April 21 attacks that killed 258 people and wounded nearly 500.

A ministerial source told AFP Sirisena has refused to allow any police, military or intelligence personnel to testify before the committee.

"The cabinet meeting ended inconclusively," the source said on condition of anonymity. "The government did not agree to suspend the PSC either."

Sirisena’s office did not comment on the outcome of the heated cabinet meeting, but said the president had told senior police officers on Friday that he will not allow any serving officer to testify before the PSC.

Last week, Sirisena’s intelligence chief Sisira Mendis told the committee that the president had failed to hold regular security review meetings to assess the potential threat from Islamic radicals.

Halfway through his testimony, the live telecast of the proceedings were stopped on Sirisena’s orders, official sources said.

Sirisena’s defence secretary and police chief have suggested that the president, who is also the minister of Defence and Law and Order, did not follow proper protocols in dealing with intelligence reports, including advance warnings about the April 21 bombings.

Sirisena has repeatedly denied he was aware of an impending threat.

A local jihadist organisation and the Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the attacks against three churches and three luxury hotels.

Sirisena said last week that he had met with the national police chief and his top brass 13 days before the Easter Sunday attacks but no officer had raised the warnings which had been relayed by India.

Official sources said New Delhi had provided details of planned attacks based on information from a jihadist in Indian custody.

The government has admitted there were intelligence failures before the attacks, in which 45 foreign nationals died.

Sri Lanka has been under a state of emergency since the attacks.

(AFP)

National Schools In Provinces: Is It A Success, Failure Or Myth?

Dr. Thangamuthu Jayasingam
logoIt has always been a query of how success is measured. If you take the best students of an age group and train and have the best results against all the others, does it mean success or reiteration of  a known conclusion. Let us look at the results which were shown in research studies which indicated that the students who came in with extremely good results did not perform extremely well at the University while some who had marginally entered the University had performed extremely well at the University. Does it mean that our A levels are not the best option to measure academic potential or performance? In 1972 the standardization of the University entrance began and at that time it was stated that the discrepancy between the privileged districts and underprivileged districts would be reduced 5% each year by preferential development so that ion 20 years we will have MERIT and merit only. It is 2019(47 years since) and we do week cut off marks for districts and we are happy keeping those students in that level stating that we are compensating the A level result for University admissions little acknowledging that the education in those districts remain POOR and that matters more than the entrance of a few to the University. The recent announcement of potential closure is mostly in those districts where education has not been developed mainly because adequate resources have not been put into it and also associated monitoring of schools and the society for educating more people better. I think we have failed in the fundamentals of providing free education, good effective BASIC education for all.
Given the above preamble  let us look at the NATIONAL SCHOOLS CONCEPT. The State (Central Government )  provides better facilities to FEW schools in the district/province as  EDUCATION is a devolved subject and the province does not have adequate funds to provide for such facilities. These have political and policy issues attached which needs to be better understood.
1. If the funding is short why have not the provincial education been granted a better fund rather than to make specified schools better, which could also be done by a province.
The teachers in these schools have the same qualification as others and are often recruited direct or transferred from other provincial schools. They are only transferred among National schools or remain for long periods in one school. Their laboratory and library facilities may be better than the other schools. Number of staff in especially higher grades are higher than in other schools in most cases.
2. Why should this be? A common system for all in the province should be operative for avoidance of complications and comparisons. Operation of two systems always makes it difficult as they are always compared, sometimes unfairly.
Identification of schools for NATIONAL SCHOOL DESIGNATION are those that are doing well in the district/province and have shown potential for development.
3. We are making the big, bigger but are not looking at the small which really needs attention. This is typical capitalist approach. It is for this reason students clamor to come to these school leaving their schools in the neighborhood which makes some school abandoned and thus identified for closure. It also causes hardship to parents to shift them to a national school away from the rural or less urban school (most NATIONAL SCHOOLS ARE IN THE RELATIVE URBAN SETUP). They spend more money for ‘FREE EDUCATION’ as a result of trying to send their children to another government school but NATIONAL. We fail the free education concept.
Performance of the National schools are better than those of the NON NATIONAL SCHOOLS which is by design as those schools which performed well have been chosen as NATIONAL SCHOOLS and this it is only a recognition and addition of facilities. If a poor performing school is taken and improved, then there is a credit involved, but, not in this formula.  But we forget one factor, THE NATIONAL SCHOOLS AND NON NATIONAL SCHOOLS SIT FOR THE SAME A LEVEL EXAMINATION. If a non-national school candidate appeals to the Courts that he/she had been subjected to discrimination by treating unequal as equal, I would not be surprised,  if the court rules in favor of the non-national school  student requesting  for a cut off mark different(lower than) to the national schools as the difference is already built into the system making it unequal. It is the same as much as have been practiced currently between the different districts for which adjustments are made by different cutoff marks to compensate for it. It would be correct in my opinion that they be treated different as they are not equal to the national schools in the above arguments, which affect them considerably. Treating ‘unequal as equal’  is also a violation of fundamental right, in policy.

Read More

Who killed the Airbus A380?



logo Monday, 10 June 2019

While the A380 will continue to delight passengers for a long while, it will also probably be the last “mega project’ that takes to the skies
As American author Mark Twain remarked in 1897, “The report of my death was an exaggeration.”

The Airbus A380, flagship of the world’s largest airliner manufacturer and culmination of an estimated $ 16 billion development program, is alive and well. Currently flying with 14 of the world’s most prestigious airlines, with Japan’s All Nippon Airways (ANA) having just taken delivery of its first A380, the giant aircraft is still being produced.


But sadly, A380 production is due to be halted by 2021 when the last aircraft will be delivered to its biggest customer, Emirates. Between now and that date, production will be slowed to about one airframe a month, barely enough to keep the assembly line ticking over.
What happened?

When Airbus began developing the concept of a massive airliner, dubbed the ‘A3XX’ project, the world was a different place. At the time the project was launched, in 1999, jet fuel, which accounts for between 15 to 30% of an airline’s expenses, was at a generational low.

The airline business was booming and Boeing, undisputed leader in the airliner game, was easily profitable, with its venerable 747, appropriately dubbed ‘Queen of the Skies’, a huge profit-generator for the Seattle, Washington-based manufacturer. Airbus was the upstart trying to find a niche for itself while battling the US giants. Determined to have a complete ‘suite’ of airliners, Airbus management decided to launch a rival to the 747.

Boeing was sceptical. Their forecasts showed a totally different market projection and they were not keen on updating the 747. Finally they did so reluctantly, launching the 747-800, but were more focused on creating the 787 Dreamliner – a twin-engine mid-size airliner designed for a more fragmented market.

Emirates Airline, then an upstart too, was an enthusiastic customer for the Airbus A380, being the first to announce an order in April 2000. Air France, Singapore Airlines, Qantas and Virgin Atlantic would follow the same year, showing initial enthusiasm for the type.

Lufthansa and Qatar Airways joined the ‘A380 club’ shortly thereafter, Federal Express ordered the freighter version, and Emirates tripled its A380 order. Airbus was delighted; the flagship was going to fly.

Tellingly though, the major aircraft leasing companies, who are the primary buyers of new airliner types, were very cautious in placing orders for the A380. It was obvious that the market was more sceptical than Airbus.
More complicated than they thought

In reality, flight testing and then producing an aircraft of this complexity proved to be much harder than even Airbus had imagined. Innumerable delays dogged the program, and the A380 missed many delivery milestones. The complex nature of the airliner market means that excessive delays allow the customer to cancel orders with few penalties. As Airbus missed many projections on the delivery timeline, customers began having second thoughts about the viability of the giant, double-deck aircraft.

The aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks in September 2001 dented the confidence of many airlines, just as the A3XX project was launched and oil prices began climbing too.

The US-led invasion of Iraq sent oil prices to a new all-time high. The market reached a peak of almost $ 150 a barrel of oil in 2007, concurrent with the A380 approaching ‘entry into service’. The global financial crisis of 2008 further dented customer confidence, and cancellations started pouring in.
Entry into service

The Airbus A380 was triumphantly and flawlessly launched into service with Singapore Airlines in October 2007, becoming an instant customer favourite. Airbus’ ‘super salesman’ John Leahy confidently forecast demand for over 1,300 aircraft in the ‘very large’ category which included the B747-800 and the Airbus A380.

But the writing was already on the wall. Jet fuel was at an all-time high, the A380 that could weigh up to 570,000 kg when fully loaded with passengers, cargo and fuel, would burn over 13,000 kg of fuel every hour. An empty A380 with no fuel, passengers or cargo on board, still weighed in excess of 300,000 kg.


By contrast, archrival Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner had a maximum weight (full of passengers and freight) of around 239,000 kg, with its two engines burning about 5,000 kg an hour. The contrast was obvious – in a high fuel price world, the Airbus ‘whale’ was just too heavy and thirsty.
Only one lover

Emirates and Qantas introduced the A380 in 2008, with Lufthansa and Air France following soon after. The Airbus sales team worked frantically to gather orders for the ‘whale’. For a while it seemed that they were succeeding. Many of the world’s flag-carriers placed small orders (see box), but only one was a ‘true believer’.

Emirates Airline, led by the forceful and visionary Tim Clark (now Sir Tim), was determined to build a ‘mega hub’ in Dubai. The A380 suited his vision perfectly, bringing in almost 500 passengers per airplane into Dubai, where they would change to another and reach their destination on all six continents that Emirates’ network encompassed.

Emirates uses 162 of the 235 A380s delivered worldwide – a ratio that is totally unprecedented in the industry.
A niche market

A number of airlines that originally ordered the aircraft have cancelled it completely. A few went out of business during the economic slowdown as well. The only lessor with an order, International Finance Lease Corporation (ILFC), cancelled it completely in 2011.
The Airbus A380, flagship of the world’s largest airliner manufacturer and culmination of an estimated $ 16 billion development program, is alive and well. Currently flying with 14 of the world’s most prestigious airlines, with Japan’s All Nippon Airways (ANA) having just taken delivery of its first A380, the giant aircraft is still being produced. But sadly, A380 production is due to be halted by 2021 when the last aircraft will be delivered to its biggest customer, Emirates. Between now and that date, production will be slowed to about one airframe a month, barely enough to keep the assembly line ticking over

As the numbers above show, the A380 has, at best, a niche market. Even the most efficient airlines, with large home markets generating huge passenger numbers, can only seemingly maintain around a dozen A380s. The only exceptions to this are Singapore Airlines, a ‘super-connector’ itself, and Emirates.

However the fact that Singapore Airlines has returned three of the original A380s delivered to the lessor, who has been unable to place these aircraft with other customers, says volumes.
Emirates re-thinks the A380

Even Emirates, the only large user of the aircraft with over half the existing hulls, has now been forced to rethink its commitment.

With Airbus and the major engine manufacturers declining to design a newer and more fuel-efficient A380, Emirates has been compelled to order the smaller A350 model instead.

In a recent statement Sir Tim Clark has mentioned that Emirates plans to retire its fleet of A380s by the mid-2030s.
What is the future of the A380?

No airline will be able to order the A380 from the factory anymore. But numerous units will still be available in the secondary market.

Emirates will, of course, remain a user of the aircraft for the foreseeable future, with at least 15 more years of service envisaged. Most of the flag-carriers such as Lufthansa, Air France and Korean Air will probably continue to use their limited fleets to service capacity-constrained city pairs. Singapore Airlines too will continue operating the aircraft for the same reason. Willie Walsh, CEO of International Airlines Group (IAG), which owns British Airways and Iberia, has gone on record that he may acquire pre-owned A380s, if the “price point is feasible”.

One possible new user could be Turkish Airlines, by some measures the largest airline outside the USA, who has just moved to a brand-new airport outside Istanbul that can accommodate the giant airplanes. The older Atatürk Airport was too small for the A380.
An exercise in hubris

The A380 has proved to be an expensive learning experience for Airbus Industrie. It has now established itself as a major player, holding a market share equal to that of its archrival Boeing. Between them, the two manufacturers have an effective duopoly of the market.

Boeing’s future forecasts have turned out to be more accurate than those of Airbus, with the 787 proving to be the modern aircraft of choice for airlines, as demonstrated by 1,400 orders against 890 for the A350. The list price of the 787 is significantly less than its Airbus rival, but production is sold out for many years. This will probably allow Airbus to claw back some share of the market.

Boeing, meanwhile, is facing a hugely expensive debacle with the 737 MAX programs, which is a topic for another day.

How Airbus will account for the huge development cost of the A380 (estimated at over $ 16 billion) remains to be seen. It is obvious that the 290 firm orders will barely pay the costs of producing the aircraft, with the research and development expense having to be absorbed by profits on other aircraft types in the stable.

While the A380 will continue to delight passengers for a long while, it will also probably be the last “mega project’ that takes to the skies. The jetliner has changed the world in ways no one could foresee just a few decades ago. It is sad to think that we will not see anything this ambitious launched again. 

Saturday, June 8, 2019

Drama on the tarmac: US judge foils secret deportation to Israel

A man and woman at a podiumAbdelhaleem Ashqar, with his wife Asma, spoke with reporters in Washington, 16 December 2004, about his candidacy for president of the Palestinian Authority. Ashqar would later face more than a decade of imprisonment and persecution by US authorities for refusing to testify before grand juries.Pablo Martinez MonsivaisAP Photo

Ali Abunimah -7 June 2019

On Wednesday morning, a private jet chartered by the US government landed in Tel Aviv.

On board was Abdelhaleem Ashqar, a Palestinian business professor who ran for the presidency of the Palestinian Authority in 2005.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were attempting to secretly deport him to Israel, which would then transfer him to the West Bank.

But contrary to the plan, the aircraft was met by a US embassy official who told the ICE agents on board that they could not hand Ashqar over.

Pursuant to an emergency order issued by a federal judge back in Virginia, Ashqar had to remain on the plane in US custody.

He would sit on the grounded plane for more than a day while a legal drama unfolded back in the US.
This account was provided to The Electronic Intifada by Patrick Taurel, Ashqar’s attorney.

Ashqar told Taurel and members of his family what happened, following his return to the United States late Thursday US time.

Ashqar’s return capped an extraordinary 72 hours in which ICE deliberately lied to Ashqar and his lawyer before essentially abducting him and putting him on the jet bound for Tel Aviv.

It was only the intervention of US District Judge T.S Ellis III that ensured that Ashqar was brought back to the US after his ordeal.

It involved a late-night hearing by telephone in which the judge demanded to know if the government could land the plane in any other country before it reached Tel Aviv, or return it to Vienna where it had stopped to refuel.

Ashqar is now being held at a detention center in Bowling Green, Virginia.

Acquitted of “terrorism” charges

To understand the almost unbelievable chain of events of recent days, we have to go back to 2003, when Ashqar reached an agreement with ICE to voluntarily leave the United States.

If he did not comply, he would be ordered deported to Jordan.

Ashqar had a job offer to teach abroad and was planning to leave the US, but US authorities prevented him from complying with the agreement: Immediately after he signed it, the government summoned him to appear before a grand jury in Chicago.

Ashqar refused to testify and in 2007 the government indicted him for conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

He was the co-defendant of Muhammad Salah in a 2007 “terrorism” trial in Chicago that was part of the US government’s post-9/11 nationwide crackdown on Palestinian activists as part of its “war on terror.”

Ashqar and Salah were acquitted by a federal jury on all the charges supposedly linking them to fundraising for Hamas.

Salah, who died in 2016, was nonetheless convicted of a single count of obstruction of justice and spent less than a year in prison.

Ashqar was convicted on one count of criminal contempt of court for his refusal to testify before US grand juries and received an extraordinarily harsh sentence of 11 years.

Ashqar completed his federal sentence on 13 June 2017 and was immediately turned over to ICE detention for removal.

But no country would take him. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot hold someone indefinitely for the purposes of deportation if there is no realistic prospect of that happening.

So in May 2018, Ashqar’s lawyers filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging his indefinite detention.

Habeas corpus is a fundamental legal recourse used to challenge unlawful detention – it essentially demands that the detaining authority produce the person before a court.

According to Taurel, sworn testimony in that case revealed how three governments – Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority – were resisting requests to issue Ashqar with travel documents.
Ashqar, who is 60, was born in the West Bank when it was under Jordanian rule.

“Routine” check-in

But while the habeas corpus case was pending, the government voluntarily released Ashqar on 18 December 2018.

By doing so, the government got the case dismissed and avoided what would have been a damaging precedent from its perspective: a court order to release Ashqar.

“Ashqar went home, and for the first time in more than 11 years he slept in his own bed,” Taurel said.
Ashqar also returned to a semblance of normal life, with his wife Asma, and his son who is in his early twenties. He also received much-needed medical care, including a total knee replacement in April.

On 18 May this year, Ashqar and his wife received notices from ICE asking them to appear for a check-in on 4 June. They had previously been given later, and separate check-in dates.

Ashqar asked Taurel to see if ICE would agree to a delay, both because of Eid al-Fitr, marking the end of Ramadan, and because Ashqar was still recuperating from his knee surgery.

Taurel got in touch with ICE, who initially did not respond.

But on 29 May, the lawyer received an email from a supervisory detention and deportation officer at ICE’s Washington field office stating that “We will be issuing Mr. Ashqar an order of supervision at his next appointment.”

That order would mean that he would be allowed to continue living at home instead of in immigration detention – that nothing would change.

ICE requested more medical records and promised to look into the possibility of postponing the check-in.

On 31 May, Taurel received another email from the same officer stating that the Ashqars’ appointment could not be rescheduled, but that “we understand that it is the last day of Ramadan and assure you that when the Ashqars report they will be in and out quickly.”

“That was the last communication I had with them until 4 June,” Taurel said.

ICE lied

Taurel did not go to ICE with the Ashqars on Tuesday, “because I believed ICE was telling the truth. I’ve never been lied to by ICE about something like this.”

But as a precaution, Taurel requested that Ashqar’s son go with them. The family went in as scheduled at about 8 a.m.

In fact what happened is that as soon as Ashqar entered the ICE facility he was shown an order revoking his release, dated 28 May.

Taurel points out that this meant that the entire time ICE claimed that the 4 June visit would just be a routine check-in, the agency knew this was not true.

Ashqar told his lawyer on Friday that he was immediately whisked to an airport in Manassas, Virginia, and was in the air by 9:45 a.m.

Ashqar had no idea where he was going until he overheard someone at the airport say the flight had been given clearance to land at Tel Aviv.

But all this was unknown to Ashqar’s lawyer and his family as it was happening.

Just before 11 a.m. on 4 June, Taurel received a frantic call from Ashqar’s son, saying his father had been handcuffed.

Taurel managed to get hold of a senior official – an assistant field director at ICE – who continued to reassure him that this was simply protocol, that Ashqar was just going to be fingerprinted, given his supervision order and sent on his way home.

But then at around 12:45 p.m., Taurel received another frantic call, this time from Asma, who said, “I was just told they deported him to Israel.”

That ICE lied to Ashqar and Taurel is not a matter of dispute.

An order issued by Judge Ellis on Wednesday recites as fact that on 29 May, “the government’s agents falsely represented to petitioner and his counsel that petitioner would be issued an order of supervision at his next appointment and requested additional documentation regarding the knee surgery.”

The judge also wrote that “Indeed, at this time, it appears that respondents [the government] had already decided and planned to remove petitioner, but did not advise the petitioner of this fact.”

The judge also states that even after Ashqar’s family informed the lawyer that Ashqar had been handcuffed, government agents “once again falsely represented” that Ashqar was “merely being taken to a secure area for fingerprinting.”

“In fact,” the judge’s order states, the government “placed petitioner on a chartered aircraft and removed him from the United States.”

Judge asks to turn plane around

The fact that the government lied prevented Taurel from filing an emergency motion to stay the deportation with the Board of Immigration Appeals, where Ashqar had a pending request to reopen his case.

Taurel filed an emergency motion anyway, but learned from the board that it could do nothing since the aircraft had taken off and Ashqar was no longer on US soil.

So the legal team that evening filed an emergency habeas corpus petition in federal court against ICE, the Department of Homeland Security and the US attorney general.

Taurel also spoke with an assistant US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who informed him that Ashqar was on a private plane chartered by the US government.

The plane was scheduled to land in Vienna to refuel at about 10 p.m. US time on Tuesday and then take off an hour later for Tel Aviv. Ashqar would then be escorted to Ramallah, the government lawyer said.

Judge Ellis scheduled an emergency hearing by telephone at 10 p.m. Tuesday night. Taurel was on the phone representing Ashqar, along with lawyers Thomas K. Ragland and Denyse Sabagh.
The government was represented by two attorneys from the Eastern District of Virginia.

According to Taurel, the judge was troubled by what he was hearing and wanted to know if the government could stop the plane. He asked if it was still in Vienna, or if not, whether it could turn back to Vienna or land somewhere else.

The government lawyers claimed that it was impossible and the plane had to proceed to Tel Aviv.

A key question for the judge was whether he had jurisdiction to hear the case. He asked the lawyers for both sides to submit motions to him on that issue by 11 a.m. Wednesday.

But in the meantime, he wanted to freeze the status quo and he issued a verbal order to the government that Ashqar must be kept in US custody and not handed over to the Israelis.

Meanwhile, on board the plane, Ashqar was initially fully shackled by his arms and legs.

Gradually, the agents freed his legs, then his arms and then his hands – one at a time. Ashqar told his lawyer that he was not allowed to have his prescribed painkillers, but there was a nurse on board who gave him what he was told was Tylenol.

“Under penalty of perjury”

On Wednesday afternoon, Ellis issued his written order: he decided that he did not have jurisdiction with respect to the habeas corpus petition.

But critically, the judge noted that under the original 2003 removal order, Ashqar can only be deported to one country: Jordan.

He therefore ruled that the court would “maintain jurisdiction of this case to ensure that respondents are complying with the removal order and the court’s order of this date prohibiting respondents from delivering petitioner to the Israelis.”

He also ordered the government’s lawyers and agents who carried out the deportation to provide him with affidavits “under penalty of perjury” attesting to “whether they adhered to the removal order by delivering petitioner to Jordan and that they did not turn petitioner over to any entity or person associated with the Israeli government.”

Taurel recalls that from about 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 June, until 11 a.m. the following morning, “we had no idea what was happening with Dr. Ashqar. We had no communication with him.”

Taurel asked a government lawyer to try to arrange a confidential call with Ashqar, but did not hear back.

“And then at 11 a.m. on 6 June, I received an email from the assistant US attorney that Dr. Ashqar is en route back to the United States,” Taurel said. “Needless to say we were extremely relieved.”

Taurel can only speculate what happened. He thinks that the government interpreted the judge’s order to mean that they could only deport him to Jordan, and since that was impossible, they decided to bring him back to the United States.

Ashqar told Taurel that during the entire time he was on the ground in Tel Aviv, no Israeli boarded the plane. But Ashqar said he thought he saw cars belonging to Israel’s Shin Bet secret police around the aircraft – recognizable by their long antennas.

Ashqar also tried to inquire of the ICE agents whether the Palestinian Authority had issued travel documents for him – he never saw any – but was told it wasn’t his concern.

Taurel does not know what the government’s next moves will be and Ashqar’s legal team is looking at all options.

Taurel says lawyers have already filed an appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of Judge Ellis’ order that he does not have jurisdiction over crucial parts of the case.

On Friday they also filed for a stay of Ashqar’s deportation order.

The clerk of the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals informed Taurel on Friday that the government has undertaken not to try to deport Ashqar again until at least 14 June, giving the court time to hear the case.

Throughout his long detention by the US, Ashqar has been classified as a low security prisoner.

Now he’s being held in a medium to high security facility, a move that Taurel thinks may be punitive.

“Extreme injustice”

To give some perspective to the ordeal endured by Ashqar, in 2007, Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of lying to a federal grand jury about the disclosure of the identity of a CIA agent.

Libby was sentenced to two and a half years, but didn’t spend a day in prison because President George W. Bush commuted his sentence.

Last year, President Donald Trump pardoned Libby altogether.

Ashqar, who wasn’t accused of perjury but of simply refusing to testify, spent more than a decade in prison.

Michael Deutsch, Muhammad Salah’s lawyer during the trial of Ashqar and Salah, wrote for The Electronic Intifada in 2008 about the “extreme injustice perpetrated on Abdelhaleem Ashqar by the US government and the federal court in Chicago culminating in a draconian sentence of 135 months for nonviolent acts of civil disobedience.”

Deutsch wrote that Ashqar’s “refusals to testify before investigative grand juries about his work and relationships with other Palestinians – in effect to become an informer against his people and his liberation movement – was part of a long history of resistance by activists in this country to ‘naming names’ of political associates before government investigative bodies.”

Indeed, Deutsch noted that in 1998, Ashqar spent eight months in prison for civil contempt “resulting from his unequivocal refusal to inform on others before a grand jury sitting in New York.”

“He was released after a judge found that his refusal was based on deeply held principles which would not be affected by further incarceration.”

Yet despite this, the US government continued to pursue, prosecute and persecute Ashqar, culminating in his indictment and incarceration.

Even after Ashqar completed his harsh sentence, the US continues to subject him to extreme injustice.

Note: This article has been updated since initial publication to include information that the US plan intended for Ashqar to be flown to Israel and then transferred to the West Bank.
 

Russian journalist Ivan Golunov 'beaten by police in custody'

Doctor says investigative reporter may have suffered concussion and broken ribs
 
 Ivan Golunov said police had punched and kicked him about the head. Photograph: HANDOUT/Reuters

 -
 
A Russian investigative journalist arrested on controversial drug charges has been severely beaten in custody, his lawyer has said.

A doctor who inspected Ivan Golunov said he may have suffered broken ribs, concussion and a haematoma.

Golunov, a reporter for the independent Meduza news website, was arrested on drug charges on Friday. Colleagues and friends believe he is being targeted for his work on state corruption and business interests.

Two separate teams of doctors suggested Golunov be taken to hospital for x-rays but police investigators refused. The injuries were sustained while Golunov was in custody, his lawyer Dmitri Dzhulai confirmed by text message.

Golunov was later taken to a Moscow hospital, several Russian outlets reported. He had earlier complained police punched and kicked him about the head and chest because he refused to sign a police report before he had access to a lawyer.

He was formally charged on Saturday with drug possession with intent to sell, a crime that carries a prison sentence of between 10 and 20 years. Police said that they found 3.56 grams of the clubbing drug mephedrone in a backpack belonging to Golunov and 5.42 grams of cocaine in an apartment he purportedly rented in Moscow. Golunov has said the drugs were planted.

Hundreds of people protested against his arrest outside Moscow’s police headquarters on Friday, holding signs in support reading: “My name is Ivan Golunov. I am a journalist. Arrest me, too.”
Police had also demanded Golunov sign a confession, Dzhulai said. Russian investigators often put suspects in criminal cases under pressure in order to sobtain confessions, which makes it far easier to secure a conviction.

Police have also tried to limit the public flow of information about the case, demanding that Golunov’s lawyers sign non-disclosure agreements. They have refused.

Golunov has investigated family members of a Moscow deputy mayor who amassed a fortune in real estate, predatory lenders who purchased apartments in Moscow, plans to ship Moscow’s waste to the regions, and the efforts of a senior official’s son to corner Russia’s funeral market.

He had been receiving threats before his arrest, his editors said.

“Ivan Golunov is a prominent critic and his investigations into government corruption clearly did not go down well with the authorities. It seems he is now paying the price,” said Natalia Zviagina, the director of Amnesty International’s Russia office . “The circumstances of Ivan Golunov’s detention sound dubious and follow a depressingly familiar pattern.”

For Democrats, Trump impeachment question is a personal struggle transcending politics

Rep. Daniel Kildee (D-Mich.) is interviewed in the Capitol on April 4. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/AP)


For two House Democrats from different backgrounds, the searing debate over whether to impeach President Trump prompted an identical question: What about my grandkids?

Rep. Daniel Kildee, who represents a blue-collar Michigan district that Trump nearly won in 2016, calls it the “Caitlin and Colin rule.” What, in a decade or more, would they read in their history books?

Tinder and the Russian Intelligence Services: It’s a Match!

Will Facebook and Twitter be next?

The dating app Tinder could be forced to hand over its users' data to Russia's security services.The dating app Tinder could be forced to hand over its users' data to Russia's security services. LEON NEAL/GETTY IMAGES

No photo description available.BY  
The announcement this week that Russian authorities had asked the dating app Tinder to hand over photos and messages exchanged by Russian users is just the latest step in a sweeping clampdown on free speech in the country by President Vladimir Putin—one that has taken a turn for the absurd lately.

Last year, authorities cancelled the shows of dozens of Russian rappers and hip-hop artists to supposedly protect youths from immoral content. In April, a man was fined $470 after calling Putin “an unbelievable fuckwit,” in violation of a new law against insulting the authorities. And last week the Kostroma regional office of Roskomnadzor—a government body that oversees the media and internet—coached local journalists on how to cover sensitive topics such as drugs, suicide, and insults to the authorities, according to the news site Mediazona. Since detailed reporting on suicide methods is banned in Russia, journalists were handed a cheat sheet on how to stay on the right side of the law. If a man throws himself in front of a train, the journalists were told to report that the man was “accidentally hit by a train.”

 
Tinder isn’t the first Western tech company to face scrutiny from Roskomnadzor, which has taken on an increasingly powerful censorship role in recent years. In 2016, the networking site LinkedIn was blocked in Russia for refusing to store the data of Russian users in the country. In a statement issued at the time and reported by TechCrunch, LinkedIn it believed it had complied with all applicable Russian laws, but the company had been unable to reach an understanding with Roskomnadzor to have the ban lifted.

In April, Twitter was hit with a $46 fine for refusing to reveal to authorities where it stored Russian user data.

Still, the idea of Russian intelligence officers wading through Tinder messages of Russian users seemed to be particularly remarkable. The site is not exactly a venue for the exchange of political opinions—much less ideas that would undermine the regime.

One of Putin’s first acts when he came to power in 2000 was to muzzle the independent TV and print media. But the internet remained largely untouched for years, and a vibrant online culture flourished.
When Putin returned to the presidency in 2012—after swapping out for a term with now-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev—he was greeted by the largest street protests Russia had seen in decades.

Having brought the traditional media to heel during Putin’s first two terms in office, the Russian parliament passed a spate of vaguely worded laws that range from bizarre to draconian.

These laws fell into two broad categories, said Rachel Denber, the deputy director of the Europe and Central Asia Division at Human Rights Watch.

“It’s control for the purported purpose of preventing extremism, and then the other purpose is to enforce conformity, cultural norms, and traditional values under the guise sometimes of protecting children and the family, protecting morality,” she said.

A nationwide ban on so-called gay propaganda (any discussion of LGBTQ issues around minors) came into force; reporting on suicide became heavily censored; and nongovernmental organizations that receive foreign funding and engage in political activity were branded as foreign agents. Under a 2013 law, people deemed to have offended the feelings of religious people can be sent to prison.
Earlier this year Putin signed into law two new bills that impose fines for spreading fake news or showing blatant disrespect for the authorities.

“How many vague ways of prosecuting people for saying things you don’t like do you need?” said Tanya Lokot, an assistant professor at Dublin City University who studies internet freedom and governance in Russia.

Experts are doubtful that the Russian authorities have the capacity or the intention to fully enforce these laws across the country. But they do create a chilling effect. The laws are vague enough that authorities can use them to pursue almost anyone for things said on or offline.

“It’s much easier when you keep people on their toes and they don’t know what to expect from you, it’s much easier to try and control them,” Lokot said.

While China’s vast system of censorship has kept pace with the development of the internet, the Russians have been playing catch-up.

“They’re finally starting to understand what the internet is and how it works—that it’s not just content and streams of information, but it’s also infrastructure. And that in order to control the Russian web, you also need to control the infrastructure,” Lokot said.

Russia’s laws have taken a more technical turn in recent years as the regime seeks greater control over networks and data. Legislation passed in 2017 banned virtual private networks, which can hide browsing activity, and anonymous messaging services. Russia’s own internet ombudsman, who was appointed by Putin, called the law “madness.”

As part of the new policy on Tinder, the Roskomnadzor office announced it was adding the app to the register of “information-dissemination operators”—which includes messaging services. Sites or apps that appear on the list must store message exchanges by users on servers in Russia for at least six months. They must also turn over the information to security services upon request.

On Thursday, the Russian news agency TASS quoted Alexander Zharov, who runs Roskomnadzor, as saying that Tinder had indicated it was willing to provide data to Russian security agencies.
Tinder did not respond to a request for comment from Foreign Policy.

Nate Schenkkan, the director of special research at Freedom House, said Western companies should be cautious about engaging with Russian authorities on these issues. “Any request needs to be examined for the likelihood of its use in political persecution or other abuses,” he said.

Russia’s laws raise thorny issues for Western tech companies as they face increased scrutiny at home about the protection of user data.

In December 2018, Apple—which in the United States has positioned itself as a champion of user privacy—indicated it would comply with laws to store Russian user data on servers in the country, potentially giving the security services access to the private data of thousands of Russian Apple customers.

When LinkedIn was banned in 2016 it was widely interpreted as a warning to bigger companies about the risks of not adhering to the law.

It remains to be seen how this will play out with tech giants such as Facebook and Twitter, which remain tight-lipped about their plans. Moscow certainly wants these companies to comply with Russian laws but would face challenges trying to ban them.

Tatiana Stanovaya, the founder of the risk analysis firm R.Politik, said that when it comes to taking on the tech titans, the Kremlin had become hostage to its own policy.

“The Kremlin doesn’t want to ban Facebook. I think there is an understanding that a new generation of Russians has grown up and they live on the internet,” she said. “If they were to block it online it could lead to a revolution.”