HRW Writes to President Maithripala on Human Rights in Sri Lanka

[The Free Media Movement of Sri Lanka presents its proposals for Media Reform to the President]

27/02/2015  

HRW says that ‘we welcome some initiatives your government has already undertaken, such as case-by-case reviews of those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the lifting of restrictions on media reporting, the end of Internet censorship, and the appointment of non-military personnel as governors to the North and East provinces. Also important were the removal of nongovernmental organizations from the oversight of the Ministry of Defence, and your pledge to form commissions to return land in the former war zones to their rightful owners. We hope your establishment of an inquiry into the 2012 deaths in Welikada prison is a shift away from the previous government’s unwillingness to tackle issues of accountability.’
HRW Writes to President Maithripala on Human Rights in Sri Lanka by Thavam Ratna

Muslim Secretariat Welcomes Cabinet Decision To Release Military Occupied Lands

February 27, 2015 

The Secretariat for Muslims welcomes the statements made by key figures in the Government declaring the Government’s commitment to release lands held by the military to their rightful owners. In particular the cabinet’s decision to release land in Valikammam North (Jaffna) and Raigamwela (Panama) is an important first step. While expressing support for this measure, the SFM would like to highlight the impact of occupation of civilian-owned land by the security forces and to call for further releases.

For persons whose land have been occupied, it has meant that even though they are citizens of this country, there has been a denial of their rights and a delay in effectively restoring normalcy in their lives some six years after the war. The failure to release their lands has obstructed their ability to reconstruct their homes, fully revive their livelihoods, regain access to ancestral religious and cultural sites and and rebuild their lives. This restriction on land and rights serves as a source of animosity and insecurity that polarizes ethnic relations and is hampering Sri Lanka’s transition from war to lasting peace. The military occupation of land owned and used by civilians is a problem that particularly impacts the Tamil community in the Northern Province, but also affects other communities in other parts of the country.

Further releases of land in a phased manner will help build confidence among communities in this Governments’ capacity to bring about a more sustainable peace and to ensure that rights are upheld. It will also serve as a first step towards reconciliation and will demonstrate the Government’s commitment to treating all communities equally. SFM, while acknowledging there are a number of areas that need to be released, is highlighting three such sites where the Muslim community is currently unable to regain full access to their land. We ask that the Government take immediate steps within the 100 Days to release such lands.

1)  Ashraf Nagar, Ampara District: In November 2011 the military moved into the village of Kashankerni in Ashraff Nagar and demanded that the 69 Muslim families in the area vacate, to make way for an army camp. While some families moved unwillingly, nine families refused and have continued to live in their homes. A few of them sought redress from the Supreme Court (SC/FR/NO. 192-2012) and their Fundamental Rights application is pending. These families have faced significant problems including harassment and they are unable to cultivate their lands on which they rely for their livelihoods. The army camp should be moved out and the land restored to these families.

2)  Silavathurai, Mannar District: Silavathurai was the most prominent town in the Musali division prior to 1990. In 1990 the approximately 280 Muslim families from Silavathurai were expelled by the LTTE along with the entire population of Northern Muslims. Some families returned following the ceasefire agreement of 2002 but were forced back into displacement in 2007 when the war recommenced. When the area was opened for resettlement after the end of the war, residents of Silavathurai found that what used to be the heart of the town was a navy camp. Key public buildings including the post office, the Pradeshiya Sabha building and the main mosque are off limits, as most of the residential neighbourhoods and shops. While small portions of land on the perimeter have been released over the past few years, much of Silavathurai remains restricted to civilian access and use. Similarly the Tamil village of Mullikulam is now used as a navy camp and in Marichchakatti village the mosque along with some houses are cordoned off by the navy. The security forces need to take steps to release these private properties and public buildings in the Musali division so that war affected people can attempt to rebuild their communities.

3) Karumalaiootru, Trincomalee District: Situated on Dead Man’s Cove, this village suffered both as a result of the war and the tsunami. While the community was able to build back after the tsunami on land away from the beach, this largely fishing community continued to maintain their access the beach and the mosque which is set on a small hill by the beach. The mosque is old and the community has legal ownership of the land, dating back to at least the British colonial period. In November 2009, the area adjoining the beach was cordoned off by the military. In August 2014 the mosque was demolished by the forces. In the lead up to the presidential election residents were allowed to finally visit the site where they noticed a temporary building had been constructed in place of the mosque which they are now allowed to use. The ziyaram or shrine linked to the mosque is still off limits. The area where these villagers were living has not been released for their occupation. The SFM calls for the release of the village and the mosque (including the shrine) in its entirety so that villagers can have full access to their lands.

*SFM Statement on the Release of Land held by the Military

War crimes: Still no decision about a domestic inquiry

 Thursday, 26 February 2015 

Justice and labour minister Wijedasa Rajapaksa told that still there is no final decision made to start a domestic inquiry for the allegation of war crimes happened in the final phases of the war.

While performing the recommendation of the LLRC our government would consider the report given by the international recommendation committee headed by the Kings Counsel Desmond De. Silva and we would prioritize the reconciliation between communities said minister to the BBC Sandeshaya in London.

“We are ready to exercise a domestic inquiry if needed. Due to that initiative only the former government got a report appointing the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission” Minister Wijedasa Rajapaksa indicated his views when he had a special discussion with Saroj Pathirana of the BBC Sandeshaya.

The minister stressed if a domestic inquiry is commissioned the objective of the commission would not to punish but to know the truth and promote reconciliation.

There are information’s revealed about the 182 LTTE suspects who are remanded in the Welikada prison without allegations the justice minister emphasized to the Sandeshaya.

He said a committee has been formed under the precedence of the additional solicitor general to recommend to file charges or to release the LTTE suspects and Jeyakumari Balendran.

President Maithripala Sirisena is touring the United Kingdom on March 7th. The head of commonwealth Queen Elizabath had invited president Maithripala for a lunch.

The second part of the conversation had with Presidents counsel Wijedasa Rajapaksa is scheduled to be broadcasted through Sandeshaya on Thursday.

Tamil Civil Society Forum Decides not to Give Evidence on Disappearances

 TCSF statement:-27/02/2015

Read the full statement here:English_Translation_Missing_persons_Commission

1.The relatives of those who have been forcibly disappeared are tired of going before various mechanisms set up by the Government of Sri Lanka from time to time. No results whatsoever have been forthcoming from such inquiries. Many questions have been raised about the terms of reference and capacity of this commission to act on the issue of enforced disappearances. Concerns have been raised previously about the Government’s initiative to issue death certificates for enforced disappearances in parallel to the work of this commission. The line of questioning adopted by the commissioners in past hearings also indicates that the commission is primarily interested in inquiring into the socio-economic support provided to relatives of those forcibly disappeared as opposed to tracing the whereabouts of those who have been made to disappear. The role of the international experts has also not been made clear. Recent reports suggest that one of the international experts so appointed was also hired by the then Sri Lankan Government to advice them on how to handle international community pressure on human rights issues, clearly pointing to a conflict of interest in his appointment as an expert. So far the commission or the Government have not responded adequately to any of these issues.

2.The expansion of the mandate of the commission in July 2014 on an ad hoc basis giving the commission mandate to investigate other issues other than enforced disappearances doesn’t inspire confidence in the commission. It is indeed our position that all aspects of violations committed during and after the war have to be investigated but this cannot be done haphazardly. The piece-meal expansion of your mandate points to the lack of seriousness of your commission’s work and to its politicization.

3.The Government of Sri Lanka that took office on the 9th of January 2015 has been campaigning internationally that they will set up a credible domestic mechanism in response to the UN Human Rights Council mandated inquiry into Sri Lanka (OISL). They have sought and received a postponement of the OISl report primarily on this promise of setting up a domestic credible mechanism. However the present Government also seems to continue with the approach adopted by the previous regime towards truth, justice and accountability of which your commission’s continuance is a prominent example. Your commission continues to function under the new government without rectifying any of the concerns raised by civil society activists and those affected.

Demanding demilitarisation

27 February 2015

The streets of Jaffna saw historic scenes on Tuesday. The largest demonstration since the massacre on the beaches of Mullivaikal 6 years ago took place, with the unanimous backing from Tamil political parties in the North-East, Tamil civil society groups and diaspora organisations. The protest, preceded by a series of demonstrations by Tamils in recent weeks, was a defiant marker of the Tamil people’s unwavering call for justice and the ongoing agony of not knowing where their missing loved ones are. Amid the moving scenes of Tamil mothers gripping photographs of their missing children and calling for their return, one demand was resoundingly clear and recurrent throughout - the Sri Lankan military must leave the Tamil areas.

Almost 6 years since the end of the armed conflict on the island, Sri Lanka’s heavy military presence continues to obstruct hopes of restoring normalcy in Tamil regions. That thousands marched opposing the ongoing militarisation, as soldiers remain stationed across the North-East, bears testament to the criticality of their demand for demilitarisation. Indeed, the organiser of Tuesday’s protest was questioned by the Jaffna police chief the previous night. The domineering presence of the Sinhala military, who are directly linked to the historic and ongoing disappearances in the North-East, continues to be a constant source of insecurity that envelopes the region, providing a climate of impunity with which the military and other human rights violators operate in. As highlighted by Britain’s deputy high commissioner to Sri Lanka,  who visited the Vanni last week, military run businesses are also everywhere, undercutting local commerce and stifling free trade and private enterprise in fishing, farming, tourism and trade. The military’s grip on the economy in the North-East, ensures the Tamil people, whose economy has suffered greatly throughout the armed conflict is systematically dismantled and kept suppressed.

The newly elected President Maithripala Sirisena pledged that his government would be a break from the authoritarian past of Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka’s former ruler, under whom the size of the Sri Lankan military grew to the largest it has ever been. Championing the honour of the military, the new government pledged to withdraw 18,000 soldiers from labour jobs, that it said undermined them, and vowed to return them to their regiments. It remains unclear however, whether this withdrawal will take place in the North-East - where it is most desperately needed. Meanwhile, responding to concerted international condemnation of the military’s presence in the Tamil areas, the government has pledged to consider releasing 1000 acres of land in Palaly High Security Zone. Six years after the end of the armed conflict, the release of land - privately owned but occupied by the military - is an immediate necessity. Many landowners continue to live as IDPs as a result of military settlements. As the Northern Province’s chief minister, and former Supreme Court judge recently said however, Sri Lanka’s succession of government’s has a long history of broken promises. Thus whilst Tamils demand immediate change having waited six years already, it remains to be seen whether when, and indeed if, change will take place at all. Last month, seemingly following in the Rajapaksa regime’s footsteps, Mr Sirisena renewed the deployment of the military across the island and renewed powers allowing the military to maintain public order. Moreover, senior officials, including Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, have repeatedly assuredthe Sinhala people, and notably the Buddhist clergy, that troop numbers and security in the Tamil areas will not be reduced. These moves do little to inspire hope in the Tamil people.

The calls for demilitarisation come at a crucial time, when the UN Human Rights Council decided to give Sri Lanka six months to cooperate with the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL), in order to gather more evidence. It is crucial to utilise this time to gain direct evidence from the North-East, with UN investigators being granted unrestricted access to all areas of the former conflict zone, in order to fulfil the international promise of producing a “stronger and more comprehensive report”.  The victims in the North-East have explicitly said this can be the only justification for a further delay in delivering justice. 

However, the militarisation of the Tamil areas remains a major obstacle. It is incomprehensible that witnesses and victims will feel safe to come forward and give testimony, so long as the very same troops alleged to have committed atrocities against them remain deployed on their streets. Tamils who speak to foreign officials continue to be watched and harassed by security forces. Moreover, Tamils who were arrested and detained by the former regime for attempting to gather evidence previously have not been released by the new government. Disturbingly, just this week, the new government extended the detention of the prominent human rights campaigner, Balendran Jeyakumari, who has been held under the anti-terror legislation since March 2014, despite calls from rights groups worldwide to release her.

Six years following the end of the armed conflict, the ongoing militarisation of the North-East cannot be justified. As theresolution passed this month by the Northern Provincial Council illustrates that the Tamil people view the military’s deployment, including its pervasive presence in their day to day social, cultural and economic life, and its occupation of their private lands, as part of the state’s wider scheme to dismantle, suppress, and ultimately destroy the Tamil identity. Calling on the international community to protect the Tamil people from the ongoing genocide by the Sri Lankan state, the NPC said the genocide was constructed through the military’s “permanent, occupying presence” in the Tamil homeland. As the island’s recent history demonstrates, international pressure on the state is key to driving progress for the Tamil people. The international community must ensure that its hope of engagement with the new government, delivers tangible results to the Tamils, including the removal of the military from the North-East. Tamils in the North-East are demanding it.

More frauds exposed in court of cardboard patriot Weerawansa and wife: 19 accounts ; gem and drug smuggling operations in billions !!

(Lanka-e-News- 26.Feb.2015, 11.30)  Although those who do not know the actual facts surrounding the possession of bogus diplomatic passport  by Shashi Weerawansa blabber that   the Weerawansa couple (ex minister Weerawansa and wife Shashi Weerawansa )  obtained such passports  via fraudulent means furnishing wrong information and forged documents ,it  was only  to conceal Shashi’s age that she   is older than her husband , the unalloyed  truth and the whole truth is , this passport has been used to smuggle valuable gems out of the  country exploiting the diplomatic immunity attaching to holders of such passports  , and in  addition  to smuggle high valued drugs into the country  after selling the  gems abroad. 

Through these rackets at the expense of precious national economy the Weerawansa cardboard patriot who has a rare inborn talent to utter lies loudly and proudly using every stinking orifice of his body, together with   his wife  have earned illicitly over Rs. 20 billion (Rs. 20,000,000,000.00) !!

Following these  exposures yesterday , details of these traitorous activities of the ‘cardboard patriot’ , and much more have come to light , based on reports reaching Lanka e news.

The cardboard patriot Weerawansa  in order to hide the collaborative smuggling operations between himself and wife , has craftily spread the story that there exists a deep rift and estrangement between himself and wife. When the gossips began to hot up and took  a turn for the worse about the couple’s (partners in crime) treacheries and traitorous activities while parading as paragons of virtue , Weerawansa has spread another false gossip using his wife to counter the true gossips that her husband (partner in the crimes) had fallen out with her . She had via the Gossip websites  declared this.

Shashi had enlisted the assistance  of the wife of another minister (a glut of  such wives and families were available under the Rajapakse regime) too.

The other minister , even now has  two customs duty free stalls  at Katunayake and Hong Kong airports for the marketing  (smuggling ?) of gems and jewelry.

Based on the huge amassment of wealth and assets suddenly within a short period by this minister , the Commission inquiring into  bribery and corruption following its on going investigations is going to file its first and second cases of corruption in court among  the most corrupt politicians ,against this particular minister .

This minister’s wife and Shashi Werawansa by their tours of Hong Kong , Malaysia and  Singapore had earned a profit of over US dollars 5 million each through these smuggling operations of gems and drugs ! reports say.The Weerawansa couple had also remitted their earnings to America and purchased even a house there in New York but in another individual ‘s name , unofficial sources disclosed.

Meanwhile , after it was ordered by court yesterday that Shashi cannot be warded in private hospital while in remand , she was immediately transferred to the prison hospital. However, Shashi who was supposedly sick yesterday appeared in court today as fit as  a fiddle  as though she was miraculously cured , and  dolled up too, perhaps to achieve more nefarious goals.

Even as Lanka e news exposed that the Weerawansa couple was indulging in most devastating rackets using diplomatic passports , the CID told court yesterday that Shashi Weerawansa  alone had 19 bank accounts . Gihan Pilapitiya the judge granted permission to the CID at their request to investigate these accounts while remanding for a further period until the 4 th of March . 

One glaring fact is confirmed from this disgraceful scenario of multiple account  holder  and crook Shashi Weerawansa : an   honest business person engaged in legitimate business  has no need to maintain so many accounts. Even though large organizations with a Director board can maintain any number of accounts, in personal names so many accounts are not maintained by them. One inescapable inference therefore ,when an individual maintains so many accounts is , that individual is a racketeer , smuggler , fraudster or  heroin dealer, or is indulging in all of them at the same time. One classic example in point is , the 58 accounts of Kudu Duminda Silva. It is significant to note even a most popular legitimate businessman late Dasa Mudalali  until  the time of his death had only one personal account

---------------------------
by     (2015-02-27 00:55:23)

After Nugegoda – What?

By Izeth Hussain-February 27, 2015

The recent Nugegoda rally in favour of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa would of course have been meticulously organized, but all the same the immensity of the crowd that assembled there was beyond dispute immensely impressive. It becomes all the more impressive when we bear in mind that the organizers did not have the resources of the SLFP but only of three small parties whose voting strength is negligible. These facts, taken together with the fact that thousands go on daily ‘pilgrimage’ to MR’s Hambantota home, attest to his continuing popularity with the Sinhalese voters, more particularly with the Sinhalese Buddhist voters. Probably Ranil Wickremesinghe and other UNP big shots have their repose disturbed these days by the uneasy premonition that that local Nostradamus might have been right after all: MR suffered only a temporary eclipse and could blaze resplendently again as Prime Minister after the forthcoming General Elections. The reason is that the minority vote which was solidly against him would be divided.

What else could the Nugegoda rally signify? In my view it vividly illustrated the two major contrasting trends in our politics: the maturing of our democracy and the dynamism of racist neo-Fascism. In an earlier article I made some observations on our conquest democracy under which the victors at the General Elections behave like conquerors over both the defeated Party and the Sri Lankan people. The defeated were booed at sight, sometimes thrashed and their properties torched. They abided their time meekly like mice until the next General Elections, after which they too behaved like conquerors. Nothing like the Nugegoda rally at which MR rose resplendently, just weeks after his election defeat, was even imaginable in the past. Furthermore, the Government did not try to prevent the rally, nor has there been any punitive action against the notables who were present there. In his time President JR would have seen to it that his Jay Gang storm-troopers administered merciless maulings to the whole lot of them.

So the Nugegoda rally, along with much else, attests to the maturing of our democracy. As for the neo-Fascist aspect of the rally, I will point to the implications of a couple of details in MR’s message which was read out on his behalf. One is this: "We were not defeated but deprived of power". Apparently he did not explain in what sense he was not defeated at the elections, a fact which he has earlier acknowledged. Nor apparently did he explain how and by whom he was deprived of power. A further significant statement is this: "What we are experiencing is not a defeat but the result of a conspiracy." I myself believe that the hill-country Tamil vote was influenced by RAW, and that certain powers were involved in trying to bring about his defeat. But the facts of overwhelming importance are that the elections were held under his auspices, they have been universally regarded as free and fair by our standards, and he suffered a decisive defeat. He is now unwilling to accept those facts. Is it that he has become so imbued with a Fascist mentality that he can no longer understand and accept democratic norms?

He is now refusing to accept defeat because the notion has gained ground that the crucial factor behind his defeat was the minority vote: 80% of the Tamils voted against him and even more of the Muslims did so. According to the Fascist reckoning the minorities are no more than visitors to this country and therefore they are not wholly and properly Sri Lankans. MR got 55% of the Sinhalese vote, which means that a clear majority of the true sons of the sacred soil of Sri Lanka were with him. In that sense – according to Fascist logic – he was not defeated. I charge therefore that the Nugegoda rally was at its core an outburst of racist neo-Fascism.

A couple of clarifications need to be made about the minority vote. They are supposed to constitute 24% of the population, and if the Catholics and other Christians are also to be regarded as minorities – since according to crazy racist Fascist logic only Sinhala Buddhists are true sons of the sacred soil – the minorities would total 30% of the population. Even if every single minority member voted against MR their votes would not have sufficed to defeat him. That defeat was possible only because a substantial proportion of the Sinhalese voted against him. The number is estimated as 45%. There is an important factor to be borne in mind about that percentage. It is known that all the resources of the State were used – illegally and criminally – to promote MR’s candidature. Without that factor the Sinhalese vote against him could well have amounted to 47% or 49% or even more. Anyway, it is ridiculous to hold that MR was defeated because of the minority vote.

The other clarification I have in mind arises out of the sharpening of the ethnic polarity in Sri Lanka as a consequence of the Presidential elections. The question to be asked is this: Can the minorities be blamed for voting against MR? Everyone understood that there was not the faintest chance of a political solution to the Tamil ethnic problem as long as MR was in power. Furthermore the Tamils were being needlessly humiliated. That has been shown by the corrective action taken by the present Government, such as the release to the rightful owners of a thousand acres of land which were held by the armed forces without any security justification. As for the Muslims, I wrote a series of articles showing that the charge that the Muslims posed an existential threat to the Sinhalese was nonsensical, and that the issues that have been bedeviling Sinhalese-Muslim relations sometimes for decades can all be resolved without much difficulty if they are properly addressed. By way of reply I have had abuse but no refutation that can be taken seriously. I must add that MR and his Government were clearly seen as supporting, blatantly though not explicitly, the BBS in its anti-Muslim campaign, as shown by the persistent refusal to apply the law against the BBS and other extremist groups. The minority vote against MR should therefore be seen not just as legitimate in terms of minority interests but as a signal contribution to the promotion of national harmony.

After Nugegoda – What? I have a thoroughly unorthodox suggestion to make, which to my mind makes good sense. I hope that a new party will emerge for which the most fitting leader would be Mahinda Rajapaksa. He would be the most fitted because with decades of political experience behind him and his undoubted political ability he should be able both to exploit racism for political purposes and also to hold the mad racists in check. Young racist hotheads won’t be able to do that. My suggestion arises out of the fact that Sri Lanka has never had even a single national Party that is accepted unequivocally as such by the minorities. The UNP, the SLFP, and even the Marxist Parties are seen as essentially Sinhalese ethnic Parties. It is a fact that racists are to be found in all our parties, which in my view has had a tragic consequence. Whenever one of our Governments seems to be approaching a solution to the Tamil ethnic problem, the main Party in opposition has always sabotaged the process. That is because of the strength of the racists in the Opposition. If they are concentrated in one Party, with racists from other Parties gravitating towards it as their natural habitat, it might become possible to contain them and stop their using several Parties to go on the rampage.

The SLFP is now undergoing an identity crisis. It has always had schism at its core with SWRD representing its democratic modernizing trend and Rev. Buddha Rakita representing a retrogressive racist Fascist trend. If MR gets control of the SLFP and leads it to triumph at the General Elections, it would amount to the triumph of the Buddy Racketeers. If in the alternative he forms a new party the SLFP will be split and the UNP could triumph. What is the solution? I don’t know at the moment. But I would be sad to see the SLFP go because I have been sympathetic to it since 1956, partly because my politics have always been left-of-center. The more important reason is that the fair treatment, and more than fair treatment, that I received from the SLFP together with generous acknowledgment of whatever abilities I may have displayed, was out of the world. The experience of that fair treatment, nullifying the ethnic divide, convinces me that ultimately the Sinhalese people will triumph over the racist neo-Fascism that burst out at the Nugegoda rally.

Sri Lanka says China to be consulted on any project re-think

 China's Premier Li Keqiang (centre R) and Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera (centre L) chat during their meeting at the Zhongnanhai Leadership Compound in Beijing, February 27, 2015. 

. China's Premier Li Keqiang (R) shakes hands with Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera before their meeting at the Zhongnanhai Leadership Compound in Beijing, February 27, 2015. 

BY BEN BLANCHARD-Fri Feb 27, 2015

(Reuters) - Sri Lanka will not make any decision on Chinese projects it is reviewing until it consults China, Sri Lanka's foreign minister said on Friday, pledging that his new government would welcome Chinese investors.

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena has unnerved China with his re-examination of certain projects that China has invested in, including a $1.5 billion "port city" project in Colombo.

India, which lost out to China in infrastructure development on the Indian Ocean island, was in particular worried about the security threat posed by Chinese ownership of land, aggravated by the docking of Chinese submarines in Colombo last year.

Last week, Sri Lanka said it would reconsider the outright transfer of a parcel of land to China under the port city deal signed by the previous government, amid concern it could be used for by the Chinese navy.

Speaking in Beijing after meeting his Chinese counterpart, Sri Lanka Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera said he did not discuss the port issue directly, and the government was not only looking into Chinese projects.

"Anything relating to Chinese investment will be shared and discussed with the government of China before we take any final decision," Samaraweera told a news conference, citing what he told his Chinese counterpart.

Sri Lanka will always welcome Chinese investment and it would now be an even safer place in which to invest, he said.

"We are trying to ensure that there is a level playing field for all investors and a conducive environment for investment based on the restoration of the rule of law, democracy, good governance and transparency," Samaraweera said.

"All proposals in future will be considered totally on merit."

Samaraweera is in China to prepared for an expected visit by Sirisena next month.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China remained a good partner of Sri Lanka.

"China is willing to continue being a trustworthy and reliable development partner ... and will also keep doing its best to provide assistance for Sri Lanka's social and economic development," Wang said.

India had grown increasingly wary of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa's pursuit of closer ties with China, which became a key supporter of the island's economy after its 26-year-civil war ended in 2009.

China has built a seaport and airport in the south of the country, raising fears it is seeking influence in a country with which India has traditionally had deep ties.

India's concern grew after the Rajapaksa government allowed the Chinese submarines to dock.

(Editing by Robert Birsel)

Executive powers to be slashed under new constitutional reforms?

February 27, 2015

According to the proposed constitutional reforms currently under discussion, the President will always act on the advice of the Prime Minister, however may request the Prime Minister to reconsider advice given to him and request Parliament to reconsider a Bill presented to him for assent, sources said.

The nineteenth amendment to the Constitution primarily aimed at abolishing executive presidency in the country is expected be tabled in Parliament next month.

President Maithripala Sirisena had pledged greater democratic reforms in his election manifesto as the opposition unity candidate. His 100-day programme envisages to slash the authoritarian powers of his predecessors.

According to information received by Ada Derana, the following proposals for constitutional reform are currently under discussion by the political parties represented in parliament:

The President will be the Head of State, the Head of the Executive and the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.  

The President shall always, except in the case of the appointment of the Prime Minister or as otherwise required by the Constitution, act on the advice of the Prime Minister or of such other Minister as has been authorized by the Prime Minister.

The President may require the Prime Minister and such Minister to reconsider advice given to him and may require Parliament to reconsider a Bill presented to him for assent.

He shall act on advice given after reconsideration and shall give assent to a Bill passed after reconsideration.

Presidential immunity does not extend to acts or omissions of the President in his official capacity. The Speaker/Chair of the Council of State shall act for the President.

The term of office of the President shall be 5 years. Mode of election of the President will not be changed. This will be a matter for the next Parliament. The President may be removed by passing a no- confidence motion with a 2/3 majority. Present impeachment provisions will be deleted.

The Prime Minister will be the Head of the Government. The President shall appoint as Prime Minster the Member of Parliament, who, in his opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.

The President may also appoint a Deputy Prime Minister on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The number of Ministers shall not exceed 30. The total number of Ministers of State and Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 40.

Where the parties with the highest and second highest number of seats agree to take part in a Government of National Unity, Parliament may bring a resolution to increase the above mentioned numbers to not more than 45 and 55 respectively for the duration of the Government of National Unity.

The term of Parliament shall be 05 years. Parliament may be dissolved during the first 4 years and 6 months only upon a resolution to that effect being passed by a 2/3 majority.

Provisions relating to the Constitutional Council (CC) and independent institutions, repealed by the 18th Amendment, will be reinstated subject to certain changes.

The Audit Service Commission and the National Procurement Commission are added to the list of independent institutions. The CC shall obtain the views of the Chief Justice, the Minister of Justice, the Attorney-General and the President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka when considering appointments to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

Bills shall be published in the Gazette 14 days before the first reading. Bills will be certified by the President. There will be no urgent Bills.

The members of the Public Service Commission, National Police Commission, Human Rights Commission, Commission to investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption and Finance Commission, shall cease to hold office on the date on which the 19th Amendment becomes law.

Restricting abuse of ministerial resources for political advantage rather than executive work

Letter to Minister Karu Jayasuriya:

Karu Jayasuriya-February 26, 2015,
The measures below were suggested by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha to the Minister of Good Governance, along with the schedule beneath it.

Dear Mr Jayasuirya

I have written to you before about simple measures that could be taken to promote Good Governance and I hope we might be able to meet soon to take things forward, There seems to be too little interest in this at present, and that might lead to the people losing faith in us.

Restricting Abuse of Ministerial Resources for Political Advantage Rather Than Executive Work by Thavam Ratna

Cry-babies should wipe their tears and get back to class

 February 28, 2015 

It’s somewhat comical if not disgraceful to see intelligent, mature and knowledgeable people with grand academic credentials behave in the most puerile manner when lot is expected, especially at a time when the nation is impatiently seeking results in the aftermath of a major socio-economic trial that impacted most Sri Lankans in an adverse manner. 
It included a gargantuan heist, accomplished with immaculate precision by the brothers. The dreary legacy also accompanied major lapses in good governance. People were reeling with high inflation and a steadily depreciating rupee insidiously eating into the purchasing power. We‘re still not out of the woods. The road is long and the servants have to work hard.

Legislators must grow up
These are not normal times, these are exceptional times. Poverty and general economic difficulty are raining down on the people. They’re being overwhelmed and crushed from every possible angle. Instead of putting all efforts, energies and resources to resolve issues of people we see two “thotta babas” whining and nasal complaining apparent discontent not worth the effort and time of the President to intervene and make resolution. When will these guys grow up? 
I wish I had the ability to portray the disgust of the people in poetry and place it before Professor Rajiva Wijesinha, the one who is at the centre of this silly case involving his supposed resignation over even sillier bureaucratic bungling.
We want our legislators to grow up and not just come of age; there is a huge difference between the two. I am reminded of a typically Sri Lankan witty idiomatic phrase which goes like this: “Uncle and Aunty are quarrelling, when asked why they are quarrelling, it’s said they’re quarrelling over the stem of the tobacco leaf.” Oh servants of the people, get one thing straight. There is nothing more deserving of your attention than the burning issues of the people. Finding ways to feed Punchi Manike’s three kids is more important than your ill-smelling tobacco leaf.
Professor Rajiva Wijesinha should have resolved the issue with Minister Kabir Hashim more professionally and in a dignified manner without bringing the whole saga to the public domain. The good Professor had to say just one thing to Minister Kabir Hashim and the whole issue would have been resolved: “Kabir please make sure this does not happen again.” Instead the naughty boy waits near the principal’s office inconsolably sobbing to lodge an official complaint, not before he upstages a plethora of infantile tantrums and engages in creative bouts of self-pity. The people of Sri Lanka did not give a mandate for this kind of infancy.

Focus on deadlines and delivery
We are fast approaching the 50 day mark of the 100 day program. A lot has been achieved and a lot more has not been achieved. Let’s try and disengage from the wrangling and the petulant, peevish arguments and focus on deadlines and delivery. This is what matters.
I seriously wonder if any of our ministers have had the opportunity to fully fathom the magnitude of the expectations reposed on them. The general folk may not fully comprehend why a national government is necessary but they certainly know what will come out from one. Good governance behoves that personal and ministerial aberrations are not allowed to exacerbate. Hence arresting them within the very confines of the establishment is sine qua non.
If democracy is simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people for the people, Sri Lankans have been mercilessly bludgeoned in the last 10 years. They can’t take it anymore. In Sri Lanka it certainly looks like that while one administration steals, the other reels, yeah it certainly stinks. This shouldn’t be the case. Those that cannot work for the people should be shown the door and escorted to it.

Antithesis of good governance 
As for the Former State Minister of Aviation Faizer Mustapha, he has an irresistible propensity to globe trot soon after every apparent disagreement with the administration. Singapore has proved a favourite destination for him. Without summoning all the courage he has as a successful legal eagle, the young former Minister indulges in his beloved pastime – escapism.
Perhaps the idyllic and salubrious climes of Singapore inter-alia coalesce to engender a psychological ballast for the former Minister to recompose, reinvigorate and rejuvenate for better oratorical performances both in the august assembly in the Diyawanna Oya and in front of the press. This kind of behaviour is the very antithesis of good governance. Representative democracy dictates that you fully devote and utilise scarce resources including time for the good and welfare of the people.
Good governance is accountability, good governance is transparency, good governance follows rule of law, good governance is responsive, good governance is equitable and inclusive, good governance is effective and efficient, good governance is participatory, good governance works solely for the people amidst constraints and hardship. Let the boys get back to their respective classes and start working sincerely for the people.

Committee to probe media institutions’ conduct during Rajapaksa regime!

Friday, 27 February 2015 

A committee is reportedly to be appointed to investigate the conduct and dealings of media institutions during the former Rajapaksa regime. In that period, most media were tamed by the then government, under duress or willingly, while some who had amassed money through illegal and fraudulent means, used their ill-gotten money to take over media institutions.

How did Navy Lt. Yoshitha Rajapaksa get money to open Carlton Sports Network (CSN), which was closed down a few days ago? How did CSN television, and Sinha, Red and Tamil FM radios get funded?  How did those institutions get permission to use equipment owned by Rupavahini Corporation? How did vehicles of the Presidential Secretariat get released for use by CSN?

How did former internal trade minister Johnston Fernando find Rs. 20 million to buy V FM radio channel?

How did notorious ethanol importer, MP Lakshman Wasantha Perera find money to start Lak FM radio channel?

How did Nilanga Rajapaksa and Prasanna and Jaliya Wickramasuriya brothers find money to buy Rivira Media, the publisher of Rivira and Nation newspapers?

How did Asanga Seneviratne get money to buy Leader Publications which publishes Sunday Leader and Irudina?
How did Randiwa newspaper owned by Saman Samarakkody get money through Ravi Wijeratne?

If the committee that will be appointed investigates the abovementioned media institutions and as to how they were funded, it could be found out as to what actually had happened at media institutions during that period.

The Draft Freedom Of Information Law

By R.M.B Senanayake -February 26, 2015

R.M.B Senanayake

Presently the media obtain information by contacting the Heads of Departments or the Secretaries of the Ministries. There is a Cabinet appointed Media spokesman. There is the Establishments Code which lays down restrictions on public officers who disclose information to the media. The Code is restrictive and the question arises how the new Law will affect these provisions in the Establishment Code. There are also the restrictive provisions in the Official Secrets Act. There is a clause in the draft law which says that its provisions shall prevail. But public officers are enquired not only to comply with the laws but also with the Establishment Code. It may be necessary therefore to amend the Establishments Code provisions. It may be desirable to make the Head of the Department the person responsible to implement the draft law and allow him to appoint the Information Officer while retaining his powers and responsibilities for the release of information to the public.

The Preamble to the draft Act says among other things that it is setting out the procedure for obtaining official information and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This seems to imply that the draft law specifies exclusively for the procedure to obtain information. If so does it mean that the Heads of Departments cannot release information to the media but must direct them only through the Information Officer a relatively junior officer who will not be familiar with recent events and policy changes? If so the Media may be restricted in its access to information. Perhaps what is needed is to make clear the purpose of the new law as providing a right to information in addition to the present procedures followed by the Media in obtaining information and make I clear that the procedure enacted is not exclusive but is in addition to the media’s access to general news and information.

Clause 4 of the draft law lays down that every public authority giving a decision that affects any person in anyway shall be required on request to disclose the reasons for arriving at such decision. Presumably this applies only to the disclosure of information. But it is too vague and may cause problems for the

The clause 4 relating to Duty to Disclose reasons for a decision seems to be unnecessary for the reasons to be disclosed for refusal of information is covered in another clause5(2).Generally the drafting of the law requires another look by a professional legal draftsman.

The clause regarding the denial of access to information also requires streamlining. Under sub clause 5© certain economic information is not to be disclosed prematurely if they prejudice the interests of the economy. But it is not clear that such information should be disclosed later. Under this exception the authorities could withhold information for a long time on the ground that it would affect the economy adversely. For example the level of the Official Foreign Exchange Reserve may not be disclosed at all if it continues to fall. In 1996 Thailand’s Central Bank gave false Reserve figures and when a well known foreign investor realized it he began the outflow of capital which brought on the financial crisis in Thailand which led to its spread to other East Asian countries as well.

Clause 9 (1) refers to large projects where the Minister or President is required to provide information. This will apply to the future. What about the large projects undertaken by the previous regime where no information has been provided to the public and not even to Parliament. The Port City project is a case in point. Will the law be amended to include any on-going projects as well?

Clause 24 requires requests for information to be in writing. But the media who need information urgently lest I lose its timeliness should be allowed to contact the Head of the Department or the Information Officer to do so. This may be restricted to the media,

The Interpretation clause defines a “public authority” to include a private entity rendering a public service. Many private sector businesses provide services to the public. Are all of them to be brought under this law? It would adversely affect private sector businesses. The drafting of this clause also needs to be improved for unlike where a reference to a man can include a woman a public authority cannot mena a private entity even if it is restricted to one providing a pulic service for many private entities provide a service to the customers who are members of the public .