Sri Lanka's War Widows Pin Hopes on New President

In this photograph taken on June 9, 2015, Sri Lankan war widow Evin Selvy, 45, listens to a question from an AFP journalist during an interview in Jaffna, some 400 kilometres (250 miles) north of the capital Colombo. (Agence France-Presse)

June 28, 2015

JAFFNA, SRI LANKA:  Shunned, destitute and pushed into prostitution in some cases, Sri Lanka's Tamil widows have returned to northern Jaffna since the end of the separatist war only to discover they are not welcome even in their homeland.

Now, six years after the war ended, the women who fled the fighting on the peninsula in their thousands are pinning their hopes on the nation's new president for a better future for their families.

"Widows are despised in our society," said Baskaran Jegathiswari, 50, fighting back tears at her home in Achchuveli village in Jaffna, heartland of Sri Lanka's ethnic Tamil minority.

 

"People look down on us. They think we bring bad luck," said Jegathiswari, who lost her husband to military shellfire just months before the war ended in 2009.

The women, whose husbands were killed or are officially still listed as missing, are closely watching President Maithripala Sirisena who took office in January pledging reconciliation to "heal broken hearts and minds".

Official figures show 27,000 widows head households in Jaffna, where the conflict was centred, while local politicians put the figure much higher.

"I can't think of rebuilding my life now," said widow Evin Selvy who struggles to feed her family, earning 500 rupees ($3.80) a day as a farm labourer.

"But I hope the new government will make it better for my three daughters."

Having taken refuge elsewhere in the north, Selvy returned to Jaffna in 2009 to find her home and the rest of her village destroyed in the fighting.

After grabbing just a handful of possessions, the 45-year-old had fled in 1990 with her husband, who was killed by military shelling in the war's final months.

She and her daughters now live in a hut thrown up alongside their house, which has been partly rebuilt with funding from an Indian government project for war victims. But they cannot afford the remaining 200,000 rupees needed to finish it.

Demand Sexual Favours

At least 100,000 people were killed in the war between 1972 and 2009 when the military finally crushed Tamil rebels fighting for a separate homeland for the ethnic minority.

Thousands are still unaccounted for, including suspected rebels rounded up by security forces or who surrendered in the conflict's final phase and then disappeared.

Widows left behind say they feel vulnerable, with reports of physical abuse by members of their community. Others are ostracised, considered bad luck by the conservative Hindu society.

"A war with weapons ended in 2009 but a new social conflict has begun. Young war widows are most vulnerable," said a social worker helping widows in Jaffna, referring to domestic and other violence.

She refused to give her name.

Many struggle to find jobs and cannot make ends meet, with some forced into prostitution, according to another social worker, Dharshini Chandiran.

"Widows don't have a good place in our society," said Christine Manoharan, who heads a support group for 1,700 widows.

"Men demand sexual favours from us. We don't have any security," said Manoharan, 34, herself a widow.

Several widows told AFP that even family friends were trying to take advantage of their plight, seeking sex in return for financial or other assistance. Some told of being regularly propositioned when travelling alone on public transport in a country with relatively low crime rates.

Some are being coaxed by well-meaning members of the Tamil community to remarry to give them some security, said women's activist Mariarosa Sivarasa.

But some are also being targeted by criminals to leave their villages and work as prostitutes in larger towns, said Ananthi Sasitharan, 43, a member of the local Northern Provincial Council.

Despite all the problems Sasitharan said she was optimistic Sirisena would eventually take up their plight, with signs his government was moving towards reconciliation.

"He appears a simple person... I feel we can even call him directly to discuss any problem," Sasitharan told AFP.

Inquiry Into Atrocities

Sirisena on Friday ordered the dismissal of parliament, clearing the way for a general election expected to be held in August, in a bid to strengthen his party's numbers and bolster his mandate for reform.

The government has started returning some land throughout the north to families whose property was seized by the military during the war.

Sirisena has also pledged a domestic inquiry into allegations by a UN panel of atrocities committed in the fighting, including the killing of thousands of civilians and sexual violence by soldiers.

Previous president Mahinda Rajapakse, an autocrat in power for a decade, rejected Western pressure for an investigation, saying no civilians were killed. He was accused of failing to unify Tamils with the majority Buddhist Sinhalese after the war.

Under Sirisena, restrictions have been relaxed on Jaffna's population, including easier travel to and from the peninsula which underwent immense reconstruction under Rajapakse.

Intelligence officers have halted their regular grilling and harassment of widows whom they suspected were still linked to remnants of the rebels.

But widows and the wider Tamil community argue there is still a long way to go, including meeting a key demand to remove large concentrations of troops still stationed in the north.

"We think the new president wants to change things," activist Sivarasa said. But after decades of suffering, a quick fix seems unlikely.

Sirisena answerable for secret incarceration by SL Navy in East

[TamilNet, Sunday, 28 June 2015, 23:06 GMT]
SL President Maithiripala Sirisena on Sunday visited the Sri Lanka Navy Eastern Naval Command, which was responsible for the secret incarceration camp known as ‘Gota’ camp, where more than 700 former LTTE members, including 35 families, have been illegally detained for more than 5 years. Mr Sirisena, who was acting Defence Minister under the Rajapaksa regime, is answerable for the genocidal incarceration by the Eastern Naval Command of the SLN, Eezham Tamil activists in Trincomalee said. The SL President is the Commander-in-Chief of the three armed forces. 

While the new regime has failed to reveal or investigate the whereabouts of those detained at the undisclosed ‘Gota’ camp, the visiting ‘Commander-in-Chief’ of the genocidal Sri Lankan State was praising the ‘pivotal’ role of the SL Navy in ‘defeating terrorism’ during the 30-year war. 

The SL Navy is also responsible for the killing of hundreds of fishermen from Tamil Nadu. 

The visiting SL president, accompanied by Vice Admiral Jayantha Perera, the commander of the SL Navy, declared open the first phase of a new complex of ‘Naval and Maritime Academy’ in the occupied country of Eehzam Tamils. 

The Eastern Naval Command of the SL Navy has recently opened a new Anti Submarine Warfare School as part of the occupying military establishment of Sri Lanka in Trincomalee. 

After his visit to the SL military establishment, Mr Sirisena posed for selfies with the public at Nilaave'li beach. 

Report: Suppression of dissent in Sri Lanka ( May 2015)

Summary:29/06/2015

Incidents related to repression of dissent continued to be reported under the Sirisena Presidency, despite a general feeling of having more freedom than under the Rajapakse presidency.

In mid May 2015, Police obtained court orders to prevent remembrance events for Tamils killed during the war. Police also interrogated organizers, participants and media at some events, compelled organizers to change venue, and subjected remembrance events to heavy surveillance. Bus owners had also been intimidated not to transport people to such events. Earlier in May, a Northern Provincial Council member was summoned by Police to be questioned in relation to an allegation he had lighted lamps to remember the LTTE in November 2014.

Journalists were arrested and summoned for interrogation, assaulted by a local politician and prevented from covering a meeting related to water contamination. Two academics were assaulted during a May Day rally in Colombo and the Vice Chancellor of the Jaffna University had refused to grant permission to a discussion of a book by an award winning human rights defender and academic, on issues related to the war in Sri Lanka. In India, a film based on the life of slain LTTE TV presenter was banned.

Police used tear gas and water cannons to disperse protesters in two locations. In Jaffna, hundreds of protesters were arrested as protests against rape and murder of teenaged school girl turned violent. Local activists told INFORM that several of those arrested were those not involved in the violence. Police also obtained at least two court orders prohibiting protests in relation this incident. A senior Police officer used abusive language against an elderly woman who was protesting peacefully and trying to engage in a dialog with the police. The same officer also threatened a person who was taking a video of the incident. The Deputy Minister of Justice told media that new laws would be brought in to restrict protests to certain areas only.

A driver of a three wheeler (taxi) who transported a loudspeaker for a protest by university students was arrested and two university students involved in a protest were also reported arrested. A Magistrate also issued summons on 27 politicians aligned to the previous President, for engaging in a protest outside the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.

Read the full report here: Repression of Dissent in Sri Lanka – 20April-31May2015-English(23Jun2015)

Repression-of-Dissent-in-Sri-Lanka-20April-31May2015-English23Jun2015.pdf by Thavam Ratna

SL ranked 114 in Global Peace Index

2015-06-29
Sri Lanka ranked 114th on the global peace index conducted by an Australian-based Institute for Economics and Peace which measured national peacefulness in 162 countries.

Bhutan ranked at 18th place, Nepal at 62, Bangladesh at 84, India at 143 and Pakistan ranked 154 with Afghanistan at 160. Iceland had retained its place as the most peaceful country in the world.

“The most peaceful countries are Iceland, Denmark and Austria. The countries that made the biggest improvements in peace over the past year, generally benefited from the ending of wars with neighbours and involvement in external conflict like Guinea-Bissau, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt and Benin,” the report said. 

The institute released its Global Peace Index for 2015 recently, which ranks nations based on factors like the level of violent crime, involvement in conflicts and the degree of militarisation. The nations are given a score on that basis and the higher the score, the less peaceful a particular country is.

Sri Lanka had ranked at 114 with a score of 2.188. Sri Lanka scored 2.0 marks in Militarisation, 2.6 in Society and Security and 1.8 in Domestic and Internal Conflict sub categories out of total five in each. - 

The US ranked 94 scoring badly in terms of militarisation, homicides and fear of violence. China ranked 124. 

Syria and Iraq where the Islamic State terror group has taken over large swathes of land are at the bottom of the table as the least peaceful countries, the Business Standard said. 

2014-Global-Peace-Index-REPORT_0-1.pdf by Thavam Ratna

Rajapaksa: Despicable Conduct Under The Cover Of Dhamma

By Nagananda Kodituwakku –June 29, 2015 

Nagananda Kodituwakku

In his campaign aimed at returning to power, day before yesterday Pepilyana Sunethadevi pirivena became Mahinda Rajapaksa’s latest victim. It is sad to see that, claiming to be the followers of Lord Buddha, these people occupying temples wearing yellow robes practice completely the opposite of what Buddha taught. They simply permit Rajapaksa, who was shown the door by unequivocal terms by the people, to erect mega screens at sacred premises and to make absolutely resist, utterances, spreading ill-will, hatred and enmity against the minority communities the Tamil and Muslims. This despicable act is seen purely immoral, rousing the sentiments of the innocent naive poor Sinhalese, always prone to be deceived.

The million-dollar question is who to be blamed for all this nonsense. Surely it is none other than spineless Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe for their total failure to restore and enforce the Rule of Law to the letter, against those criminal elements who plundered the wealth of the nation ruthlessly. These elements who ruthlessly engaged in all sorts of anti-social behavior are now demanding returning to power, thanks to Sirisena administration hitherto failed to realize the burning desire of the people for corrupt free rule with due respect and regard to the trust and confidence placed in it by the people.

People expected President Sirisena to be firm and concerned with rebuilding the Nation and committed to do the best in the national interests than entangled with a petty party political agenda. People know that nothing definite and substantial can be expected from impotent Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is appointed to the office of the Prime Minister not by a popular mandate but thanks to a political agreement entered with President Sirisena. Now it appears Ranil daydreaming about return to power in a big scale, having done nothing tangible to take the country in the right direction.

                 Read More

Waiting for the circus to come to town again

Sunday, June 28, 2015

As agonizing suspense finally ends with the dissolving of the 14th Parliament of Sri Lanka, unlamented and unsung as well it ought to be, a palpable sigh of relief palpitates through the land.

Hypocrisy at its height

This was a House that had far outlived its time, even as school children nervously balked from visiting its galleries with unprecedentedly crude verbiage echoing in its chambers. This was moreover an assembly where a majority stamped its infamy by insulting a sitting Chief Justice in thinly veiled filth during a farcical impeachment process.

Heinously, this Parliament willingly oversaw its own decline with its groveling subservience to the Rajapaksa Presidency. Financial oversight and legislative leadership was thrown to the wayside. Instead, we had the 18th Amendment, manifestly Sri Lanka’s most obscene post-independence constitutional amendment with a compliant Court obediently approving it. This was under the direction of the very judge who later, as that wrongly impeached Chief Justice, had to face the ugliness which surfaces when judges play games of political chance. Now we endure an erstwhile Professor of Law turned Minister turned agile political opportunist who once applauded that process preaching on the Rule of Law from the opposition benches.

This is hypocrisy at its height, equaled only by the antics of ‘yahapalanaya’ advocates who have unflinchingly profited in the post January 2015 government, regardless of compromising the struggle itself. We saw this sorry spectacle in 1994 when the members of the democracy movement who swept Chandrika Kumaratunga into power were co-opted into office thus losing their credibility and (more importantly) leaving a dangerous vacuum when the Kumaratunga Presidency lost its way.

Caught like a nut between two crackers

But this is to digress. All in all, very few Sri Lankans would be sorry to see the end of this particular legislative assembly. Yet what will its successor be like? The possibilities are dolorous. From the South comes the Rajapaksa force once again, capitalizing on the mistakes made by its opponents, fiercely embittered at its humiliation and with little genuine contrition for the grievous harm that it has done to the country. Instead, there is only determination to take back power by hook or by crook, even if it means stirring up racial and communal hatreds, the hallmarks of that Presidency.

On the other side, there are the voluble peacocks of the current government, basking in the reflected glory of the Sirisena win. Caught like the proverbial nut between these two crackers, (the apposite Sinhala idiom not lending itself very well to translation), the majority electorate need to have little doubt about its option of choice, warts and all. Certainly to bring back the Rajapaksas so soon after their defeat and with so much yet undone would be the makings of a disaster, let us be clear about that.

Correcting the post January 2015 missteps

But there will not be a repetition of that same rapturous enthusiasm which captured the national mood in the Presidential election where the son of a Polonnaruwa farmer, ridiculed as being unremarkable and mediocre, unseated the Medamulana family cabal gone mad with power.

There was a clean edge to that opposition campaign and a quiet resolve about the challenger which was impressive precisely because it was understated and in complete contrast to the strutting arrogance of the then incumbent. That gloss has worn off, not so much in a personal sense as the new President has tripped over himself only infrequently though this criticism may become more unforgiving as time lapses. Yet the same cannot be said about the immediate missteps of the partner United National Party Government and the tinsel performances of its once strident good governance voices.

The latest frivolity is the ad hoc appointing of committees to probe irregularities of the previous regimes. Thus must be distinguished from the appointment of Commissions of Inquiry under a particular law with specific guarantees of fairness in inquiry. These are not idle safeguards. For example, disappearances commissions of the 1990s referred the names of those implicated under confidential cover to the government for further investigation without subjecting them to media trials. That nothing happened thereafter spoke to the absence of political will, not to the absence of legal legitimacy of those bodies.

A small measure of justice

This week, two legal victories are celebrated. First is the sentencing of the murderers of Gerald Perera, an unassuming cook at the Colombo Dockyard who was arrested by the police after being mistaken for a known thief and subjected to torture. Angered thereafter by a successful legal battle in the Supreme Court, which had not yet undergone the terrible convulsions that would grip it in later years, the perpetrators then killed him days before he was due to give evidence at the High Court trial under the Anti-Torture Act. This columnist was personally involved with the legal struggle to bring Gerald Perera’s murderers to account and must acknowledge the jubilation that arises at this outcome.

Second was the conviction and death sentence given to a Sinhala soldier for the brutal killing of Tamil civilians in Mirusovil fifteen years ago. In both instances, while the result is a small measure of justice, the process is testimony of the frailty of our Rule of Law systems. This is a question that will be dealt with in more detail later in these column spaces, given its fundamental importance.

For now, it needs to be said that the proper working of the investigative, the prosecutorial and the judicial agencies should have been the first task of the new government. Failure to do this has remained its most spectacular lapse. For instance, what has happened to the findings of the investigation by the Criminal Investigation Department into that alleged constitutional coup in January 2015? We are told that this has been referred to the Department of the Attorney General but the silence on the matter is deafening.

Undoubtedly these are questions that will be exploited to the full in the coming election campaign even as the unprepossessing circus of panting hopefuls impatiently waiting for their chance in the political sun comes to town again.

Dissolution Of Sri Lanka Parliament And General Election: An Initial Assessment

Sri Lanka's Mahinda Rajapaksa, File photo.

By Dr. S. I. Keethaponcalan-June 28, 2015

Sri Lanka’s parliament was dissolved on June 26, 2015 and the general election has been scheduled to take place on August 17. Under normal circumstances, attention would have turned to strengths and weaknesses of the ruling and opposition parties. This time, however, everyone wants to know what would be the next move of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, because his decisions and actions could very well determine the outcome of the election and the next government.

Rajapaksa wants to be nominated as the prime ministerial candidate because he believes that he has the popular support to win the election. As a Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) candidate he seems to have the capacity to win this election. He has been supporting the campaign to bring him back to power and according to reports, he has asked president Sirisena, who is the leader of Rajapaksa’s party, the SLFP, to nominate him. There are two ways for Rajapaksa to contest this election. Either contest under the SLFP-led coalition or form his own group and contest.

The first option seems completely impractical largely due the resistance of President Sirisena. Sirisena most probably will not nominate Rajapaksa as the prime ministerial candidate. One, the hostility between Sirisena and Rajapaksa is too serious and Sirisena does not trust the former president’s motivations. He would not have forgotten the realities that existed during the presidential election. Two, if elected and appointed as the prime minister, Rajapaksa would completely overshadow the president due his sheer personality. Rajapaksa, also has the support within the party to dominate the government. He will not be a nominal prime minister, but in practice would transform the president into an insignificant figure head. Sirisena is not going to like that. Third, paving the way for Rajapaksa to become the prime minister could very well go against the mandate given in January 2015. The mandate was to remove Rajapaksa from power. It is imperative to note that Rajapaksa has the right to contest and hold office, but Sirisena has no moral authority to bring him pack to power.

The second option, i.e, forming his own group and contesting under a separate symbol also seems remote due to Rajapaksa’s loyalty towards his party. Leading his own group formally to contest the election will divide the SLFP. Meanwhile, it is also important to note that there are minor political parties and individual members of the SLFP who would be hesitant to contest under the SLFP led coalition if Rajapaksa is not accommodated. These groups and individuals probably want to contest as a separate entity and compel Rajapaksa to lead the group. One option available for Rajapaksa is to informally endorse and promote the third front, which is loyal to him. This would be an extension of Rajapaksa’s present strategy. Rajapaksa will have the option of entering parliament from the national list of this third front after the election.

One of the secondary reasons why Rajapaksa probably is not keen to leave the SLFP and lead his own group is that he is not sure how much votes he could garner in a general election. In the last presidential election, he polled 47.58 percent of the votes cast. He cannot assume that he or his group will get all of these votes because in a general election voters cast their votes for regional leaders. For example, in January, most of the SLFP supporters would have voted for Rajapaksa, but in the general election they will vote for candidates of their preference and one could safely assume that many of them will vote for SLFP candidates. What is clear is that Rajapaksa’s 48 percent will definitely break. This equation will also play a part in Rajapaksa’s decision, which is expected to be announced soon.

Meanwhile, the United National Party (UNP), which headed the government, is also facing a dilemma and some level of uncertainty. The UNP led coalition that promoted Maithripala Sirisena during the presidential election, polled 51.28 percent of the votes. There is no reason to believe that a substantial number of voters who backed Rajapaksa in January will vote for the UNP in the general election. Therefore, basically, the UNP has to work with the 51 percent votes.

However, the coalition that won the 51 percent cannot be retained. The Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) cannot and most probably would not contest under a UNP led coalition. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), which indirectly promoted candidate Sirisena will contest alone as it cannot support the SLFP or the UNP. A vast majority of the Tamil votes in the North and East which went to Sirisena in the presidential election will go to the TNA (and other Tamil parties). The UNP led alliance also gained SLFP votes that favored Sirisena. These votes will go to the SLFP in the general election; not the UNP. Sirisena is expected to lead the SLFP campaign and he probably will promote his party mainly because of the pressure from the Rajapaksa faction. He cannot be neutral.

This will take at least 15 percent of the total votes from what the UNP led coalition gained in January. Consequently, the UNP most probably will struggle to win 50 percent of the parliamentary seats. Therefore, in order to retain power, the UNP would try to form a broad coalition before and after the election. The nature of this coalition will determine the UNP’s capacity to win this election. The UNP single handedly cannot win the election. It is possible that the UNP presently is trying to woo the minority parties including Muslim parties, the TNA and Mano Ganesan’s Democratic People’s Front. The Ceylon Worker’s Congress (CWC) and some of the other plantation Tamil parties could also be wooed.

However, if Rajapaksa decides to contest directly or indirectly, the UNP’s chances will increase drastically as it would divide the SLFP votes, which in turn would facilitate more “bonus seats” for the UNP. This is exactly why Rajapaksa’s decision is significant in this election. From the president’s point of view this scenario cannot be too bad because the Sirisena-UNP partnership seems to be working well and most probably will continue. Also, if the UNP manages to form the government, the president will be able to control both major parties as head of the government and the leader of the SLFP.

Choices: How Should We Govern Ourselves?

By Rohan Samarajiva –June 29, 2015

Prof. Rohan Samarajiva

This central question of civilization has assumed greater salience in the aftermath of the Presidential Election of 8 January 2015. This article seeks to shed a little light upon it, with aid of illustrations from recent Constitutional-reform efforts.

Autocracy or democracy?

Two hundred years after the fall of the Kandyan Kingdom, we carry within us thinking from that decadent feudal time. We yearn for a benevolent king who will be decisive and fair, but do not grasp what is required to assure continued benevolence. We do not buy into the concept of checks and balances among clearly defined branches of government. The Kandyan political culture did not separate the executive and legislative functions and while some judicial functions were separate, the lines were porous.

Like the Kings of old, some of our leaders fail to distinguish between what belongs to the state and what belongs to them. They scheme to work around them what checks and balances that exist.

In January, the choice was made in favor of democracy and governance concepts that are alien to our inherited Kandyan political culture. We have been engaged with the modern world long enough for this to happen, but all signs in the past twenty years were against it. But the shift was not irreversible; the tension between the old feudal culture and modern democratic culture persists.

Decisive or messy?

Separation of powers, along with checks and balances, is messy. Outcomes cannot be predicted in advance. The President of the United States is seen as the most powerful person in the world today, but in many instances he is stymied either by the legislature, by the courts or even by lower-level state governments.

Our current President appears comfortable with the notion that he cannot determine the outcomes of all political events. He leaves room for the agency of other members of his coalition as well as his party. To many, this appears a lack of leadership. They cannot understand how the President could be deeply committed to electoral reform without specifying the exact outcome he desires.Read More

Harin vows to give up politics if MS joins MR

2015-06-29
I will resign from politicsiIf President Maithripala Sirisena joins former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Uva Chief Minister Harin Fernando said. 

“I firmly believe that President Maithripala Sirisena will never stoop to second class political activities. The former president is attempting to come to power so that he could take revenge from the people and his opponents and not to develop the country,” he said at a meeting in Badulla. 

Mr. Fernando said he received 1,450 permits for jobs while there were 4,301 applicants from the entire district. He assured that everyone would be given jobs. 

“I have done Rs.700 million worth of work in the Uva Province, and during the 100 days I allocated one million rupees to each Grama Niladhari area. The 100-day programme was not meant to provide employment. It seems that, those who worked for President Maithripala Sirisena's victory are left out while those who obstructed him at every turn are gathering round him. It is shameless to see the former president visiting temples. Instead of the sound of Sadhu, what you hear now at these temples are the sound of Jayawewa, Jayawewa.

” Mr. Fernando also handed over cash donations of Rs.50,000 to each of the Daham Pasals in the Badulla Secretariat Division. 

He also handed over Rs.2,500 to the pre-school teachers of Badulla. (Prasad Rukmal) - See more at: http://www.dailymirror.lk/77973/harin-vows-to-give-up-politics-if-ms-joins-mr#sthash.TIbtjwKA.dpuf

Week of suspense ends, but SLFP-UPFA still in turmoil

In one of the first ceremonies after the dissolution of Parliament at midnight on Friday, President Maithripala Sirisena as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, presided at a graduation ceremony for Army officers at Diyatalawa yesterday. Pic by Pradeep Pathirana

By Our Political Editor-Sunday, June 28, 2015View(s): 5359

• Details of Sirisena-Rajapaksa meeting on Thursday kept secret , but former President still pushing for PM’s post
• Dissolution gives reprieve to UNP on major issues, party goes into confident election mode, despite mismanagement charges

After toiling for weeks to win majority support from his Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and failing, President Maithripala Sirisena did the next best thing – he dissolved Parliament from midnight Friday.  He had come under pressure and run out of options. That saves him the ignominy of further isolation from his own party, his minority United National Party (UNP) Government and even the international community.

Week of Suspense Ends, But SLFP-UPFA Still in Turmoil by Thavam Ratna

Rajapaksa Regime spent Rs. 2 Billion on International PR firms to enhance the poor reputation that they created for themselves. Mangala Reply to G.L. Peiris

(Lanka-e-News- 28.June.2015, 11.30PM)   I explained to this House yesterday, in response to questions raised by the Hon. Leader of Opposition, that the US State Department Report titled ‘Country Reports on Terrorism and Patterns of Global Terrorism’ that was released this month is not something new. It has followed other Reports of this nature which the US State Department is bound by law, to submit annually, and has been submitting since 2004.

Rajapaksa Regime Spent Rs. 2 Billion on International PR Firms to Enhance the Poor Reputation That They Cre... by Thavam Ratna

DESIGN ELECTION MANIFESTOS FOR 

POST-ELECTION PROBLEM SOLVING

29 June 2015

The dissolution of Parliament became necessary due to the political deadlock between the government and opposition. The UNP-led government appointed by President Maithripala Sirisena was unable to get through the necessary legislation to govern effectively. The president was not able to deliver on some of the important promises he made in his election manifesto, including the passage of the 20th Amendment and the Right to Information Act due to the lack of cooperation between the government and opposition. As a result most of the unresolved issues that existed prior to the presidential election continue to be relevant, such as the need for a Freedom of Information Act. In particular, the main conflict that Sri Lanka has grappled with since its independence, the ethnic conflict, remains unresolved. The chances of a durable peace in Sri Lanka will be slim as long as feuding politicians do not resolve the issues but use the unresolved conflict as part of their political arsenal.

The brief lived UNP-led government that was formed after the presidential election gave an indication of the progress that is possible in taking the country in a new direction in terms of conflict transformation. In particular, the lifting of the fear psychosis that held society in thrall and the steps towards the reintegration of the ethnic and religious minorities into the mainstream of society were virtually instantaneous, due to the shift in the policy and outlook of the new president and the government. Both of them publicly acknowledged the multi ethnic and multi religious nature of the polity and the value of adhering to internationally recognised systems of good governance.

General elections are expected to take place in mid August. Election campaigns provide the greatest opportunity for public education. The National Peace Council urges the political parties to address the key issues that Sri Lanka as a country needs to resolve in their party manifestos. These are the issues of a just political solution to the ethnic conflict and the dealing with the problems of accountability for war time violations of people’s rights. We recognise that these are sensitive issues. However, the resolution of these problems must be done in consultation with the people and not by ignoring or bypassing them. The solutions should not be sprung on the people after the elections. Technical solutions of power sharing and truth and reconciliation commissions are as important as the practice of genuine democracy and good governance at all levels which gives legitimacy to the decisions of the government.

Governing Council
The National Peace Council is an independent and non partisan organization that works towards a negotiated political solution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. It has a vision of a peaceful and prosperous Sri Lanka in which the freedom, human rights and democratic rights of all the communities are respected. The policy of the National Peace Council is determined by its Governing Council of 20 members who are drawn from diverse walks of life and belong to all the main ethnic and religious communities in the country.

Hallowed Memories Of Eminence

By S. Sivathasan –June 29, 2015

S. Sivathasan

In a single line cryptic and exquisite, a great Tamil poet, grammarian and scholar Tholkaapiar said “The world is of the learned”. For over two thousand years several generations have attested to the truism of the statement. With critical thought and reflection for three decades after the passing away of Principal St. John’s College, Jaffna, we have realised what a void men of eminence have left by their demise. Among those few was Mr. Anandarajan.

It was amidst political changes in the aftermath of the 1977 pogrom that he lived through eight of his nine years as Principal. Politics had its inevitable impact on society, which could not avoid the process of fraying. Together with political unpredictability came social instability and both grew apace. The structure of values that knit Jaffna society together began to lose its hold. The student community had begun to drift without direction. To complete the process, the government forced the traditional political leadership of the Tamils out of the country with the Sixth Amendment. A situation of chaos was enveloping the country and the North was affected most.

Mr. C. E. Anandarajan

In a situation as challenging as this, some possessed of leadership qualities anchored themselves in defence of all that was valued by society. In the early eighties Anandarajan came forward as a man with a mission. Never neglecting his primary call towards the college, he got on to the stage marked out by destiny where too his contribution seemed called. He did so in the most trying situation. He had the courage and the commitment to be a leader in society.

In the post 1983 environment, when the student community and youth faced arrest and endless difficulties, society looked up to him for help. He had the courage to approach the military to have them released. His intercessions made him a leader chalking out his own path. His emergence was a reproach to those who were far too lusterless in comparison. More irksome was his fearlessness even in the face of arms and their senseless use. It may well be said that he knew no fear and feared not death. Even when cautioned it was not in him to retract. To impetuous youth it was a challenge if not an affront.

It was not before midgets that he strode tall. He once met the highest in the land to correct a wrong at the AL examination and thereby secured justice for the students.

At this point of time when thirty years are past, political turmoil has run its course and social upheaval has lost its steam at least momentarily, society is picking up the threads again. Movement is steady though the pace may be slow. A much desired leadership which men with a mission can provide is now rightly recognized. Our thoughts go to a Principal who stood apart.   Read More